The Scarlet Letter Book Review

Posted by:

|

On:

|

The Scarlet Letter was originally published in 1850, but it reads much older, perhaps intentionally, as a historical fiction set in the mid 17th century. As such, it is not today what I would consider an example of engaging writing—Nathaniel Hawthorne passes years with a few rambling sentences until he happens upon a plot-promoting point in the narrative. His descriptions are what you would expect from antiquated writing—verbose in depicting cartoonish characters, and then reminding the reader of these most peculiar physical traits each time the character reappears on the pages. What’s more, I had an unfavorable memory of reading this book years before, and I expected not to like it. Yet still, I found it an enjoyable and entertaining book, and I read it in the span of a few days. Hawthorne had a way of spinning a narrative without stating the plot, which I enjoyed; the reader slowly became aware of Roger Chillingworth’s true position as deceived husband and Mr. Dimmesdale’s role as fellow-adulterer pages before these statements were spelled out in black and white.

I expected this book to be anti-religion, because the minister is a sinner and a hypocrite, and the introduction oddly tips its hand in this direction. Yet perhaps the book reflects the maturity of the reader, for this time around I found it to be a book primarily on forgiveness and truth and the corrupting influence of sin and deception, which are, of course, themes countenanced by theology.  

The scarlet letter and public memory of Hester Prynne’s sin makes her into a recluse who dwells on the edges of society, yet this call for penance makes her into a sister of charity and gradually returns her to public sympathy. However well she performs her penance in deeds, Hester never is fully contrite—she would cast away the societal pressures in an instant and run away to England if Mr. Dimmesdale would go with her. On the other hand, Mr. Dimmesdale kept his sinful past hidden. His penance is private, but at least from sincere contrition, and takes the form of self flagellation. Yet he also was towards the townspeople a symbol of virtue, charity, and piety. Though this made him duplicitous and corrupted his mental, physical, and moral vigor, he was still able to work for the common benefit, similarly to Hester. 

The minister fares the worse for his private guilt, by fading mentally and physically under the weight of his personal shame. Hawthorne generally painted Hester as a more robust and sturdy character than the always timid and fragile minister whose body is most curiously reflective of his mind, so it is unclear whether his frailty is the symptom of guilt or the cause of his duplicity.

And I haven’t yet talked about perhaps the most interesting and most tragic character, Roger Chillingsworth! This was a good and honest man who was wronged by Hester and the Mr. Dimmesdale and then makes it his lifelong goal to destroy the minister and thus exact revenge. He descends into madness. If Roger could have found it in his heart to forgive, this evil could have been spared, but his failure to forgive is as corrupting as the original sin itself and turns a good and honest man into an agent of the devil.

Posted by

in