Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Werner, I also recently re-read this (about two years ago), and loved it. I did like it the first time around, but got more of it with new reading. The diction thing was a beautiful plus (for me), and I read a great deal of the novel out loud. It casts a spell. I should probably include this one on my all-time list. And I will read it again. A good book for Fall.

It's good to hear from a fellow Hawthorne fan. Thanks for sharing your reaction.

I visited your home page just now, and noticed that you're relatively new to Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ; glad to have you aboard. :-) Considering some of the books you list as favorites, you might be interested in checking out the Classics group here on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. We can always use articulate new members with an interest in timeless literature!

Did you know Hawthorn wrote a couple of horror Short Stories? It's in the anthology "100 hair-raising little horror stories". I haven't read them yet, but you can look at my bookshelf under anthologies and check it out.

Yes, Hawthorne was quite partial to the supernatural genre in his short fiction; and also wrote a bit of science fiction, some of which can have a horrific tint as well, as in "Rappaccini's Daughter." He published a lot of these stories in his collection Mosses from an Old Manse, which I haven't gotten around to reviewing here on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ yet.

You delivered an excellent review. I was just pondering this book the other day, recalling how I hated reading it in high school, feeling that its intent was to keep us chaste after football games and resenting the implication. I think I was also frustrated at Hester's demeanor, desperately wanting on every page for her to run up and kick her ex lover in the.....knee.
Still a few years and a little of the world makes one realize how much that Hawthorne understood about life... and the interesting attitude of the Calvinists and their elect, the interpretation of which is somewhat self-fulfilling.
Still Hawthorne was a master craftsman and his short stories in particular were instrumental in my early reading and hold a fond place there. More recently I was interested to read a book concerning the friendship between Hawthorne and Melville. It seemed to reveal more about Melville than it did of Hawthorne but it was eminently readable and illuminating in that regard.

Thanks, Rhonda! That Hawthorne/Melville book rings a bell; I ran across a review of it the other day at the library where I work, when I was going through the book reviews from the last several years worth of Library Journal and Booklist. I can't recall the author or the title, though --but I knew, when I read the review, that the book would be a fascinating one!

I am an English teacher who takes the time to teach The Scarlet Letter the way I hope Hawthorne would admire. I love this book, but not as much as some of his short stories. I also see the religious implications of the story, but I still believe Hawthorne to be a Calvinist. I think he was expressing his disdain for the judgemental Purtain theocracy, but I do believe he would embrace Presbytarianism. I see it in the character of Dimmesdale, who behaves in an ungodly manner, and tries to practice castigation inorder to absolve his sin only to discover that it was precisly his sin , or seperation from God, that saves him. He reveals on the scaffold before he dies that even Chillingworth , the blackman, was for his good. As a calvinist myself I see the philosophy of complete dependence upon God, the sheer joy, and utter amazement that God could love and save, "the one sinner of the world"

Britt, the view that Hawthorne was a Calvinist is occasionally met with in secondary literature about him. Ultimately, the question of whether his own writings actually express Calvinist or Arminian views rests (like the interpretation of the Bible itself) more on the general impression that best makes moral and logical sense of the storyline, tone and tenor of the whole corpus than on identification of specific "prooftexts," IMO. One could argue that an individual's impression on that point is apt to be colored by his/her own theology, such as your Calvinism or my Arminianism. (I've told a Calvinist minister friend of mine that I'm predestined to be an Arminian. :-)) But there some specific objective clues (in both bodies of writing, but Hawthorne's is the one at issue here :-)).

Dimmesdale, as he dies, is not at all confident that he's saved, no matter how penitent he is; "I fear! I fear!" he tells Hester, "It may be that when we forgot our God... it was thenceforth vain to hope that we could meet hereafter, in an everlasting and pure reunion." Whatever else he is, he hardly serves as a poster boy for assurance of forgiveness; and the explanation for his attitude has to be understood in terms of his own theological presuppositions (which, I would beg to argue, are not Hawthorne's.) The only character in the book who advances explicit Calvinist theology is Chillingworth, and the occasion is when he uses it as an exonerating excuse to absolve his own conduct; since, by definition, whatever he does is only what a predestining God makes him do, he has no moral responsibility. But it's not insignificant that this line of reasoning is advanced by somebody that Hawthorne characterizes as a "fiend."

