Jim Abbott
Dr. Adams
September 2nd 2008
Seminar in English Comp
Change For the Worse
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The House of the Seven Gables displays how one impacting change can ruin a family for centuries. Colonel Pyncheon was a strong-willed and powerful person who took actions into his own hands. The ideals that Colonel Pycheon lived by turned the Pyncheon name into royalty. Following his death however, the Pyncheon name and ideals lost their importance.
“Efforts, it is true, were made by the Pyncheons, not only then, but at various periods for nearly a hundred years afterwards, to obtain what they stubbornly persisted in deeming their right. But, in course of time, the territory was partly regranted to more favored individuals, and partly cleared and occupied by actual settlers.” (Hawthorne p. 10)
Hawthorne’s passage indicates the dramatic change that occurred in the Pyncheon family following the Colonel’s death. This quote illustrates that though the Pyncheons believed that their name is royal and powerful enough to be entitled to the plot of land, they are not courageous enough to actually go after and take the land. The Pyncheon family demeanor and attitude is the polar opposite of the type of attitude that Colonel Pyncheon lived by. Colonel Pyncheon was brave and confident, he had no problem taking what he felt was rightly his. As was the case with Mathew Maule’s land. The Colonel wanted Maule’s land, and took it by any means necessary. Colonel Pyncheon later died on Maule’s original land, marking the change in the Pyncheon ways. Following his death, the Pyncheons carried themselves with the heir of an important family, but did not act like one. The Maine territory was not readily obtainable since the Colonel died at an inopportune time, but it was certainly poised for the taking. Rather than aggressively acquiring the land, the Pyncheons waited for the land to be handed to them. If the Colonel were alive, he would have went right to the source, and took the Maine territory because he believed it belonged to him, and he wanted it. Without the Colonel however, the Pyncheons simply stayed idle with their false sense of superiority and let an amazingly prosperous opportunity slip away.
Hawthorne’s conceptualization of change indicates that if you change from the ideals and beliefs that you once stood for, the change is for the worse. This is illustrated perfectly by the Pyncheons becoming timid and contempt following the Colonel’s death. By differentiating from the morals and beliefs that the Colonel felt so strongly about, the Pyncheon name suffered.
This idea of losing importance by not sticking to the ideals that you were founded on is evident in contemporary times. The case of the United States is a perfect example of a country forgetting the beliefs that distinguished them. The U.S. was founded on the convictions of liberty and freedom. It became a country by gaining its independence from their mother country of England. America and its forefathers were confident that their country could be successful without the dependence of another country intervening. The U.S. believed so strongly in the idea of independence that it sacrificed the lives of soldiers in order to gain freedom. America today is vastly different than the America that fought for its independence.
The United States does not value freedom and independence the way it used to as the U.S. consistently intervenes in other countries’ matters. America, over recent years has occupied and attempted to control foreign countries, much in the way that Great Britain used to occupy and control America. The U.S. and its current regime deemed it necessary to take these actions, even though their forefathers had much different beliefs in how the country should be run. George Washington, the founder of this country warned the U.S. about the dangers of permanent alliances. The U.S. today does not value Washington’s principle, as the U.S. is in many permanent alliances such as the U.N., N.A.F.T.A and N.A.T.O. The value of independence has been tarnished over the years as America is becoming highly dependent on foreign countries for resources. The U.S. is forced to affiliate with dangerous and militant countries due to their dependence on oil. Due to their dependence on other countries, the U.S. is forced to intervene in global politics, which completely disregards the ideals of the forefathers. Due to the constant intervening with other countries, the global perception of the U.S. has changed. Much like the Pyncheon name, the United States name has tarnished due to a change in ideals.
3 comments:
Your introductory paragraph really explains the former Pyncheon ideals and leads well in the quote of how they lost their ideals.
The beginning of your next paragrpah is also good. It explains the problem and change in the Pyncheon name, with examples. Then it seems like you start to repeat the same ideas.
Your next paragraph has the start of something good, but you need a little more content on this idea. Right now it is just a few floating thoughts.
The relation to today's US foreign policy affecting our formerly good name is a nice example.
In the last paragraph though your second to last sentence seems to just repeat and idea. You may want to remove that.
Overall good first draft.
Jim Abbott
Dr. Adams
September 2nd 2008
Seminar in English Comp
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The House of the Seven Gables displays how one impacting change can ruin a family for centuries. Colonel Pyncheon was a strong-willed and powerful person who took actions into his own hands. The ideals that Colonel Pycheon lived by turned the Pyncheon name into royalty. Following his death however, the Pyncheon name and ideals lost their importance.
