Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Love.
One day I'll meet her. We'll fall so madly in love that lemonade won't need sugar and gargoyles will scowl and grimace and send expensive China to our wedding reception in order to compensate for their jealousy. She'll hold my hand while driving, and I'll gently put it on my shoulder so I can safely make the next turn, only to pick it up again and squeeze her fingers when the road goes on straight for miles. We'll lie in bed watching a silly movie, her snuggling up to me, leaning in for a kiss that turns into a pillow fight, and finally a mock wrestling match. I always let her win so she can claim that kiss. I see her in the tea leaves, the tarot cards, and the I-Ching bones. All that's left to do is wait.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
AP LIT SCARLET LETTER
Scarlet Letter Paper:
Jeremy Schatten
AP Lit
Ms. Johnson
Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter is constructed with an always distinct, but not always obvious intent.
Through his indecisive tone, his symbolic imagery ,and his judgmental word choice, Hawthorn creates an air of ambiguity in order to draw upon the experience of the reader, making his novel all the more compelling.
This is especially evident in Hawthorne's conclusion found on pages 252 to 255 wherein the author employs numerous instances of intentional ambiguity in order to draw his reader in. Hawthorne begins “... there was more than one account of what had been witnessed on the scaffold.” Immediately, Hawthorne implies an innate disjointedness, a disintegration of a scene that clearly only truly happened one way. Arthur Dimmesdale, father of Pearl and lover of Hester Prynne, was seen upon the scaffold in many different lights. “Most of the spectators testified to having seen on the breast of the unhappy minister, a scarlet letter – the very semblance of that worn by Hester Prynne – imprinted in the flesh.” Hawthorne continues to offer other theories to contrast with the first. “Some affirmed that the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale, on the very day when Hester Prynne first wore her ignominious badge, had begun a course of penance- which he afterwards in so many futile methods, followed on- by inflicting a hideous torture on himself”.
It is clear from Hawthorne's language that the narrator is skeptical of those who defend Dimmesdale, which is Hawthorne's way of condemning his character. His use of the word “most” in his first explanation offer it more credibility, while his use of the words “some affirmed” gives it a nasty brand of hearsay. Although Hawthorne clearly holds with the first, his narrator offers the reader a choice. “The reader may choose among these theories. We have thrown all the light we could acquire upon the portent, and would gladly, now that is has done its office, erase its deep print out of our brain where long meditation has fixed in in very undesirable distinctness.
The use of the word “we” is most curious, until the nature of ambiguity is further explored. In choosing the pronoun of the relative, Hawthorne is providing even more unsureness, even more of a muddle of ideas. This works to his advantage as he continues on to condemn the most vehement theory of all. “It is singular, nevertheless, that certain persons who were spectators of the whole scene and professed never once to have removed their eyes from the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale denied that there was any mark whatever on his breast, more than on a newborn infant's” Hawthorne conjures the image of an infant in direct contrast to Dimmesdale's sin. “Neither by their report, had his dying words acknowledged, nor even remotely implied any, the slightest connection, on his part, with the guilt for which Hester Prynne had s o long worn the scarlet letter.” Hawthorne immediately reprimands those who hold with this belief. “Without disputing a truth so momentous, we must be allowed to consider this version of Mr. Dimmesdale's story as only and instance of that stubborn fidelity with which a man's friends- and especially a clergyman's- will sometimes uphold his character, when proofs, clear as the midday sunshine on the scarlet letter, establish him as a false and sin stained creature of the dust.” It is here that Hawthorne's own opinions glimmer from behind the guise of his narrator, thus passing judgment on the nature of sin, and the entity Mr. Arthur Dimmesdale.
Hawthorne wears the ambiguity of the passage as a badge of honor, allowing the readers to make their own conclusions. Hawthorne is unique, in that he is both judgmental and ambiguous at the same time. While most authors would have a difficult time pulling off this feat of linguistics and tonal mastery, Hawthorne manages to make judgments through his ambiguity. In presenting different scenarios to the reader, and offering them a pretense of a choice, he subtly makes it clear exactly what he, (the one with the most authority on the subject) believes to be the case. In his line condemning those who “... made the manner of his death a parable”, Hawthorne allows us a peek at his misanthropic tendencies, fueling the fire of indecisiveness.
After Hawthorne's description of the scene on the scaffold, he jumps to another disjointedness, a change in the character of Mr. Roger Chillingsworth. He begins “Nothing was more remarkable than the change which took place, most immediately after Mr. Dimmesdale's death, in the appearance and demeanor of the old man known as Roger Chillingsworth.... This unhappy man had made the very principle of his life to consist in the pursuit and systematic exercise of revenge; and when, by its completest triumph and consummation, that evil principle was left with no further material to support it, when, in short, there was no more Devil's work on earth for him to do, it only remained for the unhumanized mortal to betake himself whither his Master would find him tasks enough, and pay him his wages duly”. Hawthorne is at once calling Chillingsworth the accolade of the Devil, and praising the changes in his character. By offering the reader both views, but once again subtly mocking Chillingsworth by portraying him as washed up and decrepit, he once again makes his opinion known.
Hawthorne even goes to hyperbolic lengths to combine opposites and create an aura of murky moralities. He conjectures “ It is a curious subject of observation and inquiry, whether hatred and love be not the same thing at the bottom.”
