Heidi is in Greece this week (!), but David Kern and Karen Swallow Prior are back to continue this series on The Scarlet Letter. Topics of conversation include the way Hawthorne uses the setting to triangulate the characters, Hawthorne’s vision of the Good, Hester’s defense (as it were) of her affair with Dimmsdale, Hawthorne’s slippery tier of virtues, and comparing Hawthorne with Jane Austen. Happy listening!
I haven’t read The Scarlet Letter since junior year in high school, which has been 10 years. I remember loving it in high school- all the symbols, plot, and discussion. This time around I didn’t like it as much. It’s still a great novel and one that stands the rest of time, but I was annoyed by the heavy handedness of the symbolism, which was not at all the impression I had in high school. I’m thinking it’s because I’m a better reader now and have a better grasp of symbolism. I think this would be a great novel to teach symbolism while having great context for discussion.
I also read TSL in high school, and I remember it as “bleak”. I’m still getting the bleak vibe, but it’s a somewhat easier read than I was expecting, and I think I’m enjoying it. I do like the ideas it brings up, especially the psychology of Hester. The text in the forest was some of the first I enjoyed reading for its beauty itself. All in all, I’m glad to be forced to read something from high school again!
I too resonate with David’s observation that The Scarlet Letter is more interesting to talk about than it is to read. So on point!
I stumbled upon an introduction written by C. S. Lewis regarding George MacDonald’s writing that I think speaks to this very idea. Uncanny!
Lewis writes, “If I were to deal with [George MacDonald] as a writer, a man of letters, I should be faced with a difficult critical problem. If we define Literature as an art whose medium is words, then certainly MacDonald has no place in its first rank- perhaps not even in its second... The texture of his writing as a whole is undistinguished, at times fumbling... What he does best is fantasy- fantasy that hovers between the allegorical and the mythopoeic. And this, in my opinion, he does better than any man. The critical problem with which we are confronted is whether this art-the art of myth-making-is a species of the literary art. The objection to so classifying it is that the Myth does not essentially exist in words at all. We all agree that the story of Balder is a great myth, a thing of inexhaustible value. But of whose
version-whose words-are we thinking when we say this?
For my own part, the answer is that I am not thinking of anyone's words...
What really delights and nourishes me is a particular pattern of events, which would equally delight and nourish if it had reached me by some medium which involved no words at all- say by a mime, or a film. And I find this to be true of all such stories…
In poetry the words are the body and the "theme" or "content" is the soul. But in myth the imagined events are the body and something inexpressible is the soul: the words, or mime, or film, or pictorial series are not even clothes- they are not much more than a telephone. Of this I had
evidence some years ago when I first heard the story of Kafka's Castle related in conversation and afterwards read the book for myself. The reading added nothing. I had already received the myth, which was all that mattered…”
For my part, I don’t think I’ll ever forget Hawthorne’s myth of the scarlet letter, but if someday I must needs swallow it again, I think I’d much prefer to take it as an opera rather than his book!
I'm one of those who hasn't read TSL since high school! If my memory serves, we read it in senior (advanced level) English, so I was 17. I'm enjoying it so much more than I anticipated this time around -- my memory of it was that it was boring, compared to others we read (Gatsby, Pride & Prejudice, others I can't recall), and I couldn't understand why it was a classic, but the image of the letter on Hester's breast the first time stuck with me all that time. 15ish years later, I definitely do understand why it's a classic, and I have such a deeper appreciation for the language, the imagery, and the depth of human experience Hawthorne does a great job inspecting.
I see the value of this book for its place in history, in the development of American literature and the English novel and for understanding Romanticism. However, on its own terms, it is not satisfying to me. I think Hawthorne explores interesting ideas without getting anything right, unlike Jane Austen! But it is true they make an interesting discussion.
I did appreciate the thoughts of Hester regarding Pearl that "she wanted--what some people want throughout life--a grief that should deeply touch her, and thus humanize and make her capable of sympathy." (Ch 16) I think this is a hard truth for a parent.
I could not agree more with the statement that this book is more interesting to discuss than read! I was one who read this book in high school and coming back to it 15 years later hasn't made me like it any more now than then. However, I can now appreciate the questions he's asking us as the reader, and I can see why the book has continued to be read and seem relevant so many years later. I'm happy I gave it a re-read as an adult, but can't see myself coming back to it again.
