Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Sean Osterman
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in English Composition
9/10/08
Real Change


In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The House of the Seven Gables” there are many instances where the narrator shows the reader how stubborn human nature can be. Hawthorne has his characters make attempts to change their ways, but the result is a complete failure. One can conclude that Hawthorne is trying to make a connection between the novel and the world through his eyes by his characters and their actions. According to “The House of the Seven Gables” there is no possible way for humans to change. Human society is too stubborn to change.


Hawthorne shows us how humans can’t change through his character Clifford. Clifford has a pointless life; he is empty and meaningless. Clifford tried to have a normal life but has been in jail in the past. Since his release from prison he seems to have almost regressed back into his childhood years by the way he acts. In the scene on page 119 Clifford is blowing buddles to try to get some sort of happiness out of life. His plan ultimatly backfires as some of the bubbles come into contact with Judge Pyncheon. Judge Pyncheon becomes upset and mocks Clifford saying “Aha, Cousin Clifford!” he continues with “What! Still blowing soap bubbles?’’ The manner in which he says is very sarcastic and demeaning which leaves Clifford frightened beyond belief of the judge. Clifford tried to change. He got knocked down, but instead of getting back up and trying again he quits because he is too afriad of Judge Pyncheon. This is a prime example of how Hawthorne does not believe in real change within human society.



Hawthorne demonstrates his point again on page 117. At this point Clifford and Hepzibah try to go to church, but they can’t because they both cannot change their ways. Both Clifford and Hepzibah get several steps out of the door way, then decide that neither one of them cannot make it to church. They feel as if they were “ghosts” because they are so empty. Hawthorne describes the inside of their house as being “Tenfold more dismal, and their air closer and heavier, for the glimpse and breath of freedom which they had just snatched.” By saying this, the reader can figure that both Hepzibah and Clifford realize that they cannot change. They both feel more depressed and almost ill by going back into their house. Hawthorne continues to describe the situation by saying “For, what other dungeon is so dark as one’s own heart! What jailer so inexorable as one’s self!” Hawthorne showing the reader that Clifford and Hepizbah are trapped in their own jail. The jail that is described is their inability to change. Hawthorne is telling the reader that as a society we must be able to truly change or we will be trapped like we see with Hepzibah and Clifford.



We see that the only successful Pyncheon is Judge Pyncheon. The judge was able to change the so called bad luck of the Pyncheon family because he was willing to go out of his way to change. He worked through his hardships and was able to suceed in life. This is unlike Clifford and Hepzibah who are too stubborn to change their ways and show signs of laziness. The Judge used his passion and mental toughness to change and become a successful Pyncheon.



Are these ideas too harsh to say? According to “The House of the Seven Gables” these ideas are a fair assessment of human nature. If these ideas are not believed then they would not appear so much in the text of the novel. Hawthorne contradicts his ideas to show the reader that change can be achieved, but not without hardwork and some sort of struggle.

3 comments:

jim abbott said...

Sean,

Your first paragraph starts of well as you successfully state the thesis of your paper. The paragraph gets confusing towards the end as you begin to repeat yourself. The last sentence is exactly like a sentence earlier in the paragraph and it can be removed.

The second paragraph provides an excellent example of change, but it seems like you summarized a little too much in the beginning. Also, you should elaborate on what type of change Clifford was making, and how they were positive strides.

The third paragraph is another good example for your thesis. Here I think you should elaborate on the significance of Hebzipah and Clifford leaving the house and going to church. This would be a huge moment for the Pyncheons if they were able to end their affiliation to the house. It seems like you skipped over the significance of it and instead quoted passages of the book. The passages add to your point, but i feel that you could add on to your point a little more.

The fourth paragraph is confusing because the Judge did not become powerful from hard work alone, there was much foul play in his success. The is more of an antagonist in this book than a protagonist so talking about his positive change does not help your point. Due to this, I would leave this paragraph out the paper, since it does not really correlate with your topic.

Lastly the final paragraph is very confusing because you seem to totally contradict yourself. In the beginning you say that Hawthorne shows that there is no possible way to change. In your last paragraph you then state that change can be achieved through hard work. I would change this final paragraph to stay true with your thesis.

