WARNING: Spoiler ahead. I have "inviso-texted" the following paragraph, since it deals with an important plot spoiler. If you would like to read this paragraph, please use your cursor to highlight the text between the asterisks; otherwise, just move on, my friend.
***
I'm especially interested in the way that Hawthorne treats the character of Arthur Dimmesdale. I remembered from last time that he was Hester's partner in sin, so I didn't experience the shock of figuring that out as I read this time. But Hawthorne drops that information in with such subtle pervasiveness, I had to wonder when I would have realized it if I hadn't already known. There are several subtle clues along the way, and they grow stronger and stronger, until -- without ever saying anything quite explicit -- the conclusion becomes inescapable.
***
I'm also struck by the simplicity of the story. The plot involves so little -- so few characters, so few twists and turns -- but at the same time it is a deeply complex novel, dealing with deeply complex themes of the human experience.
Oh, and there's also the question of onomastics and reference, which I've been really interested in lately. There is so much characterization that an author can sneak in with this seemingly harmless technique, just by the choice of what to call his characters and what to have his characters call each other. I'd like to do a short paper about this sometime soon, probably using some short stories of James Thurber's. But I've found it very interesting in SL as well -- for example, Chillingworth is almost exclusively referred to as "old Roger Chillingworth". And the narrator so rarely refers to anyone by just their first name, except for Pearl.
We all love to instruct, though we can teach only what is not worth knowing. (20 points)
5 comments:
Scarlet Letter is an excellent book. I read it for the first time last Christmas. Very fascinating.
As a first-time reader, I'd say that I caught on pretty early (at least with serious suspicions) that Artuhur was her partner, but I wasn't sure until later in the story.
I don't know what onomastics are, but from context, it sounds like it has to do with how the writer refers to the characters. I think this is very interesting. I remember one book told in the first person where the author kept referring to the main character sometimes in first person and sometimes in third person. In that particular story, I analyzed it and decided that for the most part when things were going well, the narrator used the first person, and when there were horrific things that the narrator was talking about. It was almost as if the narrator had removed himself from the situation and was describing it as if it had happened to somebody else. Is that kind of what you're talking about? It seems fascinating.
Anyway. Sorry to ramble on your blog. Glad you posted again. And SL is a great book. I highly recommend it.
(No guesses on the source of the quote.)
What you're talking about, Paul, is spot-on with reference, which is a big part of what I am interested in. Onomastics specifically is the naming scheme of a given culture, society, etc. So, the author's decision to use names like "Hester Prynne", "Arthur Dimmesdale", and "Roger Chillingworth" has a lot of potential to help us begin building a characterization for those characters, and figuring out how the author wants us to view them.
Gilbert & Sullivan make a comical point of this with a line from "HMS Pinafore," when the bosun, in speaking of (and to) the sailor named Dick Deadeye, exclaims, "You can't expect a chap with such a name as Dick Deadeye to be a popular character -- now can you?"
Ah. I knew that quote sounded familiar. I couldn't quite place my finger on it so I had to Google it, but it all makes sense now.
I didn't particularly like SL when I read it in high school, although I did like it when I read it for an independent study course in college -- breezed through it in two days that time. I found myself noticing the clues this time as well. I don't remember picking up on them the first time, probably since I was reading it under great protest (the teacher's favorite teaching method was worksheets). I'll have to read it again sometime to see about the names. I spent more time noticing all the author's editorial asides.
And I'm still jealous that you'll be seeing HMS Pinafore soon. :)
I had to read The Scarlet Letter my freshman and again for Junior english. What a difference those two years made! I loved it the 2nd time. About onomastics, I can't think of any books that are as obvious as SL (you can't beat Chillingworth and Dimmesdale for characterization by name), but Dickens does it too, I think. At least some of his characters' names make it impossible for you to take them seriously. And I've always wondered about Jane Austen. Why are her two most prominent 'villains' named Wickham and Willoughby? Is there some sinister quality intrinsic to the letter W? How fascinating!
Also, I was wondering how you made your text disappear. Did you just turn the text white? I'm wondering b/c I just started my own blog and might have to use that feature.
Melanie
Dickens certainly does do this a lot (Jerry Cruncher prominently comes to mind for me). However, even when the names don't have such obvious allegorical/symbolic meanings, they still imply lots of associations for us that still help to characterize them. For example, think about the difference between the names Jane Eyre and Blanche Ingram -- plain old names (unless you count the possible symbolism of Blanche=white), but there's a world of difference already.
As for my inviso-texting: yes, I just turned the text the same color as the background, in this case white. I must add that I cannot take credit either for the technique or the nifty name. The former I first saw used by thelittletwin (or maybe mannfann, but I'm pretty sure here), and the latter I got from my cool roommate Erin.
Post a Comment