The "fiend" image is even clearer elsewhere in the author's writings, in "Young Goodman Brown" where the doctrine of universal total human depravity, which humans are supposedly helpless to resist, is enunciated by no less a theological "authority" than the devil himself! 19th-century readers steeped in the King James Bible, of course, would view Satan as "a liar from the beginning, and the father of it;" and his claim is refuted by the fact that Brown himself resists him --though falling sufficiently prey to his lie to doubt that anybody else can. The clearest Arminian statement in Hawthorne's writings, though, is probably found in The House of the Seven Gables. There, generations of Pyncheons have been shaped by the legacy of greedy selfishness handed down by the first American Pyncheon, a clear metaphor for original sin. But inheritance here isn't destiny: Phoebe, Hephzibah and Clifford, though born Pyncheons, choose to be decent people. And when Hawthorne addresses Judge Pyncheon in his narrative voice, it's with an explicit call to moral choice, "Rise up, thou subtle, worldly, selfish, ironhearted hypocrite, and make thy choice whether still to be subtle, worldly, ironhearted, and hypocritical, or to tear these sins out of thy nature, though they bring the lifeblood with them! The Avenger is upon thee! Rise up, before it is too late!" Judge Pyncheon's failure to heed the call no more discredits the legitimacy of it than the failure of vast masses of real-life humans to heed it.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject, for what it's worth. (Whatever we think about it, I suspect Hawthorne would be flattered to find that we still care, some 160 years later, what his views were!)

Werner, I thought you gave the best review on this great classic that is hated and maligned by many high school kids. I felt that most of the reviewers just didn't get it. I don't know if this is the best classic to teach at the high school age. What's your opinion? I graduated fifteen years ago, but I still remember that most of the kids my age had a hard time comprehending it. I must have been an odd teenager.

Thanks, Aaron! The main problem for a lot of high-school students, IMO, not just with The Scarlet Letter but with 19th-century literature generally, is the diction: long, convoluted sentences and big words that many modern readers don't know the meaning of without running for a dictionary. Today, our educational system fails to prepare people for handling the English language with that degree of complexity; we've gone in instead for a sort of mass- production style "McEducation," where graduates are lucky if they come out with basic literacy. They're poorer for that, but it isn't their fault. As a teen, I was like you: psychologically prepared and motivated to appreciate a literary heritage, and disciplined enough to make sense of the language. But you and I are somewhat atypical; our system doesn't generally inculcate that kind of appreciation or discipline, either.

I'm honestly of the opinion that forcing teens to read ANY 19th-century novel isn't the smartest educational strategy. When we home-schooled our girls (who went to the public schools in the earlier grades) I assigned them readings in older literature at the level of individual stories, poems, essays, etc., so they could experience it at shorter length; but I let them pick whatever novels they wanted to read, modern or earlier. Of course, I tried to model an appreciation of the older novels by example. My results were mixed, but I still think that's a more promising strategy that at least won't make students build up a hatred for books like these, and will let them be more likely to try them later when they may have more interest and maturity, and better reading skills. That's just my take on the subject!

I agree. It's really disheartening seeing so many of the "classics" being given such low ratings (and not only on this particular website either) just because the language and storytelling techniques used are more complex than say, a Goosebumps book. I'm only 22 and I'm able to enjoy both action packed fast paced novels with simple use of language, and books like Moby Dick. It's a shame that a lot of others don't.

Woodgod, your comment just made my day! I'm 58, and it's so refreshing to be reminded that appreciation for the classics isn't dying with my generation.

"Actually, I've read this book twice, the first time when I was in high school. Reading it again after some thirty years, I was amazed at the amount of meaning I'd missed the first time!" This would be the exact same thing I would write if I wrote a review on this book, but I think our opinions would diverge soon after. This book is ridiculous!!! I love reading the classics, but some (including this one) are not worth the time unless you want to say, "Yeah, I read that one."

Carol, we're all different people with different tastes, so our reactions to particular books are apt to differ; even just in my friends circle, I find that ratings of the same book often run the gamut from five stars to one. Comparing different opinions is part of the fun of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, so thanks for sharing yours!

You put some light into that novel Werner, so thank you! I read it some years ago and I remember it was a dense and challenging reading, but I guess I missed much of what you are implying in your review! (my poor English level at the time might have influenced as well...)
In any case, I appreciate your comments, I think the subject of adultery is much more well addressed than in other works such as The Thorn Birds...

Dolors, for any reader for whom English is a second language, I think reading any of the English-language novels written before 1900 would be more challenging than reading any modern ones (especially since the form of the language that's normally taught abroad, I assume, would be modern English!). The prose style is much more dense and complex than it would be today --perhaps like the difference between Cervantes' use of Spanish and a modern Spanish author's, though I'm not really familiar with the Spanish language.

