Brian Paschke
Adam Johns
ENGCMP 200- Seminar in Composition
9/10/08
Change will always be possible in the world we live as long as people are willing to take a serious introspective look into themselves, compare what they see to the outer world, and proceed to make compromises accordingly. The House of the Seven Gables is not, however, in the real world. All the characters are trapped in the House by the romantic curse of Maule. Many things will be revealed throughout the course of the book, man revelations unfurled to the reader from the characters, but it is ultimately a static production- no true change occurs. What we will see is the illusion of change. The reader himself may be altered through the experience of the text and is purposely manipulated by Hawthorne to see old things in a new light and to invent interpretation where before there had been none. I would compare each character to a three piece dressing mirror, The left side the past, the right side the present, and the middle mirror is the same for them all– the house, which is what the town all think of when they hear the name Pyncheon.
Change occurs in the present tense. In the past tense, a character is intrinsically a certain way, and layers are peeled away like an onion in order to get at the real person. Characters revert to their true selves rather than gain new attributes. The author says on the very first page of the preface “The point of view in which this tale comes under the Romantic definition lies in the attempt to connect a bygone time with the very present that is flitting away from us. It is a legend prolonging itself…” (pg vii) In other words, the Judge and the Colonel are the same character, but our view of him is changed in key ways so that we may better comprehend his true meaning.
Some would say that change is possible in the book if the characters are prepared to give up the house. This may be true, unless one views the house as a physical object rather than as a thematical symbol. Before we begin to think that the House is the cause of the curse, remember the cause of the Judge. He has constructed through hard work and dedication a respectable name and house for himself. He believes he has escaped the curse of the house, but feels free to return to it at any time to make demands on its current residents. He is considered “a man of eminent respectability. The church acknowledged it; the state acknowledged it. It was denied by nobody.” (pg 200) Thus when he comes to prey upon Clifford- the pathetic Maule-like brother of a crone, he is believes he is doing right- Just as the Judge believed he as in the right a century past. The Judge tried to destroy his relative once, as seen by Hepzibah’s comment “He owed his dungeon to you; his freedom to God’s providence!” (pg 205) Indeed we soon find that just as the Colonel before him, the Judge is doomed to die mysteriously in the house built by cursed hands.
Even as the most oppressive Pyncheon dies, the curse is not lifted from the family. God has taken retribution upon the worst of them, but their sins remain. Clifford is confused, he believes “The weight is gone, Hepzibah! It is gone off this weary old world, and we may be as lighthearted as little Phoebe herself!” (pg 219) The Pyncheons are inextricably bound together by fate, and this is why it is so important for the reader to understand how static the characters truly are. For the reader to understand this phenomenon, first we must consider the tense of the setting, past-tense, as if all the events have already happened. Combined with the Romantic aspirations of the author, and we know that we have a story that is more fable than history.
It is imperative for the reader to understand that the characters in the house will not be able to truly understand themselves until they become totally independent from the past. Hawthorne wants to teach us that humans are not great because of their history, but because of what they do in the present. The reader is best able to see this defect in the Pyncheons’ through Clifford. The Judge was evil, but he did not try. Clifford tries to be an artist, but he has a feeble grasp on reality. Clifford does not like the sound of real work. He sees a scissor grinder and hears “an ugly, little, venomous serpent of a noise” (pg 144) Unable to accept any useful activity, he proceeds to become beguiled by a monkey organ grinder, and then “reject the moral of the show” (pg 146) He realizes that his cause is hopeless. He realizes that all that is left for him and his family is “required nothing less than the great final remedy-death!” (pg 148)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your introduction is clever & thought-provoking, although it's also wordy and arguably over-complicated. If you'd been able to express the same idea in half the space, I would have been very impressed. You're essentially arguing that the book (partially through its use of the romance as a form) demands change without representing it, which is fascinating.
I'm greatly interested in the material in the following paragraphs, but its greatest strengths are somewhat obscured by tendencies towards wordiness, abstraction, and indirection -- "it is imperative that the reader," for instance, is a minor example of circuitous prose.
Thus, despite the fact that you have my close attention throughout the paper, I'm taken off guard by the ending, where you proclaim that the book's real purpose is to demand total emancipation from the past - after you've just gotten done making a rather nuanced argument that all of the characters are truly static. This is a large leap, when you have seemingly been preparing for the opposite: you've been presenting the book as a static, onion-layered romance, then suddenly advance the argument that *really* it is a kind of anti-romance, arguing the abandonment of the past.
For what it's worth, I think this is a fascinating argument, and not a crazy one - but you aren't connecting all of the dots, partially because you got lost to an extent in the circumlocutions of your prose.
Post a Comment