I actually found myself enjoying the story line once I got accustomed to reading the old English. It was indeed one of the more challenging books to understand. BUT!!! I ultimately fell in love with Hester and Pearl because of the extremely vivid and descriptive wordings that portrayed their emotions. Hester is such a strong-minded woman! Her determination and courage in the face of adversity are truly inspiring. I would highly recommend this book to those who are ready and willing to take on a challenge. It offers a unique and thought-provoking look into a bygone era. All in all, I really enjoyed reading it and would encourage others to give it a try. :)

Many people view Nathaniel Hawthorne as a perplexing and intricate writer. His works often seem to be veiled in a certain mystery, making it a challenge for readers to fully understand his intentions. However, this particular novel stands out as it manages to answer numerous questions regarding the concept of remaking oneself. It delves deep into the internal thought processes of his characters, providing a fascinating glimpse into their psyches.

I found this novel to be truly captivating. It not only engaged my mind but also touched my heart. The way Hawthorne portrays the struggles and triumphs of his characters is both realistic and inspiring. Each character undergoes a journey of self-discovery and transformation, which makes the story all the more compelling.

Based on my personal experience, I wholeheartedly recommend this novel to others. Whether you are a fan of Hawthorne's works or simply looking for a thought-provoking read, this novel is sure to satisfy. It will make you question your own beliefs and values and encourage you to embark on your own journey of self-improvement.

When I read this book in high school, I struggled through a couple of meaningless symbols with great bitterness. I wrote some half-hearted papers about "The question of morality," and simply shrugged off what I had regarded as a cliché and overdone little story.

However, upon a re-introduction to the novel in college, I was confronted not with Hawthorne's dramatic "social commentary," but rather with his HUMOR!! I instantly fell in love with the antics of the 'demon-child,' and couldn't help but laugh at Hester's subtle attitude. Generally speaking, I was just completely blown away by how much I had missed during my high school reading.

I assume that most readers have been compelled to read it in their youth.

Please. For the sake of the neglected laughter: read it again!

Who would have thought that a book about shame, adultery, and isolation could present such scenes that would make me, the unsuspecting reader, laugh aloud at the pleasantly subversive humor scattered throughout the shadows? It truly is a remarkable discovery that has changed my perception of this classic work.

Please provide the article that needs to be rewritten and expanded so that I can help you.

This novel is not just a classic; it's a myth, a cult. To fully explore this romance, we'd need to delve into countless levels and details, and thousands of pages might not suffice. I'll focus on the child, Pearl, and then expand the discussion to the novel's historical value.

We must remember that the twelve gates of the messianic Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation are twelve pearls in a wall of jasper on twelve precious gem foundations.

18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 21:18-21, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)

The child, Pearl, is thus the gate to this messianic Jerusalem that the Puritans claimed to be building in New England. Notice the great pretension of these Puritans, as this future Jerusalem must be Messianic, revealed by the Messiah, Jesus, after his Second Coming, the Apocalypse, and the Last Judgment on Doomsday. This gives the fundamental meaning of the child in the book: She is a direct criticism of any puritan, moralistic, fundamentalist approach to religion, as we would say today. Especially since Pearl disappears at the end of the book and exists elsewhere, which we understand to be England since Roger Chillingworth gave her land in America and England. Anyway, Boston was certainly not the Messianic Jerusalem the Puritans had in mind, and this rejection is based on the blasphemous nature of their pretention. They made themselves a direct embodiment of Jesus Christ and God, pretending to be Jesus Christ and God.

This is fundamental. The book was published in 1850, and at that time, it was clear that there was no separation between the state and the church in the USA. There was no separation between the state and religion, and this is still true today. But at that time, there was no separation of the state and the church in general, not just one particular denominational church. Anyone could be a member of the church of their choice, within the limits of the area where they lived, resided, and worked, but the state was a direct emanation of the church in general, an abstract omni-denominational church that excluded the Jews and the Catholics. The exclusion of the Muslims was, of course, "natural." The end of the book is typical: the new governor on Election Day had to be instated by a sermon by the preacher and minister of the (only) local church. We must clearly understand that this story may be set one century before or more, under English rule, but it is "revealed" to the public in 1850 and is in line with that public. That's where the USA comes from and how they were depicted in 1850.