I thought I would say something about the fact that "Hawthorne was a Christian". That fact is NOT true. He joined New Harmony and tried to start a utopia. It isn't work an e made fun of it. Hawthorne him self calls it "a hell-fired tale". Hawthorne also refused to acknowledge that witchcraft was a sin. Listen to what Kevin Swanson says in his book Apostate. "Nathaniel Hawthorne was the 19th century American literary giant who did more to shift the American culture away from its national Christian heritage than anyone else. His hatred of the Puritans was deeply personal, relentlessly bitter, and marginally psychotic.....it was Hawthorne's objective to sever this heritage from the American people."

This novel has been very effective in destroying our Christian heritage. Hawthorne says the story was conceived in the pit of hell. This story has done more harm to Christians in America than any other work of fiction. He is also the most influential liar in US history. He only mentions the Hebrew Scriptures which means he doesn't believe in the New Testament.

I think you should rethink that and be sure to read Kevin Swanson's Apostate and read the chapter on Nathaniel Hawthorne.....

Thanks for your time!

Peyton, my understanding of Hawthorne's Christian faith is based on a serious reading of his actual body of writing: all four of his completed novels (some more than once) and a number of his short stories and essays. Reading someone's own writing is invaluable if you want to actually understand his/her thinking; though, to be sure, secondary sources can help in that endeavor, if they're written by someone who's actually knowledgeable, intellectually honest, and not simply trying to write a hatchet job. That describes Joseph Schwartz's excellent study of Hawthorne's religious beliefs, "Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1804-1864: God and Man in New England," which I'd highly recommend. (It can be found in American Classics Reconsidered: A Christian Appraisal.) Whether or not Kevin Swanson's Apostate falls into that category or not, I don't know, not having read it; but to be honest, the book description and the part of it that you quoted don't indicate that it would. Since your profile is private, I can't check your shelves; but I'm assuming that you've read little or nothing by Hawthorne. If you did seriously read as much of it as I have (at least, if you read it with something other than the attitude, "Okay, I'll hold my nose and read this horrible garbage so I can prove to people how vile it is!") I believe you'd rethink your view. I'll try, briefly, to address the specific points you raised.

You're confusing New Harmony (which Hawthorne never had any connection to) with Brook Farm, another Utopian community which Hawthorne did join as a young man. I'm not sure whether your point is that his supposed lack of Christian belief is demonstrated by his joining it in the first place, or by his leaving it. Neither inference would make much sense to me; but in fact, his disillusionment with the utopian idea was based on his growing conviction that sinful human nature is incompatible with it (which is a very Christian realization).

I'm guessing that you got your supposed Hawthorne quotes from Swanson's book; but I can't look them up to verify them, since you don't cite any source(s). (Coming as I do from an academic background, and being a librarian, that's a red flag for me.) They sound either spurious or taken out of context, IMO.

Peyton wrote: "Hawthorne also refused to acknowledge that witchcraft was a sin." I'm not sure exactly what you're basing that statement on, and unsure if you mean that you (and Swanson) believe the people killed by New England's 17th-century witch hunters actually were witches(?). Hawthorne plainly did not share that belief; but he makes it clear in this novel, and in "Young Goodman Brown," that he regarded Satanism as a sin and a blasphemy.

Hawthorne was certainly repelled by aspects of New England's Puritan history; he deliberately added the "e" to his last name to distance himself from his ancestor Judge Hawthorn, who was one of the judges at the Salem witch trials (and the only one of the judges who refused to later repent of his role), and other ancestors who persecuted Quakers, etc. And he definitely rejected the Calvinist theology of the Puritans. What he rejected here was an ugly and twisted perversion of Christianity, not the real thing itself. The mistaken equation, in the minds of millions of people, of this caricature with actual Christianity was what did incalculable harm to the cause of Christianity in America in the 19th century (and before and after), driving untold multitudes into unbelief. It's a caricature that I believe Hawthorne was absolutely right to combat.

Peyton wrote: "He is also the most influential liar in U.S. history." This is another assertion that I'm guessing is simply repeated from Swanson; but it's the kind of sweeping, exaggerated generalization that's impossible to take seriously, especially in the absence of anything that even purports to be an example.

It's simply not true that he "only mentions the Hebrew Scriptures which means he doesn't believe in the New Testament." In the little known work "Earth's Holocaust," he clearly affirms the inspired character of the whole Bible. Elsewhere in his work, he affirms New Testament doctrines, such as the truth that Christ came "to redeem the world" (The Scarlet Letter), and the fact of "saving grace" ("The Old Manse.")

I'm assuming that your comment was an honest attempt at dialogue, which is why I took it seriously and responded in the same spirit. I'd encourage you to read more on the subject (especially primary sources), and not base your opinion solely on one book by one author.

I agree with your opinion about the meaning of the novel, but disagree on your views about Calvinism. Calvinism doesn't assert this idea that the elect-which is Biblical (Romans 9 for example)-are superior humans than the non-elect. That is a misrepresentation. Other than that, I think you are spot on about "The Scarlet Letter."

