Thursday, April 7, 2011

Hawthorne, "House of Seven Gables," Day #3

--The story has been, from the preface onward, about breaking a cycle of injustice begun with the Puritans. While the Pyncheons may have misused their temporal authority to steak the Maules land and have the first Maule killed, the Maules have also apparently misused their supernatural powers, killing Alice Pyncheon. How does the end resolve this? To what degree do you find this a satisfactory resolution?

--In the end, the politics of the two 'artist' characters seem to reverse: Clifford becomes a radical and Holgrave more conservative. What do you think Hawthorne is saying about the possibilities of radical transformation of American society here?

17 comments:

  1. Throughout the story I felt an underlying tie between Clifford and Holgrave that seemed to solidify by the end of the story. In the beginning these two characters were complete opposites. One is young and ambitious and the other old and pitiful. Holgrave seems dedicated to creating a name for himself, while Clifford is trying to salvage what little reputation he has left.

    As the story concludes, Holgrave's politics seem to dissolve and the characters seem to switch roles. It can even be inferred that Hawthourne is using Holgrave to represent what Clifford once was. In doing so, he could be hinting that Holgrave is destined to lead a similar life as Clifford's, one of disappointment and regret. Hawthourne could also be suggesting that these two political stances, radical and conservative, are not as different from each other as one might think, which holds a greater reflection upon American Society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike Flachs

    The ending of this story took a twist that I was not really expecting. Holgrave’s revelation that he is actually a descendant of Matthew Maule seemed to me a fitting ending to the saga of the two intertwined families. His relationship with Phoebe seems to bring a final resolution to the blood feud that ravaged these two families over the course of several years. Finally, the two can live in harmony. Perhaps, even a marriage between Holgrave and Phoebe will produce a child that indelibly links the two families together forever; although, this time, in a much more positive light. I found this to be satisfactory as well as pleasing. I was also delighted to see that Uncle Venner was invited to live on their newly acquired property. It is also notable that Hepzibah rewards her first and most loyal customer (Ned Higgins) with some money at the end of this story. I enjoyed the fact that Hawthorne seemed to resolve the matter of a curse as well as rewarded the respectable characters at the end of his tale.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Clifford and Holgrave represent respective extremes. Clifford is too pessimistic and Holgrave is too optimistic. Clifford believes he can do nothing, that nothing can change, and Holgrave seems to think he can change the entire world. Seems like these stances can apply to politics in generally. By reversing the roles, I think possibly Hawthorne is suggesting that politics and conventions and ideals can swing rapidly, at the same time hinting that the whole process is fairly futile. Also, by reveal Holgrave’s Maule heritage, maybe Hawthorne comments on how connected (although not always happily) two factions can be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Superficially, Holgrave and Phoebe's romance seems to be ideal. Holgrave's reform is phrased with regret, and thus it is hard to see it this way. he and phoebe's love seems real, but as we see in Ch. 20, phoebe herself protests his promise to settle down. phoebe jokes with holgrave about his desire for a stone house, but his reply is 'half melancholy,' which suggests reluctance. Holgrave seems to be held captive by the inevitable, and his once free-spirited nature is gone, and his proposal to Phoebe is seen in a less than romantic light. The passion is gone, and thus I couldn't see Clifford and Hepziah's union as well as it might've been had Holgrave didn't seem to be confined by his relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In class Wednesday, we briefly discussed Clifford, and "child-like" was one of the words written under his name on the board. I think as Clifford enters into old age, and through the course of the novel accepts this transition, he renews some of the youthful vigor in himself that the reader sees in Holgrave. Similarly, Holgrave appears to mature greatly by the end of the novel, perhaps bringing on his new conservative outlooks. By having his characters change mindsets, Hawthorne may be considering how age effects both political and artistic considerations. On the other hand, politics ideas are often varying and fluctuating. He may just be pointing out how those who profess undying loyalty to very specific and radical/traditional beliefs leave more chance for their beliefs to change, as opposed to those who have more moderate views.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With the killings of Matthew Maule and Alice Pyncheon played such a key role in each of these families, the end of the story seems to resolve both of their deaths when Holgrave and Phoebe are able to fall in love and kind of “break the curse” that seems to be hanging over each of their families. I think in a way this ending is supposed to represent the progress that has been made since the puritan times. With Holgrave having control over Phoebe towards the end of the novel and choosing not to harm her or take advantage of her in any way shows who Holgrave is as a person and the kind of integrity that he has for both his family and for what he wants for Phoebe as well. This kind of selflessness is much more progressive than the cycles of injustices that began with the Puritans. Also, I think that Hawthorne probably had a belief that love had an intense power similar to the supernatural. His language and dialogue that he uses on page 216 when Holgrave and Phoebe are having a discussion about love is very powerful and definitely seems to hold a lot of significance. Perhaps he thought the power of love was more powerful than any curse of injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was a clever way to end the book with us finding out Holgrave was a descendant of the Maule family because then when he gets together with Phoebe the feuding between families should come to an end. But it seems like now that Hepzibah and Clifford escaped the "grasp" of the house that maybe Holgrave and Phoebe will fall into the same problem. Maybe this is Hawthorne condemning Holgrave for his desire to now settle down and leave behind his old free-spirited ways.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the transformation of character's political views in the novel are representative of politics in general. By the end of the story, Holgrave is more conservative and Clifford is radical, when they started off at the opposite of the spectrum in the beginning of the story. Maybe Hawthorne is suggesting that although politics have a large influence on people's thoughts or ideas, they can still waver... there are never just two political views, conservative or liberal. There are many in between, and just because someone starts off supporting one political view doesn't mean they'll always support it forever. He is also suggesting that characters like Holgrave, who begin as radicals and have almost a revolutionary attitude, can end up conservative because of their naivety or simple laziness in choosing to "conform" by becoming conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe it’s political, the switch at the end with Clifford and Holgrave. Historically speaking, the original republicans would be classified as democrats today, and vice versa. This seems to be the whole point of the novel. Nothing lasts forever. Heredity and old houses and puritan craziness all fades/gets forgotten/changes whether they want it to or not. I forget where it was in the novel but Holgrave says something about how every half a century or so, no matter how rich a family is, they need to rejoin the real world. Things change. It’s stupid to hold onto traditions. Be self reliant. Even old guys are allowed to change.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In my opinion, the drastic switch in political views can be interpreted in several different ways. The one that I personally believe is that Hawthorne is saying that political beliefs are very abstract and rely mainly on a person's outlook on life. This makes political ideologies somewhat subjective and relative to an individual's point of view. Another possible interpretation is Hawthorne's commenting on how dynamic ideology tends to be in America, especially in regards to politics, where different ideas and attitudes are constantly shifting. A third possibility (which I consider the least likely) is that Hawthorne is criticizing political partisans who deeply adhere to their beliefs too deeply, claiming that such beliefs are ultimately futile in the long run and since they are so subject to change, they carry no merit.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not sure I find the ending satisfactory. It certain ties everything up neatly enough - the judge is dead and his property is left to Clifford; Phoebe and Holgrave are an item so the two families are joined. It just doesn't seem to end any injustice. By now we seem so far removed from the original killings that it doesn't really matter when everything is "resolved." Perhaps a curse is indeed lifted from both families and everyone's outlook is bright, but I've been primed for this ending since Holgrave said he wouldn't abuse his power over Phoebe so I can't call it satisfactory.

