The Scarlet Letter: Wasn't it weak?

Remove all ads!

So have any of you guys read The Scarlet Letter? If so, what did you think?

Personally, I though the book was kind of over-rated. Really, it had a nice story-lineand the characters weren't too bad, but it was just too orderly. Almost every chapter was ten pages long. I know that that may not seem like a big deal right off, but every single thing that happened in the book was just too meaningful and precise.

I love 19th century authors because of their formal style, but Hawthorne just took it to the extreme. Eventually, it was all too predictable. And what really hits me in books is the realism. Even in fantacy novels, a good author makes you believe that anything is possible, but Hawthorne just just didn't depict real life fo me.

I've been told that maybe that was because the author was explaining the time period and the need for order and the fear of chaos, but I think that that's just reaching. Or maybe, because because Hawthorne was a young, in terms of writing, at the time, the problems I see are only unfair criticisms of a beginning author. In that case, I feel that there is just too much hype about the book.

If any of you guys have different opinions, let me know.

 

Dude.

The Scarlett Letter rocked. I mean, that was Puritanism. Stuff the American History books; just read SL. Goody-Godfrey and savages and fire/brimstone.

That really was the way it worked.

But, like Titanic, Hawthorne wrapped in a love story. So more people could relate to it. Dim-Witt should have bailed, and taken his Precious with him, first thing.

Anyways, the way they make you study it in High School really robs the whole book of it's deliciousness. If instructors would just concentrate on it properly, class participation would be like at wrestling matches. Rude gestures and written malignment and thrown chairs.

It's really a comedy, but the love story tries to cover it up.

 

IMHO, the _Scarlet Letter_ is a masterpiece and written by one of the outstanding authors of the “American Renaissance.” This group of writers includes the likes of Poe and Whitman as well as Herman Melville, who dedicated his famous book, _Moby Dick_, to Hawthorne because he admired him so much.

The book operates on many levels, but I would focus on the way that the symbol “A” represents transformation and how it mirrors the way in which Hester’s character is transformed as well. At the beginning it is a stigma of “adultery,” but as the story progresses it comes to signify Hester’s “ability” to exist on her own terms, pretty much independent of the community which shuns her; then near the conclusion when she is “able” to take on the establishment, and finally, the “accomplishment” of successfully facing life on her own terms.

Of course the story is about sin, punishment, and the harsh rebuke of Puritanical society for breaking widely held taboos; the hypocrisy of its leading authority figures, who are supposed to be “pillars” of Puritan society but who really have feet made of clay, while Hester, who begins as an anti-hero, eventually proves that she is of more worth and substance than any of them -- watch out of those “role models.” I don't think the story is about the fear of chaos, but about having the courage to take on the establishment, even if it means being cast out and held up to public ridicule.

 

I agree with you En, I thought it was weak. None of the characters seemed the least bit likable or even human. And the ending was lacking. I personally think he was a bit too obsessed with his hatred of Puritan ideals and emphasized that so much he kind of forgot certain elements to his story. It also looked like it didn't really flow naturally. It was as though he wrote every part seperately, not in order, and then just threw them together with very little here to there connections. And don't get me wrong, I love symbolism myself but the way he put symbolism in there just seemed. . . out of sorts. Like it didn't actually flow with the story well. It seemed almost out of place, as if he'd thought up all the symbolism he wanted to have and stuck in at random. There are just so many better books for analyzing symbolism and critical narrations in though. I can't understand why English teachers bother with that one.

 

Well, thanks for the input. For those who didn't agree with me earlier, allow me to explain myself a little bit more...

I was not really critisizing the events or storyline of the book. What I meant to bring across was that, well, I read it... and found it wanting! Hawthorne's style was just not what I construe to be that good. I mean, like I said earlier, the events in the book were too organised and methodical. And yet, other parts were broken as well.

So like I said, I'm not saying that the book shoulnd't be appreciated in light of what Hawthorne was trying to say (I too, felt that he got a good point across... eventually) - I just feel that it shouldn't be raised to a pedestle of all attributes when it lacked in some, which I feel that it did.

 

I think Hawthorne is one of those writers who was meant to write short stories, but not novels. Novels require compelling characters with a spark of likeability, and I hated - HATED - every single person in The Scarlet Letter, including (maybe especially) the child Pearl. Hawthorne's insistence on symbolism and theme make for some great short stories, but can't carry a novel IMO. His writing style's also tough to slog through for the length of a novel. I don't know why schools make kids read the most difficult and boring novels of their time, thereby turning what should be a joy into a chore.