Hawthorne continues his strange techniques further, where after essentially picking these two men apart throughout the entire novel, offers them a tentative redemption. “In the spiritual world, as the old physician and the minister- mutual victims as they have been- may, unawares, have found their earthly stock of hatred and antipathy turned into golden love.” Hawthorne nearly makes his reader dance trying to keep up with his whims, but ultimately manages to use this to his advantage. His constant shifting of perspective, of tone, of ideas, and even frequent vacillations between contradictions, add to the environment that he's trying to create. In a very roundabout and confusing manner, no one could accuse Hawthorne of being overly quixotic. By leaving many of his conjectures open ended, he allows the reader to become more engaged in his works as a whole.
Jeremy Schatten
AP Lit
Ms. Johnson
Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter is constructed with an always distinct, but not always obvious intent.
Through his indecisive tone, his symbolic imagery ,and his judgmental word choice, Hawthorn creates an air of ambiguity in order to draw upon the experience of the reader, making his novel all the more compelling.
This is especially evident in Hawthorne's conclusion found on pages 252 to 255 wherein the author employs numerous instances of intentional ambiguity in order to draw his reader in. Hawthorne begins “... there was more than one account of what had been witnessed on the scaffold.” Immediately, Hawthorne implies an innate disjointedness, a disintegration of a scene that clearly only truly happened one way. Arthur Dimmesdale, father of Pearl and lover of Hester Prynne, was seen upon the scaffold in many different lights. “Most of the spectators testified to having seen on the breast of the unhappy minister, a scarlet letter – the very semblance of that worn by Hester Prynne – imprinted in the flesh.” Hawthorne continues to offer other theories to contrast with the first. “Some affirmed that the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale, on the very day when Hester Prynne first wore her ignominious badge, had begun a course of penance- which he afterwards in so many futile methods, followed on- by inflicting a hideous torture on himself”.
It is clear from Hawthorne's language that the narrator is skeptical of those who defend Dimmesdale, which is Hawthorne's way of condemning his character. His use of the word “most” in his first explanation offer it more credibility, while his use of the words “some affirmed” gives it a nasty brand of hearsay. Although Hawthorne clearly holds with the first, his narrator offers the reader a choice. “The reader may choose among these theories. We have thrown all the light we could acquire upon the portent, and would gladly, now that is has done its office, erase its deep print out of our brain where long meditation has fixed in in very undesirable distinctness.
The use of the word “we” is most curious, until the nature of ambiguity is further explored. In choosing the pronoun of the relative, Hawthorne is providing even more unsureness, even more of a muddle of ideas. This works to his advantage as he continues on to condemn the most vehement theory of all. “It is singular, nevertheless, that certain persons who were spectators of the whole scene and professed never once to have removed their eyes from the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale denied that there was any mark whatever on his breast, more than on a newborn infant's” Hawthorne conjures the image of an infant in direct contrast to Dimmesdale's sin. “Neither by their report, had his dying words acknowledged, nor even remotely implied any, the slightest connection, on his part, with the guilt for which Hester Prynne had s o long worn the scarlet letter.” Hawthorne immediately reprimands those who hold with this belief. “Without disputing a truth so momentous, we must be allowed to consider this version of Mr. Dimmesdale's story as only and instance of that stubborn fidelity with which a man's friends- and especially a clergyman's- will sometimes uphold his character, when proofs, clear as the midday sunshine on the scarlet letter, establish him as a false and sin stained creature of the dust.” It is here that Hawthorne's own opinions glimmer from behind the guise of his narrator, thus passing judgment on the nature of sin, and the entity Mr. Arthur Dimmesdale.
Hawthorne wears the ambiguity of the passage as a badge of honor, allowing the readers to make their own conclusions. Hawthorne is unique, in that he is both judgmental and ambiguous at the same time. While most authors would have a difficult time pulling off this feat of linguistics and tonal mastery, Hawthorne manages to make judgments through his ambiguity. In presenting different scenarios to the reader, and offering them a pretense of a choice, he subtly makes it clear exactly what he, (the one with the most authority on the subject) believes to be the case. In his line condemning those who “... made the manner of his death a parable”, Hawthorne allows us a peek at his misanthropic tendencies, fueling the fire of indecisiveness.
After Hawthorne's description of the scene on the scaffold, he jumps to another disjointedness, a change in the character of Mr. Roger Chillingsworth. He begins “Nothing was more remarkable than the change which took place, most immediately after Mr. Dimmesdale's death, in the appearance and demeanor of the old man known as Roger Chillingsworth.... This unhappy man had made the very principle of his life to consist in the pursuit and systematic exercise of revenge; and when, by its completest triumph and consummation, that evil principle was left with no further material to support it, when, in short, there was no more Devil's work on earth for him to do, it only remained for the unhumanized mortal to betake himself whither his Master would find him tasks enough, and pay him his wages duly”. Hawthorne is at once calling Chillingsworth the accolade of the Devil, and praising the changes in his character. By offering the reader both views, but once again subtly mocking Chillingsworth by portraying him as washed up and decrepit, he once again makes his opinion known.
Hawthorne even goes to hyperbolic lengths to combine opposites and create an aura of murky moralities. He conjectures “ It is a curious subject of observation and inquiry, whether hatred and love be not the same thing at the bottom.”
Hawthorne continues his strange techniques further, where after essentially picking these two men apart throughout the entire novel, offers them a tentative redemption. “In the spiritual world, as the old physician and the minister- mutual victims as they have been- may, unawares, have found their earthly stock of hatred and antipathy turned into golden love.” Hawthorne nearly makes his reader dance trying to keep up with his whims, but ultimately manages to use this to his advantage. His constant shifting of perspective, of tone, of ideas, and even frequent vacillations between contradictions, add to the environment that he's trying to create. In a very roundabout and confusing manner, no one could accuse Hawthorne of being overly quixotic. By leaving many of his conjectures open ended, he allows the reader to become more engaged in his works as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)