Prompt: Compare O’Connor’s reading of the play to your own and assess its uses and limits. What is useful about her analysis that you would forward (and how)? What are some of its limits, in your view, and how would you counter them? You might also consider how Parks herself forwards or counters Hawthorne’s representation of Hester’s story (especially in light of what Korobkin feminist reading teaches us). Since we’re practicing the “countering” move, you’ll want to spend comparatively more time discussing the ways you’d redirect the analysis.
Response: O’Connor has an interesting take on the play, “In the Blood.” Her reading of the play focuses on how the economy and privilege of society is structured to keep perspectives down that oppose the norm. She brings in the perspective of Dolan to back up her point about what the author of the play was planning by using the “Scarlet Letter” to reach a new agenda. This perspective shows how rewriting a story is helpful in imagining how certain issues of race or privilage can be imagined in a different context than what’s available in the original story. In the “Scarlet Letter”, Hester is carefully portrayed as a white woman of Puritan society in the early U.S. Hawthorne pays close attention in his novel to keep the reader away from the idea of Hester being seen as a slave. With the act of rewriting Hester as a homeless, illiterate black woman, privilege is a clearer route to take. So with this rewriting, Parks is ultimately forwarding the story of Hester by taking the situation and bringing it to an extream and then sets her into another issue of privilege and race. I believe that Hester’s original story has nothing to do with race and instead with how Hawthorne imagines a harmonious society. With my paper, I will be talking about how Hawthorne says history is important to consider when looking to reform society. Hester doesn’t count off her history with her society because it’s part of her. Denouncing her past would cause an upheaval of peace with herself and her culture. So that’s what I feel the novel was talking about, but reimagining this story is a great mode to look at how it would be for someone in a different context as long as the original artist is cited.
Hi Vic!
As I know you are interested in social connections, I found your post to have a lot of insight. When you say, “rewriting a story is helpful in imagining how certain issues of race or privilege can be imagined in a different context than what’s available in the original story,” you caught my eye. I wonder is Hawthorne ever imagined that his work would be turned into such a racey read (no pun intended). As you discuss, it truly is so important to analyze a book in its cultural context. As Frankenstein, The Scarlett Letter always remains relevant in our culture. Do you agree?