Analysis Of Article By Fred C. Adams “Blood Vengeance In The Scarlet Letter”
Fred C. Adams, in the essay “Blood Vengeance in The Scarlet Letter” maintains that while the novel itself depicts no shedding of blood, this significant motif highlights the Puritans’ need for new blood to revitalize their current society. Writing for an audience of literary critics who appreciate an unorthodox claim about a novel typically analyzed in conventional terms, Adams supports his argument by describing the various ways that Hawthorne uses blood in the novel figuratively rather than literally. While Adams makes a convincing case that Hester achieves her “blood vengeance” on the Puritan society by removing her daughter Pearl, a symbol of new blood and revitalization, from the colony, his organizational structure, unbalanced support for counterarguments, and evidence from secondary sources confuse the reader and detract from the effectiveness of his thesis. The author chooses an organization structure for his essay that seems counterproductive and confusing, so much so that the reader may interpret several different ideas as the thesis before actually reaching the main point. The main thesis of the article – Pearl “represents a potential that remains unfulfilled for revitalizing the dry bones of Puritan Society, [and her] removal can be seen as Hester’s revenge on the colony for figuratively drawing her blood” – does not appear until the fourth page of the nine-page essay.
Beginning his essay with a variety of possible reasons for a lack of blood in the novel, Adams then proceeds to refute the interpretation of the book as “bloodless”. After these lengthy explanations, the author finally arrives at his thesis at the end of paragraph fourteen. Without careful attention to the title of the essay, the only clue to the author’s argument, the audience misses the main idea, which hides beneath extraneous information. Adams’ choice of organization makes this article difficult to understand and detracts from the primary purpose. In addition, Adams offers more succinct support for his rebuttal to counterarguments than for his thesis, also diminishing the potency of his argument. For example, he gives a considerable amount of proof to show that Hawthorne does not refrain from using blood in order to suppress “the historical record of violence that accompanied the emergence of his Puritan forebears”.
Providing evidence from “The Custom-House,” the Bible, and other works by Hawthorne including Endicott and the Red Cross, Alice Jones’s Appeal, and the House of the Seven Gables, Adams attempts to disprove the counterarguments he references. After reading quotations from all these sources, as well as a statement from writer and critic Joanne Feit Diehl, the reader has only a vague idea about Adams’ purpose. Moreover, the evidence against the three counterarguments is arguably stronger than the evidence the author includes to support his main thesis. After finally conveying his primary point, Adams then proceeds to support his thesis with convoluted support that constantly switches from evidence used to refute the counterarguments to points barely related to the novel. For instance, to make his point that the Puritans need new blood in their colony, Adams goes into a lengthy explanation of the immigrants settling in the New World at the time.
Whether discussing the immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in colonial America or Miles Coverdale in The Blithedale Romance, Adams has a very hard time staying on topic. In fact, he includes a very long quotation from The Blithedale Romance simply to show the living conditions for immigrants in Boston at the time, a fact completely irrelevant to his argument about blood vengeance. Audiences characterize the best writing as concise, easy to understand, and to the point, qualities that do not describe Adams’ article. Despite the structural weaknesses, Adams presents an accurate, albeit unorthodox, thesis. After reading Adam’s article, the audience recognizes the underlying presence and overwhelming significance of blood in the novel. Adams’ claim that Hester fulfills her revenge on the colony in taking Pearl to Europe finds proof in understanding Hester’s intention. Hester cares only for Dimmesdale and Pearl. Once Dimmesdale and Chillingworth die, “the wearer of the scarlet letter disappears, and Pearl along with her”. While Hester seems resigned to allowing the past to taint her present and limit her future, Pearl has a long life ahead of her. Taking Pearl from Boston eliminates the possibility of regenerating the Puritans’ legalistic views. After Pearl finds love and happiness in Europe, “Hester Prynne returns” to Boston of her own volition to see the effects on the community.
As Adams effectively concludes, the act of returning confirms that Hester seeks revenge on the people who “figuratively [drew] her blood” by making her wear the scarlet letter A and returns to admire her work. Especially if the only people she loves no longer reside there, such an outcast must certainly condescend to return to the place of her demise to view the damage caused by her vengeance. Thus, while the Puritans almost seem to gloat as they engrave Hester’s tombstone with the words “On a field, sable, the letter A, gules,” Hester invariably has the last laugh.
Despite the poor organization and convoluted evidence, Adams proves his claim that Hester achieves her “blood vengeance” taking Pearl away from Boston. A more direct focus on the Puritan culture and its need for fresh ideas or new “blood” would improve the value of the article. While the weaknesses of the article certainly detract from the overall effectiveness, Adams presents and supports a highly unconventional thesis. A novel like The Scarlet Letter, so rooted in history, requires a thorough understanding of the time period and the cultural nuances to further the credibility of an analysis based on a strong argument.