The second element is that Pearl is seen as unchristian because she is born out of "fornication" and "adultery," though in fact, it is out of passion and love. This is clearly shown by the rejection she and her mother are forced to endure, as if this Pearl, who should open onto the Messianic Jerusalem and the trees of life that bear twelve crops of fruit a year and whose leaves are the cure for the nations:

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. (King James Bible, Book of Revelation 22:2-4, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/..., accessed December 29, 2016)

But this Boston could not be seen as such a Messianic Jerusalem since it opened onto the wilderness or, at best, the ocean, as Pearl lived on a peninsula. There is no cure in Boston for those who are not perfect according to the decrees of the Puritans. There is no forgiveness, no tolerance, and no freedom. One essential Christian value is missing, and that is love. This story is a love story in Puritan garb or under Puritan duress. It is the glorification of love that is stronger than anything else, than any punishment, estrangement, or rejection. Note that Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale did not commit any sin against Roger Chillingworth since he had disappeared and been "captured" by Indians and did not reappear until two years after Hester Prynne's public exposure on the scaffold. The sin lies in the fact that they did not respect the proper rules, such as making their love public and sanctified by a marital rite. But it is love, and this is clearly explained during their meeting in the forest when they decide to leave Boston.

It is important here to understand a common trick of the 19th century and the play on names. Chillingworth is simple: he brings the chill of dying and death. He is worth the chilling experience of mental torture. Dimmesdale is also simple since he is a dale of dimmer existence and things, the dale of unpublicized love, the dale of secret penance and punishment. But Hester Prynne is quite another story. We could be satisfied with the Biblical Book Esther and the Jewish character who became queen and saved the Jewish people during the Babylonian exile. She thus becomes the savior of the community of Boston, the New Jerusalem, and the Puritans themselves. But that's not enough. Hester comes from Oistir in Welsh and Irish tradition and has a Germanic origin where it is connected with a beech tree and is a reduced Anglicized form of a Gaelic word, Ó hOistir ‘descendant of Oistir.’ This last element is complicated in Irish tradition. Hester then represents the end of an exclusion, the final redemption beyond the curse. Hence, the Puritan tradition would be identified as a curse.

If we go back to the "beech," another connection has to be developed in the runic tradition. Two runes refer to a beech tree, both meaning black. "Nauthiz" carries a bunch of key concepts, and "Peorth" has a very dense meaning. This gives Hester a tremendous power in the story. She is fate and will bring down the Puritan dictatorship in the fields of love, mental and sentimental freedom, and through her daughter, she will bring salvation, at least escape. And her surname "Prynne" is also meaningful. The origin is Norman, and the name was introduced by the Normans after Hastings in 1066. It was given as a baptismal name to the firstborn male child of a family. Some suggest it may be a nickname for one with "lordly airs," but this seems unlikely. The similarity with the surnames "Prince" and "Prime" cannot be avoided. Thus, she is the person of first importance who will lead this Puritan settlement to salvation.

To go back to Pearl, she is also the symbol of what must accompany forgiveness and love, which is repentance, but not the repentance imposed as a punishment on the "sinner" but the repentance that comes from the soul, from God, from the heart. The book clearly shows that public repentance, though here imposed, is torture but a bearable torture that strengthens the victim of the punishment, while secret repentance is an unbearable self-inflicted torture that gnaws at the heart, soul, and body of the person refused the possibility of public repentance. At the same time, the book hints at the possibility that Roger Chillingworth used his knowledge of plants to slowly poison Arthur Dimmesdale to satisfy his vengeance. And this is because there is no forgiveness in this society, no possibility for the sinner, regardless of who he is and what position he holds, to be forgiven if he repairs the harm he has done. Pearl becomes the symbol of this forgiveness at the end of the novel, the being who is willing to forgive publicly in front of those who had refused to forgive for more than seven years. Her desire to be held by the Minister in front of everyone and her desire to hold the Minister and eventually kiss him and let him kiss her was a constant demand from her to her mother.

