A brief explanation of this blog's purpose and principles can be found here.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

What's in a name? From Ragged Dick to Richard Hunter

At the beginning of the novel, Dick, posing in a gentleman’s clothes, has the following interchange with Frank Whitney:

"Who'd take Ragged Dick?"
"But you aint ragged now, Dick."
"No," said Dick; "I look a little better than I did in my Washington coat and Louis Napoleon pants. But if I got in a office, they wouldn't give me more'n three dollars a week, and I couldn't live 'spectable on that."

Despite his appearance as a gentleman, he still identifies himself as Ragged Dick in this passage, but at the end of the novel, while posing as Ragged Dick to retrieve his mail, he refuses to identify himself by that name:

"Are you Ragged Dick?"
"If you don't believe me, look at my clo'es," said Dick.
"That's pretty good proof, certainly," said the clerk, laughing. "If that isn't your name, it deserves to be."
"I believe in dressin' up to your name," said Dick.

This final line strikes the reader as ironic because Dick Hunter is posing as his old self, Ragged Dick. There is no question that Ragged Dick is completely transformed into a gentleman when he becomes Richard Hunter, Esq., but the question remains: How is he transformed? Is it through his honesty, generosity, and charming good looks that he makes a good name for himself? Or is it solely through trading favors for fine clothes that he raises himself from rags to riches, from a flawed boy to moral one? What is the cause of his turn of good fortune, his morality or the effects of his reward—the clothing?

Each time Dick does a good deed, he becomes better fitted to be a gentleman, whether in appearance or manner. When he offers to show Frank the town, he gets Frank’s suit and extra “gift[s] of a shirt, stockings, and an old pair of shoes” and discovers that he actually likes the “sensation of cleanliness.” The day after his receipt of Frank’s second-hand finery, Dick feels “ashamed” of his old attire. Only in his new clothes does he decide that he “must try to earn a little more.” From this point on his jokes about his tattered coat that was once George Washington’s vilify his old attire, his old self, contradicting his earlier assertion that the coat made him a “smart young feller.” When Dick gives Fosdick the majority of his savings to buy a suit to improve his appearance, Dick handles the money in “the off-hand manner” of a gentleman and is treated as such. When he saves Mr. Rockwell’s boy, he receives the “best suit he had ever worn.” He finally grew into the gentleman’s role because the gentleman’s clothes “fit . . . him as well as if it had been made expressly for him.” Having metamorphosed into a gentleman with a job and wardrobe, he finds his Washington coat and Napoleon pants have been stolen. Essentially, all parties assume that increasingly wealthy clothing means a new station in life as a gentleman, as Richard Hunter, Esq.

At the very beginning, when Dick asserts that nothing, particularly his ability to live a “‘spectable” lifestyle, has changed because of his clothes, Frank follows with these lines, which are very telling if compared to Dick’s suits of clothing:

“That reminds me," [Frank] said, "of the story of an Irishman, who, out of economy, thought he would teach his horse to feed on shavings. So he provided the horse with a pair of green spectacles, which made the shavings look eatable. But unfortunately, just as the horse got learned, he up and died."
"The hoss must have been a fine specimen of architectur' by the time he got through," remarked Dick.”

Dick’s suits function as the green spectacles, making frugality and self-control “look eatable,” while all the while he, like the little boy who read Alger’s tales of rags-to-riches, is being sculpted into a gentleman, until he essentially loses his old self.

Word Count: 685

Friday, April 8, 2011

Hunting for Pickled Limes

In the novel Little Women, Louis May Alcott explains that Amy March's popularity depends on her ability to acquire, consume, and distribute pickled limes, a delicacy that was a very fashionable treat of the times. While thoughts of pickled limes no longer cause salivary distress in America's schools, they remain popular with many food bloggers, including one whose experimentation with pickled limes was inspired by Little Women.   In her book, The Joy of Pickling, Linda Ziedrich gives an overview of pickled limes and their place in nineteenth-century New England. Ziedrich writes that in the West Indies, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ripe limes were packed whole in sea water or fresh-made brine and shipped to northeastern U.S. ports in barrels. In 1838, according to the Royal Horticultural Society of Great Britain, there was "a fair demand in the New York market for pickled limes," but by the late nineteenth century pickled limes were also available in Boston. Ziedrich explains that 

"they were sold from glass jars on top of candy-store counters, and some families even bought them by the barrel. Because the import tariff for pickled limes was quite low - importers fought to keep them classed as neither fresh fruit nor pickle - children could buy them cheaply, often for a penny apiece. Young men and women chewed, sucked, and traded pickled limes at school for decades, making the limes the perennial bane of New England schoolteachers. Doctors tended to disapprove of the limes, too; in 1869 a Boston physician wrote that pickled limes were among the 'unnatural and abominable' substances consumed by children with nutritional deficiencies. Parents, however, seemed generally content for children to indulge themselves in the pickled-lime habit” (p.77) 

Amy's conspicuous consumption of limes connects Alcott's schoolgirls to Caribbean economies and the slave labor that her father was busy fighting. While he fought to free African Americans from slavery in the Southern states, his daughters were busy eating the fruits of oppression!