Sean Osterman said...

Sean Osterman
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in English Composition
9/10/08
Real Change
In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The House of the Seven Gables” there are many instances where the narrator shows the reader how stubborn human nature can be. Hawthorne has his characters make attempts to change their ways, but the result is a complete failure. One can conclude that Hawthorne is trying to make a connection between the novel and the world through his eyes by his characters and their actions. According to “The House of the Seven Gables” there is no possible way for humans to change.

Hawthorne shows us how humans can’t change through his character Clifford. Clifford has a pointless life; he is empty and meaningless. Clifford tried to have a normal life but has been in jail in the past. Since his release from prison he seems to have almost regressed back into his childhood years by the way he acts. In the scene on page 119 Clifford is blowing buddles to try to get some sort of happiness out of life. He is doing this to try to change and to have something to look forward to instead of always being so depressed. His plan ultimatly backfires as some of the bubbles come into contact with Judge Pyncheon. Judge Pyncheon becomes upset and mocks Clifford saying “Aha, Cousin Clifford!” he continues with “What! Still blowing soap bubbles?’’ The manner in which he says is very sarcastic and demeaning which leaves Clifford frightened beyond belief of the judge. Clifford tried to change. He got knocked down, but instead of getting back up and trying again he quits because he is too afriad of Judge Pyncheon. This is a prime example of how Hawthorne does not believe in real change within human society.

Hawthorne demonstrates his point again on page 117. At this point of the novel Clifford and Hepzibah are trying to change by going to church with the rest of the town. This would be a huge turning point in the battle to change. If they are able to go to church then they will have broken the so called curse of Matthew Maul and they can then begin to grow as human beings. Ultimatly they can only get several steps out of the door because they are incapable of changing. They feel as if they were “ghosts” because they are so empty. Hawthorne describes the inside of their house as being “Tenfold more dismal, and their air closer and heavier, for the glimpse and breath of freedom which they had just snatched.”This line from the novel indicates that both Clifford and Hepzibah are almost sick because they realize that they are inable to change. They both feel more depressed by going back into their house. Hawthorne continues to describe the situation by saying “For, what other dungeon is so dark as one’s own heart! What jailer so inexorable as one’s self!” Hawthorne is showing the reader that Clifford and Hepizbah are trapped in their own jail. The jail in this case is their own self because they cannot change and grow as people. Hawthorne is telling the reader that as a society we must be able to truly change or we will be trapped like we see with Hepzibah and Clifford.

Are these ideas too harsh to say? Not according to Hawthorne, who is a firm believer in them and he clearly displays this through “The House of the Seven Gables”. One might argue that Judge Pyncheon was successful. The judge was successful because he lies and cheats people through foul play. The judge never changed his ways throughout this course of the novel; he was always a crooked human being. Hawthorne does not have one character that truly changes in the novel.

Adam Johns said...

Jim - excellent, detailed critique.

Sean - The first several paragraphs are somewhat wordy - probably 20% of the material at least could be cut without harming it. You don't do enough to explain how blowing bubbles constitutes an attempt to change. I'm not saying that you're wrong - it just could use a little more explanation.

Your discussion of page 117 is nice, but it's a problem that you focus so much on a 3-page section of the book - what about the train ride, for instance? You needed to look more broadly for examples, certainly with some attention paid to the end of the book.

A bigger problem is the fact that your narrow claim -- that Clifford and Hephzibah can't change -- doesn't really imply your broader claims in any way that I can follow. Take this line: "Hawthorne is telling the reader that as a society we must be able to truly change or we will be trapped like we see with Hepzibah and Clifford." This sounds like a reasonable idea, but you don't explain it - the core of your argument is an implication. The same is the case with your claims in the final paragraph - your careful discussion of pages 117 and 119 doesn't necessarily lead to all the conclusions you make.

I feel like if you had responded to Jim's criticism of your paragraph on the Judge by *making that argument in detail*, instead of cutting it, that would have been very helpful to the paper.