Jarred, thanks for commenting. Just now, I went back over my review and attached comments with a fine-tooth comb, trying to find what I said that implied that Calvinism teaches that the elect are "superior humans" compared to the non-elect (which would indeed be a misrepresentation), and came up empty. The total depravity of all humans, of course, is the first of the "five points" of Calvinism (famously summarized in the acronym TULIP.)

Yes, "election" is a Biblical concept (Romans 9 and elsewhere). Calvinists and Arminians differ over whether it's unconditional --The "U" in TULIP-- or conditioned by God's foreknowledge of individual choices (Romans 8:29).

Werner wrote: "Jarred, thanks for commenting. Just now, I went back over my review and attached comments with a fine-tooth comb, trying to find what I said that implied that Calvinism teaches that the elect are ..."
Sorry, it seems i did read that into your review. Still, I wonder what your thoughts are on Calvinism. Would I mistaken if I said I detected some negative feelings for that theological worldview in your review?

Jarred wrote: "I wonder what your thoughts are on Calvinism. Would I be mistaken if I said I detected some negative feelings for that theological worldview in your review?"

No, that wouldn't be mistaken (and I intended for my own position to be clearer than it apparently was). My own theological worldview, like Hawthorne's, is Arminian, and I completely agree with the implied critique of Calvinism that he makes here and elsewhere in his writings.

This conversation is terribly interesting and I personally have not religious belief at al! I am going to be honest, I do get lost at some points.

I read this as a sophomore in high school. We talked and talked and talked. The teacher encouraged us to think and express what we each were thinking. It is for this reason I DO think it is good fro students to be given such literature even when they perhaps cannot understand every aspect of it.

Thank you for your review, Werner.

You're welcome, Chrissie; and thanks for the "like," and for sharing your thoughts.

Nice review! I hated this book when I was in high school. Now my sixteen year old brother is reading it and I read his review to him. Maybe it'll help him look for the good stuff because I didn't encounter that when I read it haha

*this review. Yours not his :)

Thanks, True Snow Queen! (Hope he finds it helpful. :-) )

Fantastic review, Werner! I hope I love it as much myself 😊🌸

Thanks, Mel! Whenever you get around to reading it, I'll be interested in your take on it.

Thank you for your review and your responses to comments.

I find so many conversations regarding faith or spiritual issues can become heated quickly and serve to not be welcoming. You have communicated so well, articulately without any bitter edge.

I have been revisiting some classics as well as some modern fiction taking root in old classics with present day insights.

I have always had a tender place for Hawthorne’s writing. I felt he looked at people a bit more fully, where women, especially in this book, had agency and spiritual, ethical choices.

My plan has been to research these 1800’s writers for greater understanding. Hawthorne is next on my list to read about. The ideas and books that came from that area of Concord during those few decades is fascinating. I appreciated you linking the author’s spiritual views to his book.

Sandi, thank you so much for your kind words and thoughtful comment!

Sandi wrote: "My plan has been to research these 1800’s writers for greater understanding. Hawthorne is next on my list to read about."

Sounds great! I hope your reading is enjoyable and enriching.

Calvinism wasn't the problem; the problem was that the Puritans described in the book (and many, but not all, actual Puritans) assessed their election by their sanctification, and their sanctification by their adherence to God's law. That is a sad and unbiblical formula for doubting one's justification. A proper understanding of the gospel (of which Calvinism is an excellent framework) is the solution. It is true that election is inextricably tied to justification, sanctification, and glorification (see the "Golden Chain" of Romans 8:28�30). They failed to believe and apply the countless passages in Scripture that say that we are justified by faith and must look to Christ's work for our assurance. We are elected not by any action or goodness of our own; we are wholly dependent on God's favor for our deliverance. He who believes in (trusts in) Christ and His work—and despairs of his own righteousness—is saved to the utmost. The Arminian, on the contrary, must look to himself to ensure that he has done what he ought in order to be saved and to maintain that salvation. The Puritans erred with regard to their assurance because they essentially became Arminian when they assessed their election and justification on the basis of their continuous maintenance of personal righteousness—which, they should have understood, can save no one, nor maintain anyone's salvation.

Michael, thanks for sharing your thoughts! Sorry that I didn't respond to your comment right away; Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ failed to notify me when you posted it. :-(

You might be interested in this discussion thread in the Christian Goodreaders group: /topic/show/..., and this one in the Love the Lord with All Your Mind group: /topic/show/... . The first thread is archived and closed to further comments; but the first one is still open and active.

Given Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' recent gutting of the notification process for comments, I have no idea if you'll actually see this one. :-( But I can hope!