Interpretation of The Scarlet Letter
Van Doren, Mark. "The Scarlet Letter." Hawthorne: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. A.N. Kaul. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966. 129-40.
Summary:
Mark Van Doren begins his article with background to Hawthorne's famous work, The Scarlet Letter. Van Doren illustrates Hawthorne's state of mind before he was to write this classic piece, reminding the reader of Hawthorne's familiarity with the character types he used, as well as the theme that was put into place. The miracle came when these two combined and "converted to greatness" (130).
Van Doren reminds the reader of Hawthorne's extensive thought put into this novel. Hawthorne may have very well had the idea for this story in 1844 when he wrote down in a notebook: "The life of a woman, who, by the old colony law, was condemned always to wear the letter A, sewed on her garment, in token of her having committed adultery" (pg. # needed). Van Doren suggests this was the first formation of Hester Prynne and the other character outlines that were yet to come. In 1847 Hawthorne writes again: "A story of the effects of revenge, diabolizing him who indulges in it" (pg. # needed). Van Doren believes this was our first glimpse at Roger Chillingsworth and his motive in the tale, a motive that Van Doren suggests is human nature, despite Chillingsworth's devilish character. The last character Hawthorne thought to formulate was poor Arthur Dimmesdale, playing the dual part of a sinner and a victim of Chillingsworth.
The plot was tired, the characters were all too familiar, yet the legend of The Scarlet Letter still lives on. Van Doren suggests the plot is not merely the scarlet letter Hester wears upon her chest, but that it is, in fact, the characters at the center of the plot. It is Hawthorne's people that keep this tale a classic and making them real was Hawthorne's tremendous accomplishment. "We are so close to her all of the time, and completely convinced of her flesh and blood, of her heart and mind," says Van Doren, commenting on the realness of Hester (131). It is the three dimensional character that is unique to this piece by Hawthorne, setting it up for success.
In his article, Van Doren makes reference to Hawthorne's view on the church. It is known and seen throughout this novel that he is in fact of Puritan belief; however, he does go beyond his religion to encompass an understanding of the guilt Hester and Arthur feel throughout the story. To create this he needed to understand the burden of secrecy, the feeling of shame, and the importance of truth. Hawthorne does understand, says Van Doren, and his Puritan views are not only evident in the novel, but are portrayed through Arthur and his place in the church. Hawthorne suggests that the sin present in this novel completed by both Hester and Arthur is viewed as a fact of their lives, something that does not have simple solution. Arthur's confession, though it leads to his death, is an event that would be expected to occur in a Puritan's life after they have sinned.
Sin is very evident in this novel, from Chillingsworth's torture to Hester and Arthur's affair; however, love, though there are no details, is also present in the novel. Van Doren argues, "The Scarlet Letter is one of the great love stories of the world, although it gives us no details of love" (134). Van Doren mentions how Hawthorne has gotten into the middle of a woman's secret and plants himself there for the entirety of the novel. Hawthorne does not go after the intellectual part of Hester's being, but plays on her emotion and what drives her. By doing this Hawthorne gets the reader to care about Hester and what she goes through, from her love for her daughter to her love for Arthur and her hate for Chillingsworth.
"The Custom House," according to Van Doren, was an afterthought because Hawthorne did not believe The Scarlet Letter could stand on its own. Van Doren says Hawthorne had a hard time believing that his work would withstand time. Also, he did not want to admit to the amount of time and energy it took him to write this masterpiece. Van Doren argues, "He was never to admit how much his masterpiece had cost him, or to subject himself to such cost again" (140).
Response:
Van Doren made several valid points throughout his analysis of The Scarlet Letter. Van Doren was correct when he said that we were convinced of Hester, "flesh and blood" (131). This is what makes Hawthorne's character Hester so powerful, because we do identify with her, and we do understand what she is going through without being told. I agree with Van Doren when he says, "Hawthorne has known how to fasten this fear upon us – it could exist in us only if we loved her, too – but he also has known how to make Chillingsworth's words untrue" (132). Chillingsworth says Hester has lived a life of misery for a few days of love; however, Van Doren suggests that we as the reader know this is untrue and this happens solely because we are so convinced of Hester's character.
Van Doren argues that "Hester is its most heroic creature" (131). I would disagree with this statement; though I find Hester to be one of the strongest individuals in the tragedy, I would argue Pearl to be the most heroic. Pearl, mentioned only once by Van Doren, emits heroic energy throughout the novel. She does not cower when Hester and she are being stoned in the town, nor does she let her mother forget her roots. Pearl, for me, though she is an accident of nature, is the most powerful and heroic character in the tragedy. Her mysteriousness and her unrelenting push for Arthur to confess give her an almighty persona throughout the novel.
The only part of Hester's secret that Van Doren touches on is that she confesses. I think this subject could have been explored further. Hester may have had plenty of chances to tell Arthur about the identity of Chillingsworth, but she did not. The could be considered a character flaw, but I would disagree. I think that Hester was bitter that she was the one to be humiliated on the scaffold and I would even go as far as to say that she wanted to punish Arthur almost as much as Chillingsworth did. Hester protests that Arthur is her true love, but who would keep such a secret for so long?
Van Doren suggests that "Chillingsworth surpasses each previous villain" (130). He also states, "he is that unreal thing" (134). Van Doren goes as far as to say that "Chillingsworth is the devil again" (134). I would disagree with all of these statements. Though Chillingsworth is the archetype villain in the novel, I would say he takes on a more three-dimensional personality. He is not the cutout of a villain whom the protagonists simply try to battle against. Chillingsworth is undeniably Hester's husband, and this is something that cannot be glossed over. Chillingsworth is upset, as any husband would be. He may have gone too far when his torturing went on for seven years, but then why did he give up some of his land to Pearl, the result of a sin between the woman he loved and the man he loathed? I don't think Van Doren gives Chillingsworth enough credit. Chillingsworth may have been a less likable character; however, I do not believe he was entirely evil.
Van Doren's article was collected and published in 1966. I would be interested to see what a modern take would be on this tragedy. Our society today seems so immune to adultery, and in some marriages it is not only accepted, but also encouraged as a remedy for problems. Why then does it still impact readers of the modern world when things have changed so much since 1850, and even since 1966? I believe that Hawthorne has done an extraordinary job with creating these characters that it doesn't matter what the issue is: we would be moved no matter what. Hawthorne succeeds in making the reader care about these characters and making this tragedy a classic.
(1381 words)