In other words, Pearl becomes the signpost on the road to love and some kind of angel or even archangel who shows the way to human salvation. God's salvation is always on the side of repentance, reparation, forgiveness, and love, never on the side of permanent or irreversible human punishment. In fact, the only judge is God, and God has entrusted humanity with the mission to enable sinners to repent and be forgiven, not to punish, torture, or execute. This religious meaning is obvious throughout and can only be the conclusion at the end. If Hester returns to Boston, it is to prove that the redemption has worked, that they have learned how to forgive the sins of others. Note that it is never said or hinted that by forgiving the sins of others, you open the possibility of your own sins being forgiven by the same others. This egocentric way of forgiving is not Christian and is not envisaged in this book.

Pearl is thus the symbol of an open reading of the Gospels and, in a way, the signpost on the road to a better future for human beings on earth. This better future is definitely expressed by the post-mortem contrition and repentance of Hester's first husband, who adopts Pearl as his heiress, thus making her his own child. His repentance comes after seven years of vengeance, but it does come, and he is the only one to repent among the hostile people in Boston. Although the lack of hostility against Hester after her return seems to indicate a change has occurred, and Hester is there to remind everyone of the "episode" since she will be wearing her Scarlet Letter until death, which in fact unites them forever.

If the sinners' child, Pearl, is redeemed at the end of the book and escapes the punishing Puritans, it is because she represents light, sunshine, God's illumination. She is the star that should lead us on the way to the future on earth and beyond: forgiveness and love. We must all respect love as a divine and sacred value that is stronger than any law, rule, habit, or custom. The lack, if not the refusal, of respect for love is the direst and ugliest sin a human being, a creature of God, can commit. Hawthorne is the author who best illuminates the worst gothic context and creates a shiny romance with the darkest and bleakest material. And this romance becomes the testimony that in the middle of the 19th century, a change was taking place in the USA: the recognition of the freedom to love not just as a simple Christian obligation but as a human dimension. This emphasis shows a debate at the time not only on love and society but also on the concept of God himself.

The concept of God is ever present but never really expressed and specified in words. Not a single sermon by Arthur Dimmesdale is ever given. The final Election Sermon is only indirectly evoked. The concept of God is obviously that of the punishing God of the Puritans, founded on the vision of Him we can get from many biblical texts or many Christian or non-Christian documents from the first century CE, after Jesus' death, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This very strict respect for the Law and its requirements has always survived in Christianity as a dark background for many centuries and then as a reference when Puritanism emerged as a religion per se. One is pure or one isn't. If one is pure, one must not in any way live with someone who is not pure, and if someone is not pure, the community of the pure ones (which does not include the non-pure ones who are expelled from the community) has to reject him or her, and this rejection must become God's punishment, not human but entirely divine. This punishment has to be both public and totally interiorized. And here is one of the most important themes of the novel: Hester can satisfy these two characteristics with the scarlet letter and her interiorization of her "sin." But her lover, who is condemned by her (is it only her or do they agree on that point?) to remain unknown, can only be punished inside his own self, so he can only punish himself.

This excuses the "husband" who will avenge himself on this lover because this "husband" will become the punishing tool used by God. Yet, the interiorization of the punishment by the lover himself will enable him to evade and escape the vengeance of this "husband" by making his sin, his contrition, and his reparation public on the scaffold with Hester and Pearl, and the "husband" will ultimately be frustrated in his vengeance and punished in turn. Is that God's punishment?