I haven’t read The Scarlet Letter since junior year in high school, which has been 10 years. I remember loving it in high school- all the symbols, plot, and discussion. This time around I didn’t like it as much. It’s still a great novel and one that stands the rest of time, but I was annoyed by the heavy handedness of the symbolism, which was not at all the impression I had in high school. I’m thinking it’s because I’m a better reader now and have a better grasp of symbolism. I think this would be a great novel to teach symbolism while having great context for discussion.
I also read TSL in high school, and I remember it as “bleak”. I’m still getting the bleak vibe, but it’s a somewhat easier read than I was expecting, and I think I’m enjoying it. I do like the ideas it brings up, especially the psychology of Hester. The text in the forest was some of the first I enjoyed reading for its beauty itself. All in all, I’m glad to be forced to read something from high school again!
I too resonate with David’s observation that The Scarlet Letter is more interesting to talk about than it is to read. So on point!
I stumbled upon an introduction written by C. S. Lewis regarding George MacDonald’s writing that I think speaks to this very idea. Uncanny!
Lewis writes, “If I were to deal with [George MacDonald] as a writer, a man of letters, I should be faced with a difficult critical problem. If we define Literature as an art whose medium is words, then certainly MacDonald has no place in its first rank- perhaps not even in its second... The texture of his writing as a whole is undistinguished, at times fumbling... What he does best is fantasy- fantasy that hovers between the allegorical and the mythopoeic. And this, in my opinion, he does better than any man. The critical problem with which we are confronted is whether this art-the art of myth-making-is a species of the literary art. The objection to so classifying it is that the Myth does not essentially exist in words at all. We all agree that the story of Balder is a great myth, a thing of inexhaustible value. But of whose
version-whose words-are we thinking when we say this?
For my own part, the answer is that I am not thinking of anyone's words...
What really delights and nourishes me is a particular pattern of events, which would equally delight and nourish if it had reached me by some medium which involved no words at all- say by a mime, or a film. And I find this to be true of all such stories…
In poetry the words are the body and the "theme" or "content" is the soul. But in myth the imagined events are the body and something inexpressible is the soul: the words, or mime, or film, or pictorial series are not even clothes- they are not much more than a telephone. Of this I had
evidence some years ago when I first heard the story of Kafka's Castle related in conversation and afterwards read the book for myself. The reading added nothing. I had already received the myth, which was all that mattered…”
For my part, I don’t think I’ll ever forget Hawthorne’s myth of the scarlet letter, but if someday I must needs swallow it again, I think I’d much prefer to take it as an opera rather than his book!
(The rest of the introduction can be found here: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mcdonalds_antology.txt)
Karen Swallow Prior, did you ever find the poem "The Pearl" you referred to in the last episode? Is it this one: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/dreaminginthemiddleages/pearl_ms_prose_translation.pdf
I'm one of those who hasn't read TSL since high school! If my memory serves, we read it in senior (advanced level) English, so I was 17. I'm enjoying it so much more than I anticipated this time around -- my memory of it was that it was boring, compared to others we read (Gatsby, Pride & Prejudice, others I can't recall), and I couldn't understand why it was a classic, but the image of the letter on Hester's breast the first time stuck with me all that time. 15ish years later, I definitely do understand why it's a classic, and I have such a deeper appreciation for the language, the imagery, and the depth of human experience Hawthorne does a great job inspecting.
I see the value of this book for its place in history, in the development of American literature and the English novel and for understanding Romanticism. However, on its own terms, it is not satisfying to me. I think Hawthorne explores interesting ideas without getting anything right, unlike Jane Austen! But it is true they make an interesting discussion.
I did appreciate the thoughts of Hester regarding Pearl that "she wanted--what some people want throughout life--a grief that should deeply touch her, and thus humanize and make her capable of sympathy." (Ch 16) I think this is a hard truth for a parent.
I could not agree more with the statement that this book is more interesting to discuss than read! I was one who read this book in high school and coming back to it 15 years later hasn't made me like it any more now than then. However, I can now appreciate the questions he's asking us as the reader, and I can see why the book has continued to be read and seem relevant so many years later. I'm happy I gave it a re-read as an adult, but can't see myself coming back to it again.
Oh, how funny! I got back from Greece yesterday. The weather was lovely, and we had so much fun. It's a good time of the year to go. :)