Comments on: Hawthorn’s “The Birthmark” and “Rappaccinni’s Daughter” and the pursuit of perfection

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:52:31 +0000

In general I don’t discount modern psychological thought; however, I believe that it is fool-hardy to continually reinterpret literature using techniques that focus on things the original authors didn’t intend.

In this case specifically, I don’t believe that Crews or Fetterly represent the intent of Hawthorne. In at least the case of Crews, after he wrote the book discussed above, he became a fierce critic of using the Freudian interpretation of Hawthorne’s writing.

While reinterpretations are possible, I think to often they twist the author’s words to suit their own ends.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:50:22 +0000

Okay, now that I finished: you seem to minimize the (post-)modern reinterpretations of Hawethorne’s work and argue from a more classical/psychological point of view. Any particular reason?

It seems to me that it is fool-hardy to ignore reinterpretations of older works of literature as the progressions of physchological and social create alternative interpretations of them.

I’m not saying you are wrong in discounting feminist and freudian interpretations of Hawthornian literature, I just wonder why, in a more general sense, you do it, and is it only these particular pieces of fiction that you interpret this way?

By: Terry Finley

Terry Finley — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:14:46 +0000

Great. Thanks for sharing.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:46:47 +0000

Wow, that is a long post. I only got halfway through so far, but it is worth it.

I love this site because of posts like this and your other non-standard fair. Keep up the good work.

(I’ve a few comments to make when I finish it )