Yet, there is another concept of God emerging and ever present in the novel. It is the concept of a God of love. Love is threefold in this perspective. It is sensual first and can lead to sin when not controlled and when it breaks a moral rule. Then it is love coming from human reason, which can lead to insanity when a social reasonable rule is broken and no repair can be found, and there is no repair except through a social punishment that does not repair anything but is a repayment for the unreasonable fault. Finally, it is also spiritual, and in this dimension, love becomes Christian because it leads to forgiveness and love for one's enemies and love beyond mistakes and faults.

This love calls for repentance but not for punishment, at least not in the hands of men. Repentance is a great privilege for someone who "sins," but repentance has to be public to lead to forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness in society, their God is not a truly Christian God. If there is no repentance on the side of the "sinner," he or she is not Christian since they refuse to be forgiven or make forgiveness impossible. We can see that Hester, in her repentance, leads the whole community to forgive her, while Arthur, her lover, unable to repent publicly, is forced to repent in silence in his own soul without any possible forgiveness from anyone.

If there is no forgiveness, there is no salvation possible, there is no Christian solution. This leads to the ending of this book: Arthur is literally forced to live his repentance as a slow sacrifice in the eyes of God: he has to die to redeem himself, his society, Hester, and Pearl, to "crucify" himself on the scaffold with his women at his feet. But what about Hester, who needs Arthur's sacrifice to be fully redeemed in the novel? And what about Pearl, who can only find the strength to kiss her father, forgive him, and love him when the sacrifice comes to an end? Is Hester vain and selfish in her human love for Arthur by condemning him to suffer in silence? Is Pearl beyond any Christian definition in her inability to love her father except when it is too late to save him? Is the romance a condemnation of puritanism and a vindication of human sensuality and sensitivity as the only way to redeem humanity? Is the concept of God limited in time and space? And then is the future godless?

These questions, which you are free to answer as you wish, show that a tremendous turning point has been reached in American history and probably in human history. But the point that must be made is that hardly ten years later, history will completely turn this perspective upside down. Indians are seen as marginal or rejected to the wild forest in this book, with the distant and undescribed exception of Apostle Eliot and his Indian converts who live far from Boston. But slaves are not even mentioned, not even as indentured workers who were common in New England at the time of the story. And history will come back to this emerging love concept with the Civil War and one extra century of segregation and an unspecified number of decades more of PTSS, and we have not reached the end of this long-lasting hatred, un-forgiveness, and lack of justice.

The freedom of love may not be that simple to develop in any society, a human society torn between the two sides of man or woman, the loving nature of human beings some call libido and the death instinct often articulated on the survival instinct of the human species. But yet, it is the first expression of the freedom of love in modern society, and as such, it is just as dramatic as Romeo and Juliet, but perhaps less tragic. There is hope somewhere in this story, whereas I don't see any in Romeo and Juliet.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

First of all, I'm not entirely certain as to why this particular novel is included in the curriculum of American high schools. The themes it presents are of such great complexity that they are far beyond the comprehension of most high school students, let alone the ability to empathize with them. This is precisely the reason why there are successive generations of students who detest this novel.

Sadly, it is indeed one of the greatest novels ever written. However, so many people have been put off by it simply because they were exposed to it at too young an age. They will never have the opportunity to savor the beautifully crafted sentences or be swayed by the narrator's conflicting attitude towards his characters. It is highly improbable that they will understand that Hester was a feminist or even what patriarchy truly means.

I consider myself fortunate that I did not read it during high school. If I had, I would not have been able to appreciate the subtle humor and the profound pain that these characters are experiencing, nor would I have understood how society has influenced and shaped their experiences. I can't wait to pick it up again in 20 years' time and see how my perspective on it has changed....

On November 7, 2012, it started out a bit boring. One had to get used to the language, and I had also expected something else to happen based on what I had heard about it. But once it got going, it just got better and better.

The story was good, and although I had heard a lot about the book, I was surprised by how it ended. Overall, it was also easy to get through. There were places where the way it was written made it difficult to be excited about it, but there weren't so many places that it made it bad.

