The Blog of Elaine Wang

Elaine Wang
Carpenter
American Literature Honors 6
15 January 2016

In his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama reflects on his regrets, but also expresses his desires for the future. He explains his beliefs on what is truly American leadership and democracy, and criticizes the the lack of unity and motivation for a better nation. Obama’s use of anaphora and parallelism, coupled with logical, ego-boosting statements, allow him to present a more persuasive and well rounded argument of what he believes America should carry on to become.

Obama first addresses the issue of America’s constant involvement with other countries, but spins it in a way in which it appeals to the people’s greatest ethos: themselves. He makes it so that America’s involvement with other countries is not about charity and wasting resources, but rather about themselves. Obama employs anaphora and parallel structure with the phrase “when we” followed by a positively connotated verb. America “leads”, “helps”, “defends” all these other nations not only because it’s the “right thing to do”, but because it is helpful to America and its citizens. He does this because not everyone believes that these actions are the “right thing to do”, and these beliefs are cause for rampant distrust and lack of confidence in American leadership.

Obama is appealing to both sides of the argument when he states that politics should not be based upon race or religion because “diversity” and “openness” is what makes America strong and worthy of respect, not political correctness. He references Pope Francis when he states that insults to others simply because they are different is “just wrong”. Through this reference, Obama is appealing and increasing the credibility of his words in the eyes of the religious side of many Americans. He connects this idea back to his statements of America’s position in the world; the diversity and openness America is known for will become more and more disparaged if politics are reduced to “imitat[ing] the hatred and violence of tyrants” and calling fellow citizens belittling names. These actions don’t do anything to make America safer, it only “diminishes us in the eyes of the world”.

The president further expresses his beliefs on what has become of America’s democracy, and the effects that lack of unity in the nation will result in in the future. Through repetition and slight cataplexis, Obama repeats that democracy will break down if all that is heard is of the “rich or the powerful”. If all that is heard is of “the most extreme” voices. He is calling the people to raise their opinions and is especially appealing to the minority citizens that “feel their voice doesn’t matter”. Obama continues to make his speech more and more personal as he uses the words “us” and “I”; he states, “my fellow Americans,” saying that he cannot change America on his own. No president, or congressman, or senator can. “We” have to do it together. Again using anaphora, Obama starts consecutive sentences with “we” as to give the impression that everyone can do something to make America better because nobody can do it alone, no matter how rich or powerful they are. While, he states, it is easier to remain “cynical” and “accept that change is not possible”, by doing so, “we” are forsaking a better future, and—tying his final words back to his first point—apathy only serves to “contradict[] everything that makes us the envy of the world”.

Ultimately, through his final address, Obama uses various rhetorical devices—such as anaphora and appeal to ego—as a means to convince America that a lot of what he did was for the sake of preserving American leadership, but he follows by stating that despite what it seems, no one person can do such a great task alone. He humbles himself by comparing his regrets with the successes of Lincoln or Roosevelt, but he ultimately leaves his listeners with the idea that their voices matter and that they shouldn’t take the easy path of cynicality, and keep America a nation to be envious of through, not only militaristic strength, but also leadership, diversity, and acceptance.

Elaine Wang
Carpenter
American Literature Honors 6
16 September 2015

John Winthrop: A Model of Christian Charity

In “A Model of Christian Charity”, John Winthrop’s use of  rhetorical foil, of those chosen by God and those not, illustrates the idea of American Exceptionalism and unity. His speech refers to the reasons why God created people with different social positions, stating that, in order to avoid “shipwreck”, there must be unity as “one man”. Winthrop cites the community as part of the same body, all in the purpose of serving God, and this unity would then be blessed by God as “[they] shall find that the God of Israel is among [them]”. The idea that God will aid them in their pursuit as America is watched upon as “a city upon a hill” further suggests that Winthrop bought into the idea of American Exceptionalism, and God chose the specific people on the ship, Arbella, to colonize America. Yet Winthrop also states that if America should fail with “the eyes of all people [] upon [them]”,  God’s work would have been in vain and He would “withdraw His present help”, making them a notorious legend that enemies would cite in order to refute and “speak evil” of God.

Elaine Wang
Carpenter
American Literature Honors 6
19 October 2015

The Scarlet Letter Literary Analysis: Pearl as the Antithesis to Puritanism

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter, most characters are created as subjects under Puritan ideals, yet Pearl, the daughter of the women most toiled by the judgments of Puritanism, is the character who is able to defy those ideals. Hawthorne presents Pearl as the antithesis to Puritan values through the various ways her character can be interpreted; these abstract characterizations of Pearl as nature, the scarlet letter itself, and a Romantic hero distinguish her as the world the Puritans tried, but failed, to create and Hawthorne's criticism of this failure.

From the moment she is introduced, Pearl’s character is likened to nature with her “wild-flower prettiness”, and like the circumstances of her birth, the presence of this comparison already sets Pearl deeply apart from the Puritans as they regard nature (the “shadow of the forest”) as a forbidden construct, favoring the safe, predictable disposition of the town (Hawthorne 62, 37). In the beginning of the novel, the harshness of Puritan justice is connoted through the nature surrounding the prison door: Hawthorne uses organicism to reflect the convoluted nature of Puritan justice as the “grass-plot, much overgrown with burdock, pig-weed, apple-peru, and such unsightly vegetation” grows in front of the prison door (36). Yet, on the other side, there is also a “wild rose-bush, covered . . . with its delicate gems” representative of “some sweet moral blossom” (37). Pearl is this “blossom” from the passion of Hester’s sin, and is, therefore, the morality Hawthorne hopes to present against the harsh Puritan morals. Although a central theme of The Scarlet Letter is sin, Hawthorne also highlights the idea of incessant penitence, and Pearl, through her connection with nature, embodies this theme: as she walks through the forest with her mother, Pearl is shown to “resemble[] the brook, inasmuch as the current of her life gushed from a well-spring as mysterious” (121). Pearl is equated with the “gushing” of the water, yet she is also contrasted with its “gloom” as “she dance[s] and sparkle[s]” (121). The brook is unable to move past its “gloom”, prompting Pearl to ask it, “Why are thou so sad?”: literally, she is asking the water why it is sad, but here, Hawthorne is also suggesting that one must have the capacity to “pluck up a spirit” instead of wallowing in the malaise of self-pity (121). Pearl is able to move past the ostracism she received all her life and be happy, while both Hester and Dimmesdale are stuck with the idea of the Puritan’s perpetual shame of sin.

