ipl-logo

Surface Thoughts And Generalization In The Scarlet Letter By Nathaniel Hawthorne

592 Words3 Pages

Many people analyze the people they walk pass on the street. Whether she was wearing last season’s boots, or he was talking emphatically into the phone, the first thoughts that come to mind are surface thoughts and generalizations that are based on a person’s existing experiences and knowledge. However, surface thoughts and generalizations can be changed when one learns and analyzes more information about the specified person. The woman might have been too poor to afford this season’s boots, and the man might have been talking to the doctor of his sick son. The new information helps understand the reasoning behind the characters’ actions and personality. Similarly, in The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne presents ambiguous information to make generalizations and surface opinions about Pearl fall away. This creates a deeper understanding about her character in relation to the novel. Pearl's name in itself is a source of ambiguity. A pearl is a treasure and a jewel. However, most puritans believe that Pearl is sinful because of the relationship between Hester and Dimmesdale. Although Pearl is born from sin, “She is [Hester’s] happiness... Pearl keeps [Hester] here in life!” Pearl is Hester’s treasured child …show more content…

She is a mischievous little devil who plays in the yard. However, when she meets the minister, instead of responding that she came from god, she states that, “...she had not been made at all but had been plucked by her mother off the bush of wild roses…” She is not only an innocent child, but a defiant individual who defies social norms in the Puritan village. People like the minister are used to getting answers from the individuals in Puritan society, however, Pearl does not respect the Priests enough to give them the right answers. This is important in the novel since it shows Pearl’s defiant and intellectual nature will continue to cause many changes in the society since it stumps people’s responses to

Open Document