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

What Makes a Woman Strong?

“I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy. And it’s worse than ever now, for I’m dying to go and fight with Papa” (Alcott 11).

Jo thinks she has to be like a boy to be strong. She deliberately chooses a boyish nickname and calls herself the “man of the family” (12). She plays mostly male parts in the March girls’ amateur plays. It is easy to see why she rebels against the Victorian feminine stereotype when she wants to be an active, intelligent girl. At the other extreme, Meg is essentially passive and seems determined to fit into that “proper” stereotype. She is constantly reminding Jo to “remember that you are a young lady” (11), by which she means, 'act primly and take care not to muss your dress.' Neither sister has yet realized that they have an example right in front of them that proves women do not have to choose between strength and femininity. Marmee has both qualities in abundance. She is the rock of the family and of the whole neighborhood. Her wisdom is sought by all. She exercises medical knowledge, philanthropy, and economic management. She promotes the secular and moral education of her daughters. As one critic says, “in Little Women’s Marmee, Alcott creates a fictional portrait of her own mother as an artful teacher worthy of Jo’s imaginative emulation—not as a housebound mother but as a teacher who cares about girls’ learning” (Laird 285). Moreover, Marmee accomplishes much of this on her own, at least while her husband is at war. She knows that a woman does not need to be a soldier to be “in the action.” She sees that “action” is everywhere, and that every act of service, great and small, makes a difference in the world. She understands that teaching her children good values is just as valuable as picking up a musket to protect those same values. Marmee’s quiet influence spreads out in ripples, first affecting her girls, then the Laurences, the Hummels, etc., and will continue to spread out as her daughters begin to spread their influence. Marmee exudes generosity with a “pay it forward” attitude, which all four of her daughters begin to emulate.

A strong woman chooses her own future. Critic Ann Douglas claims that “choice governs its (Little Women’s) creation and theme” (55). The choices the four sisters make reflect their values and personalities. The same applies to young women nowadays. Her life choices might include a writing career like Jo’s, or a domestic life like Meg’s. It might include both, or anything else she sets her sights on. A strong woman evaluates herself and the world and creates the place she wants in it. Marmee tells her girls she wants them to “lead useful, pleasant lives” (98), but she also wants them to be happy. It’s not necessarily important what a woman does, but who she is, and whether or not she is true to herself.

Works Cited
Alcott, Louisa May. Little Women. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Media Group, 2009.
Douglas, Ann. “Introduction to Little Women.” Little Women And The Feminist Imagination: Criticism, Controversy, Personal Essays. New York: Garland, 1999. p. 43
Laird, Susan. “Learning from Marmee’s Teaching: Alcott’s Response to Girls’ Miseducation.” Little Women And The Feminist Imagination: Criticism, Controversy, Personal Essays. New York: Garland, 1999. p. 285.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Motherhood as Unifier: “It Don’t Matter If You’re Black or White”

Throughout Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe depicts slave women who face the terrible fear of being separated from their children. In describing these instances, she gives varying perspectives on these separations, from the white slave-owners who attempt to take children away from their mothers to the slave mothers who suffer the loss of one of their greatest loves. The fact that Stowe continually addresses slave mothers and their children suggests that there is something important Stowe wants readers to consider about what it means to be a mother. Stowe seems to use the idea of slave mothers being separated from their children as a way to demonstrate that black women are just as human as white women by how they feel about their children, (which is a good excuse to reminisce about the Michael Jackson song, “It Don’t Matter If You’re Black or White.”) Stowe uses relationships between mothers and children throughout the novel, particularly for slaves, to demonstrate the great love that women, regardless of race, have for their children. These instances in the text as well as Stowe’s own views toward being a mother suggest that motherhood is a unifying force that allows women to recognize their similarities, particularly their great love for their children, rather than their differences, such as their race.