“Efforts, it is true, were made by the Pyncheons, not only then, but at various periods for nearly a hundred years afterwards, to obtain what they stubbornly persisted in deeming their right. But, in course of time, the territory was partly regranted to more favored individuals, and partly cleared and occupied by actual settlers.” (Hawthorne p. 10)
Hawthorne’s passage indicates the dramatic change that occurred in the Pyncheon family following the Colonel’s death. This quote illustrates that though the Pyncheons believed that their name is royal and powerful enough to be entitled to the plot of land, they are not courageous enough to actually go after and take the land. The Pyncheon family demeanor and attitude is the polar opposite of the type of attitude that Colonel Pyncheon lived by. Colonel Pyncheon was brave and confident, he had no problem taking what he felt was rightly his. As was the case with Mathew Maule’s land. The Colonel wanted Maule’s land, and took it by any means necessary. Colonel Pyncheon later died on Maule’s original land, marking the change in the Pyncheon ways. Following his death, the Pyncheons carried themselves with the heir of an important family, but did not act like one. The Maine territory was not readily obtainable since the Colonel died at an inopportune time, but it was certainly poised for the taking. The Colonel knew the specifics of the land and it seemed that his death meant the end of the land. Rather than aggressively acquiring the land, the Pyncheons waited for the land to be handed to them. If the Colonel were alive, he would have went right to the source, and took the Maine territory because he believed it belonged to him, and he wanted it. Without the Colonel however, the Pyncheons simply stayed idle with their false sense of superiority and let an amazingly prosperous opportunity slip away.
Hawthorne’s conceptualization of change indicates that if you change from the ideals and beliefs that you once stood for, the change is for the worse. This is illustrated perfectly by the Pyncheons becoming timid and contempt following the Colonel’s death. By differentiating from the morals and beliefs that the Colonel felt so strongly about, the Pyncheon name suffered.
This idea of losing importance by not sticking to the ideals that you were founded on is evident in contemporary times. The case of the United States is a perfect example of a country forgetting the beliefs that distinguished them. The U.S. was founded on the convictions of liberty and freedom. It became a country by gaining its independence from their mother country of England. America and its forefathers were confident that their country could be successful without the dependence of another country intervening. The U.S. believed so strongly in the idea of independence that it sacrificed the lives of soldiers in order to gain freedom. America today is vastly different than the America that fought for its independence.
The United States does not value freedom and independence the way it used to as the U.S. consistently intervenes in other countries’ matters. America, over recent years has occupied and attempted to control foreign countries, much in the way that Great Britain used to occupy and control America. The U.S. and its current regime deemed it necessary to take these actions, even though their forefathers had much different beliefs in how the country should be run. George Washington, the founder of this country warned the U.S. about the dangers of permanent alliances. The U.S. today does not value Washington’s principle, as the U.S. is in many permanent alliances such as the U.N., N.A.F.T.A and N.A.T.O. The value of independence has been tarnished over the years as America is becoming highly dependent on foreign countries for resources. The U.S. is forced to affiliate with dangerous and militant countries due to their dependence on oil. Due to their dependence on other countries, the U.S. is forced to intervene in global politics, which completely disregards the ideals of the forefathers. The perception of America in the eyes of other countries has been greatly damaged. Much like the Pyncheon name, the United States name has tarnished due to a change in ideals.
I thought your main idea, or line of argument, was very clear, and provides an interesting way to approach the novel. Viewing the Colonel as principled (in a certain way) and his descendants as unprincipled (in a certain way) is a fascinating, if counterintuitive, way to read the novel.
Here's the biggest problem: you aren't paying any attention the many ways in which the book resists this reading. Take, for instance, the quote out of which Nick (the next paper down from you) constructed his paper: the Colonel in a certain sense *is* the family, and seems to almost appear, generation after generation.
To claim that none of the descendants are like the colonel, that nobody holds up to his original ideals (I'd say "desires" is a better word, by the way) is a reading which *needs* to deal with the Judge, and the various other Colonel-like or Judge-like characters through the generations to which Hawthorne alludes.
Rather than making your case, that is, showing us that nobody *really* follows in the Colonel's footsteps, despite the character of the Judge, you instead mostly just repeat yourself in later paragraphs.
This is a bold, interesting argument, but it lacks evidence almost completely.
I thought your turn to the contemporary U.S. worked pretty well as a metaphor.
Colin: Your response was a little brief, and certainly could have used some more attention to specifics.
Post a Comment