Sunday, November 4, 2012

To sin or not to sin

How should sinning be punished? Even though the individual must face up to personal guilt, is it acceptable for society to castigate them for a single slip? When people's conscience shines through, they can choose to amend their wrongdoing and follow a different path, or self-destruct. This choice between evil and good is seen even today, where people are thrown into jail and hardened, regardless of whether their crime was severe or not. 

The Scarlet Letter is one of those books that tears me between sympathy and anger. Hester Prynne is ostracized for adultery, banished from the society and forced to wear a scarlet 'A' on her clothing at all times. At first, I feel no sympathy for Hester. Adultery is unacceptable and immoral, and should be punished. However, I relent once I find out that Hester must care for a child by herself, and that her paramour takes none of the responsibility. (This is also why I cheer on Chillingworth every time he tortures the cowardly Dimmesdale, who I despise.) Should Hester take on the burden of that by herself, just for a single sin? She changes over the seven years time span, growing grimmer yet more caring. Her "correction" is evident when the council people wonder whether or not her scarlet 'A' should be removed or not. 

Moreover, the society is incredibly hypocritical. It consistently makes use of her service as a needle-worker, yet never thanks her. The destitute accept clothing fit for kings and food, and sneer at her for thanks. Honestly, I don't understand why Hester doesn't just curse them, but in the end, she is reformed and slowly assimilated back into the society that cast her out. It still leaves me feeling unsatisfied though; did the society do good for her by being hypocritical and making her see her errors, or were they the ones acting unreasonably? I have yet to find out.

No comments:

Post a Comment