Sign in with Facebook
a.novel.femme's Reviews > The Scarlet Letter
The Scarlet Letter
by
by
oh god.
hawthorne is that perpetually needy manchild of a writer, you know the one who peers over your shoulder while youre trying to read and keeps pointing out the parts of his own writing that he finds particularly good and/or moving.
"yeah, see? do you see? see how i talked about how the rose is red, and then i talk about how hesters 'a' is red, too? do you see what im trying to do here, with the symbolism?"
and its like that all the way through the book.
*edit 12 september 2008: im tutoring with this for of my students, as her AP english teacher is teaching it as part of his curriculum. and yes, it still sucks as badly as i remember. actually, even more so, because now i have to teach it.
hawthorne is that perpetually needy manchild of a writer, you know the one who peers over your shoulder while youre trying to read and keeps pointing out the parts of his own writing that he finds particularly good and/or moving.
"yeah, see? do you see? see how i talked about how the rose is red, and then i talk about how hesters 'a' is red, too? do you see what im trying to do here, with the symbolism?"
and its like that all the way through the book.
*edit 12 september 2008: im tutoring with this for of my students, as her AP english teacher is teaching it as part of his curriculum. and yes, it still sucks as badly as i remember. actually, even more so, because now i have to teach it.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Scarlet Letter.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
February 18, 2008
– Shelved
September 12, 2008
– Shelved as:
i-taught-this
July 18, 2011
– Shelved as:
why-wont-this-book-end
Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)
date
newest »
newest »
oh thank god someone else out there agrees. 
I just don't understand what people see in it. It's beyond my comprehension completely.
Haha, yes! You had me at "needy manchild" :D
I hated this book, too, and part of my hate was how overrated it was. It wasn't that I didn't understand the syntax, or didn't comprehend the storyline, or even that I misunderstood the historical setting and therefore the different societal expectations and rules. It was that I hated the style and the smugness of the author that you pointed to in your review. I will always be thankful, though, that we only had to read one book by Hawthorne. I always remind myself that it could have been worse--it could have been like Dickens or Shakespeare where you have to read fifteen of their works.
I love reading the classics, but this one was absolutely ridiculous. I found myself yelling to Hester and Dimmesdale to stand up for yourselves. Besides that, the writing was verbose in an uninteresting way. What a waste of time!
Kelly, I would rather read Dickens or Shakespeare. I used to think Dickens was worthless, but compared to Hawthorne he is an easy and interesting read.
I'm liking the book, but I have to admit this is absolutely true.
love this book, but agree that only crazy people like me would like it, I love long sentences.
This is very true, and it made me laugh.
It's funny that I always try to point out all the symbolism conspicuously expressed in the book during class and NO ONE has picked up on it! NO ONE! I was so surprised.
Cretins, all! It's brilliant. : )
I'm getting the sense that you aren't liking this book Aneeta....
While it may seem that Nathaniel Hawthorne was pointing out all his symbolism and the good parts of his writing the symbolism is a huge part of the story itself. Symbolism, in this particular case, is used to show and represent things including Hester and the constant change in how the townspeople view her and Arthur’s guilt throughout the novel. I would like to point out that Charles Dickens wrote in a similar way, I think it may have been just how people wrote/spoke during the mid 1800s. I don’t disagree though, Nathaniel Hawthorne writing like that definitely makes it more difficult to get through the book :)
Thanks for the warning. It sounds a lot like R.F. Kuang's writing. With the constant need to point out everything obvious, preach their self centered world view, and have no respect for the readers intelligence.However, in terms of writing for its time, this seems much more appropriate. With how important the symbolism seems to be for the story, it makes sense to intertwine it explicitly in the story. This way, even the least educated readers would understand the symbolism. It wasn't a time when you could just Google the symbolism for a book.
Eriksson wrote: "Thanks for the warning. It sounds a lot like R.F. Kuang's writing. With the constant need to point out everything obvious, preach their self centered world view, and have no respect for the readers..."Not at all like RF Kuang's writing. Can't get through her stuff because of all the holier-than-thou lecturing and one-note characterization. Hawthorne, on the other hand, is one of my favorites. Yes, the symbolism can be a bit in your face; however, his characters are morally complex and his message deliberately ambiguous. It hits my definition of a classic "it grows as you do."
Oh yes, sir, very clever to connect the red rose with her RED A. No one in a century could have ever seen that connection. Brilliant.