I think that despite the initial slowness, the book managed to draw me in and keep my interest. The ending was a pleasant surprise, and it made me appreciate the story even more. While there were some parts that could have been more engaging, the overall quality of the book was still quite good.

Maybe it's not a masterpiece, but it's definitely a book that I would recommend to others who are interested in this genre. It has its flaws, but it also has its strengths, and I think that it's worth giving it a try.

Hawthorne's writing is truly amazing.

His descriptions are so vivid that they seem to bring the scenes and characters to life right before our eyes. The way he is able to express the complexity of the human mind through words and images is simply remarkable.

I had completely forgotten about his feminist stance in the novel, and it was truly intriguing to rediscover it.

As I delved deeper into the story, I began to notice the subtle ways in which he presented the female characters and their struggles.

It made me realize how ahead of his time Hawthorne was in his understanding and portrayal of gender issues.

His works not only offer a fascinating glimpse into the past but also have the power to make us reflect on our own society and values today.

Overall, I am once again in awe of Hawthorne's literary genius and look forward to exploring more of his works in the future.

Because of the confusing and archaic language, I had an extremely difficult time reading this book.

It seemed as if the words were from a bygone era, making it a real struggle to understand the intended meaning.

Moreover, I felt very little to no connection to the characters.

They appeared to be rather two-dimensional and lacked the depth and complexity that would have made them more relatable.

To make matters worse, I found their actions to be completely inconsistent with their personalities and backgrounds.

One moment a character would act in a certain way that seemed in line with their established traits, and the next moment they would do something completely unexpected and out of character.

This made it hard for me to fully engage with the story and left me feeling rather frustrated and disappointed.

Overall, the combination of the difficult language and the unconvincing characters made this book a less than enjoyable read for me.

Pleasantly surprising!

Originally, I picked up this book (school assignment, of course) with the anticipation that it would merely be a dry psychological analysis of punishment and Puritan society. However, to my great delight, it evolved into a captivating love story filled with interesting and complex characters.

The tale is indeed very sad. There is no glimmer of hope for a happy future for Hester and Dimmesdale. Their love is doomed from the start, caught in the web of Puritanical strictures and moral condemnation.

Despite the tragic nature of their relationship, the story is compelling, drawing the reader in and making them empathize with the characters' struggles. It makes one reflect on the power of love and the consequences of living in a society that is so unforgiving.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by this book, and it has left a lasting impression on me.

One of my all-time favorite books is [book title].

I first read it in high school English class. At that time, I was so lazy that I actually rented the Demi Moore craptastic film adaptation to get (an incorrect) synopsis.

Thankfully, I re-read it in college and discovered that it was filled with fascinating ideas. These ideas mainly revolve around women, how they conform to what their culture expects them to be, and the freedom that comes with living marginally.

In fact, these ideas inspired me so much that I wrote my senior honors thesis on them. And to my delight, the A I received wasn't the stigmatizing badge of horror it was meant to be.

Moreover, I truly love Hawthorne's writing style, which is economical and wastes no words. His concise yet powerful prose makes the story even more engaging and thought-provoking.

Overall, this book has had a profound impact on me and continues to be a source of inspiration and reflection.

I am not as big a fan of Hawthorne as I am of Poe, but I truly loved this story.

It makes me realize that every one of us can find ourselves in a situation where we are ostracized for something.

Whether we are actually guilty of the offense or not doesn't seem to matter much.

It could be a case where what happened was objectively right or wrong, but that doesn't stop others from treating us differently.

Sometimes, an event that might have been the best thing to happen in our lives can be twisted by others' opinions, and we might even start to believe them.

This story really hits home and makes us think about how easily we can be judged and pushed aside, and how important it is to stay true to ourselves and our own experiences, regardless of what others may say or do.

It's a powerful reminder that we should not let the opinions of others define us or our worth.