Furthermore, Pearl is presented as a physical representation of the scarlet letter Hester is forced to wear; however, the reason for this similarity is unlike her connection with nature as it is not of her own volition. Hester is the one who adorns her with a “crimson velvet tunic . . . embroidered with fantasies and flourishes of gold thread”, a description almost indistinguishable from the scarlet letter itself (69). On the other hand, Pearl herself chooses to form an A on her chest with green seaweed: green is the complementary color to red as they cancel each other out when mixed. This juxtaposition of Hester and Pearl suggests that although Pearl is like the scarlet letter in that she is born from Hester’s adultery, she also transcends this simple idea as she does with most things. Pearl appears to be strangely fascinated with the letter, but she also seems to enjoy poking at it with her piercing judgement of her mother. One afternoon, Pearl “amuse[s] herself with gathering handfuls of wild-flowers, and flinging them, one by one, at her mother’s bosom”; her “dancing up and down” when she hit the scarlet letter suggests her otherworldly intelligence and understanding of the significance of her actions (66). Pearl is portrayed to love the scarlet letter not because she believes the Puritans are correct in shaming Hester, but because she wishes for her mother to move past the Puritan judgement, just as she asks the brook to move past its gloom. Her criticism is firmly depicted when Hester takes off the scarlet letter and throws it at the river; when she does this, Pearl no longer wants to approach her because, by discarding the letter, Hester is succumbing to Puritan judgement by admitting to the shame the letter brings her, and in doing this, she is essentially discarding Pearl as well. As stated in Daniel G. Hoffman’s literary criticism, Hester’s Double Providence: The Scarlet Letter and the Green, “[Pearl] will not let her mother cast the scarlet letter aside because Pearl herself is emblem of a passion which partook of that same heathen, natural wildness” (Hoffman 345). However, besides her own unwillingness to be “cast aside”, Pearl’s own misgivings toward Puritan ideals cause her to be critical of her mother and Dimmesdale’s plan to run away from their past and make a new living where nobody knows their sin; they would simply be making the same mistake the Puritans had of running away from a society that shunned them, only to create a new society just like the old one. Through Pearl’s characterization as contemptuous of her mother and father’s plans, she is vicariously implying Hawthorne’s Romantically motivated disapproval of Puritan society.

As reflected previously, Pearl is critical of her mother’s plan of escape because, like Hawthorne, she is a Romantic. Throughout the novel, she constantly judges the people around her despite her age: Pearl has a natural intuitive understanding of others. For example, when she adorns herself with the seaweed-green A and her mother asks her if she knows the meaning of the letter, Pearl, with her preternatural intuition answers, “Truly do I! It is for the same reason that the minister keeps his hand over his heart!” (Hawthorne 116). While it took Chillingworth years to realise the complete truth of Dimmesdale’s sin, Pearl is able discern that truth in moments. Because of her role as the Romantic hero, she possesses a sense of morality that ignores that of society’s values, as referenced by the narrator in the first chapter with the rose-bush’s “sweet moral blossom”. Pearl often strays from the temptations of society like the “wild, heathen Nature of the forest, never subjugated by human law” and is, therefore, unhindered in seeing the truth (130). However, despite her preternatural insight, Pearl still possesses the Romantic quality of youthful innocence as illustrated in many different parts of the novel. At one point, Hester and Pearl are walking through the forest, and Pearl notes that the “sunshine does not love [Hester]” and it hides itself because it is “afraid of something on [her] bosom” (119). Although Pearl, to an extent, knows the significance of the letter, she still innocently believes in the possibility of running sunshine and that, when she grows up, she will have a letter too. Finally, like a true Romantic hero, Pearl’s story ends in doom. Her “wild, rich nature [is] softened and subdued, and made capable of a woman’s gentle happiness” (165). She is given a binary path in life: either die a martyr, or become a regular woman. When Pearl kisses Dimmesdale, “a spell [is] broken” and she pledges that she would not “forever do battle with the world, but be a woman in it”, and her role as a symbol and a “messenger of anguish [is] fulfilled” (165). Because her role as “messenger . . . [is] fulfilled” and she becomes the “object of love . . . with some inhabitant of another land”, Pearl is implied to have gone to Europe and married a rich aristocrat; essentially, by stopping her “battle with the world”, she is allowing the world to stay the same as it was, just as the Puritans did. Though Pearl is able to achieve happiness, in terms of Hawthorne’s views as a Romantic himself, her ending is tragic. She represented the world the Puritans could have created, but ultimately, she left her role as this symbol and consequently also represents the failure of the Puritans.

Nathaniel Hawthorne imbues Pearl with the qualities of nature, Romanticism, and his novel’s namesake as to contrast these same qualities with that of Puritan values. Through this contrast, he criticizes the nature of Puritan justice and their failure to create the better, different new world they claimed they would. Yet, he also presents a tragic ending to the novel as Pearl, the symbol of his criticism is allowed to leave her role and mimic the Puritan’s failures she was made to refute, suggesting the difficulty of truly breaking away from the temptation of an easy, non-confrontational life.