Posthumous Rating of Hawthorne and “Young Goodman Brown” This essay intends to trace the main literary criticism of the author, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and “Young Goodman Brown”since the author’s death in 1864. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s acclamation as a great writer by both critics and the general public was not an overnight occurrence. The Norton Anthology: American Literature states that “he was agonizingly slow in winning acclaim” (547). Initially, of course, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s literary works went unranked among those of other American and British writers. But his reputation grew gradually even among contemporary critics, until he was recognized as a “man of genius.” The question in this essay is this: How does he and “Young Goodman Brown” fare since 1864 when Hawthorne died.
Soon critics, students, and the general public were reading his novels and stories, and greeting some of them as masterpieces. In 1927, American novelist William Faulkner declared that Moby Dick was the book he most wished he had written. Knowing the quality of his work, one can not help but feel sympathetic to Melville's passing. He died on September 28, 1891 in his home in New York City, still unknown by the general public. If any writer deserved to be recognized and praised during their lives, Melville is that writer.
His first novel, Fanshawe, was unsuccessful and Hawthorne himself disavowed it as amateurish. However, he wrote several successful short stories, including "My Kinsman, Major Molyneaux," "Roger Malvin's Burial" and "Young Goodman Brown." However, insufficient earnings as a writer forced Hawthorne to enter a career as a Boston Custom House measurer in 1839. After three years Hawthorne was dismissed from his job with the Salem Custom House. By 1842 his writing amassed Hawthorne a sufficient income for him to marry Sophia Peabody and move to The Manse in Concord, which was at that time the center of the Transcendental movement.
The American Romanticism ended in 1865 but left us great literature that is timeless and never gets old or bad. Edgar A. Poe had a very hard life, many of his writings are dark, sad and a little obscure. I do not think that he decided to write like this because of his past, but I do think it is related or maybe he just enjoyed inventing puzzles for his readers. Like I said in previous works the Cask of Amontillado is one of the best short stories ever written. The combination of suspense, mystery and horror kept the reader intrigue until the end.
The book was a great success, for Melville had visited a part of the world almost unknown to Americans, and his descriptions of his bizarre experiences suited the taste of a romantic age. As he wrote Melville became conscious of deeper powers. In 1849 he began a systematic study of Shakespeare, pondering the bard's intuitive grasp of human nature. Like Hawthorne, Melville could not accept the prevailing optimism of his generation. Unlike his friend, he admired Emerson, seconding the Emersonian demand that Americans reject European ties and develop their own literature.
The translator attributes Pechorin's capriciousness to the lack of employment for his gifts. I do not agree with that assessment, as it has been my experience that only those who have made up their minds to lack direction will be unable to find an activity that occupies their mind and appeals to them. One possible pursuit would be some form of art. Skill matters little, if the activity is pleasing. Cultural appreciation, gastronomical excess, or sexual exercise would all be suitable endeavors.
First off, there is no uniform standard for how each person should pity another. While one person might refrain from kicking a man when he’s down, another, less agreeable individual might not do the pitiful man the same favor. Furthermore, this lack of standard mixed with the condition of absolute freedom can easily lead to a Hobbesian state of war. Life in such a state would truly be “nasty, brutish, and short;” society must be formed to prevent such a paltry condition. And finally, as Rousseau suggests, the savage man is devoid of thought.
His points really lie in the peripherals of the text, as part of the vagueness and misrepresentation of reality itself. By purposely being ambiguous, deceptive, and sometimes meaningless, Heart of Darkness ironically demonstrates language’s inability to convey truth and meaning and consequently its tendency to deceive. Most noted for use of language in Heart of Darkness is Kurtz, whom Marlow regards as remarkable purely for his ability to speak eloquently. At one point in his journey, realizing Kurtz is likely to be dead, Marlow states: “I didn't say to myself, 'Now I will never see him,' or 'Now I will never shake him by the hand,' but, 'Now I will never hear him’” (Conrad 123). Yet when one consciously examines what Kurtz actually says in the novel, it becomes apparent that although his words sound artistic and profound, they are in reality incredibly ambiguous and devoid of meaning.
His style is wordy, and filled with unnecessary explanations. His poor use of metaphors leads to misunderstanding, taking away from literary meaning. Glaring examples of vain attempts at elegance appear throughout Hawthorne’s works. Because of his narrow subject base and devoted focus to negligible topics, Hathorne is no longer relevant to contemporary reader bases. Of the classic authors Nathaniel Hawthorne’s works are the poorest of quality because of the nature of his overzealous composure, uninterested writing style, and contemporary
When reading “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”, there is no doubt at all that Elliot has indeed, created the most distinguishable anti-hero. Prufrock is shy, timid, haunted by thoughts degraded by failure, indecisive, pessimistic, self-conscious, and overall pathetic. He has a horrible, distorted view on society and feeling sympathy for the man is almost inescapable. Prufrock will never be the hero. His self-doubting and cynical nature, bundled with suppression and a melancholy attitude towards life is leading only to a future full of isolation and loneliness.