    I think Hawthorne is saying precisely what Clifford said when he was talking about the spiral staircase. As a society we move forward and evolve, but it always seems to come back around to the same things. You know that saying - the more things change, the more they stay the same. I think Hawthorne believes that radical change is possible, but not in the way that Holgrave suggests in the garden, but more in the way that Clifford suggests on the train. It's not going to be a replacement of ideals with every generation, but shifts and small steps that come back around.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the reveal that Holgrave is a descendent of the Maule family is a symbol that maybe America can't really move past its colonial, provincial heritage. After all, Holgrave was originally preaching the glories of total cultural revolution, an abandonment of all things old, and there's nothing more "old-fashioned" in a sort of backwards, medieval sense than in interminable blood feud between two rival families. However, the fact that the book has a relatively happy ending, with the marriage between Holgrave and Phoebe creating peace between the two families, and even ancillary characters like Venner and Ned getting what they most want, Hawthorne may be suggesting that this inability to escape the past may be a good thing, as there's still plenty of room to improve without abandoning old traditions, and indeed we may be able to learn from them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe that the change we see in both Clifford and Holgrave represents the change that can be seen in many Americans. In the beginning, I think most people tend to choose their political parties based on the views and beliefs of their families and those that are around them. People sometimes fight amongst each other based on their political beliefs, much like the two families. It isn't until later on in life that people begin to explore their own beliefs and formulate their own views, sometimes resulting in the switch of political parties, which I think is what Hawthorn is trying to demonstrate. With their new outlook on life, Holgrave becomes more radical and Clifford more conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  14. While the ending of this novel was completely satisfactory, it left me feeling a little empty. I mean, sure, in the end all the loose ends were tied up (the judge died, the Maule and Pyncheon families are united, the curse is lifted) but that seems a little happily ever after to me. I mean, how convenient that Holgrave would end up being a descendent of the Maule family. I don't know, maybe I'm just not a huge fan of neatly tied-up endings in novels. I think that with complex characters and plot it's more fun to have an ending where not everything is happy and not everyone gets what they want. After all, isn't that more like real life?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was not expecting the book to end this way at all. I never suspected Holgrave to be a Maule or for him to know where the spring was to move the picture to reveal the document that was sought after for so long. I enjoyed that Hawthorne gave the book an actual resolution, and did not leave it open ended. Sometimes I enjoy when all the ends are left a little loose, but in this instance, I was glad he tied them all up. I hope that Phoebe and Holgrave can get married, and have a son or daughter, which will also mean that the two families will be linked together, whether they like it or not. Although, I don’t see why they would not be ok with this linkage now that everything has been resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was not expecting the story to end the way it did, and I’m a little disappointed. To me, this ending had the ultimate fairytale/Disney ending, where everything just happens to fall into place perfectly for the characters. Phoebe and Holgrave finally get together. The judge dies and leaves everything to Clifford. And then when Holgrave finally realizes that he’s a descendent from Matthew Maule, it seemed to be the final puzzle piece we’ve been waiting for, but not anticipating. I suppose everything is “resolved,” but I felt that there was no resolution to the injustice. I’m not sure how exactly I was expecting the book to end, but this definitely was not it.

    Emily Miller

    ReplyDelete
  17. I completely agree with Emily with the post right before mine. I was completely disappointed with the ending of the book, as it wasn't resolution. Yes, the story lines were wrapped up, but in such an over-the-top manner that it felt artificial. While Hawthorne may have set out to write a book that did not have a morale to it (and while I agree that the story wasn't moralistically driven), it may as well have been, as he still skewered the story by ending the story with such a tidy conclusion that is easily digestible.

    ReplyDelete