We are introduced to the dilemma of separating slave mothers from their children in the first chapter of the novel when Mr. Haley tries to convince Mr. Shelby to sell young Harry to him (9). Mr. Shelby seems to believe that there is something human in a slave having a child, even though slaves were sometimes regarded as “things” in that time period (18). He says, “I would rather not sell him…the fact is, sir, I’m a humane man, and I hate to take the boy from his mother, sir” (9). Knowing Mr. Shelby to be a kind man and master to his slaves, we might assume that in claiming to be “humane” in this instance, he did not want to take Harry away from Eliza because he knew how much she, as a mother, cared for her son.

On the other hand, Mr. Haley seems to see the situation in a different light. He says, “It is mighty onpleasant getting on with women, sometimes. I al’ays hates these yer screechin’ screemin’ times” (9). Haley then suggests that Mr. Shelby send Eliza away while the transaction for her son takes place, so that the separation will not be as upsetting for her. Haley’s idea of “the humane thing” refers to the way in which these matters are handled (10). He seems to believe that slave women who are deprived of their children overcome the grief at the initial separation if the matter is handled correctly and even claims, “These critters an’t like white folks, you know; they gets over things, only manage right” (Stowe 10). Here, Haley implies that if white women were put in the same situation, they would never be able to overcome their devastation, but he seems to feel black women do not have lasting feelings about their young. By referring to black women as “critters,” Haley implies that they are animalistic and inhuman and would easily forget their young, unlike real human beings (aka “white folks”).

Stowe seems to demonstrate her own opinion on the matter when she interjects the narrative following Mr. Shelby’s laughter at Haley’s talk with this statement: “Perhaps you laugh too, dear reader; but you know humanity comes out in a variety of strange forms nowadays, and there is no end to the odd things that humane people will say and do” (11). Through referring to Haley’s statements as “odd,” Stowe suggests that Haley’s viewpoints are abnormal and strange. Also, by having Mr. Shelby, and possibly the reader, laugh at Haley, Stowe suggests that this particular viewpoint toward black women, particularly black mothers, cannot be taken seriously. Stowe seems to believe that black mothers would feel just as deeply for their children as any white mother.

A look into Stowe’s life demonstrates her great love for her children and how her own role as a mother helped her to feel compassion toward other mothers who may have lost or been separated from their children. In a letter to Eliza Cabot Follen, Stowe writes, “I HAVE BEEN the mother of seven children, the most beautiful and most loved of whom lies buried near my Cincinnati residence. It was at his dying bed and at his grave that I learned what a poor slave mother may feel when her child is torn away from her.” Here, Stowe explicitly relates her own loss as a mother to the loss that slave mothers experience when their children are taken from them, and she explicitly recognizes that slave mothers not only have feelings, but also that their feelings may be similar to the feelings she experienced when her child was taken away. Stowe also explains the result this experience had on her: “I allude to this here because I have often felt that much that is in that book had its root in the awful scenes and bitter sorrow of that summer. It has left now, I trust, no trace on my mind except a deep compassion for the sorrowful, especially for mothers who are separated from their children” (letter). Stowe suggests through this statement that her own experience with the loss of a child led to her writing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. For Stowe, there seems to have been some powerful feelings associated with being a mother that gave her common ground to equally relate with slaves who had lost their children. It seems Stowe's own experience helped her to recognize the inhumanity of taking any mother away from her child and united her with slave women everywhere in trying to prevent these inhumane acts from continuing.

For more information about mothers in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, click here.

For additional resources and information about Uncle Tom's Cabin and its effects on society, click here.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

"It's a free country, sir; the man's mine!"

Towards the beginning of Uncle Tom's Cabin, George Harris is introduced as a slave whose "adroitness and ingenuity" leads to his invention of "a machine for the cleaning of hemp" (11). The machine and its inventor receive high praise from everyone working at the factory, whites and blacks alike. In fact, Stowe makes it a point to put George's machine on the same level of "mechanical genius as Whitney's cotton-gin" (11). Such productivity and success would surely please George's owner Mr. Harris, right? Wrong. Mr. Harris is bluntly described by Stowe as "a vulgar, narrow-minded, tyrannical master" whose only concern is money (12). Once word of George's invention reaches Mr. Harris he decides to take "a ride over to the factory, to see what this intelligent chattel had been about" (12). To Mr. Harris' disgust, he finds George speaking and acting with more confidence than any slave was expected to have. This type of behavior quickly causes Mr. Harris to remove George from the factory and never allow him to return. George's boss makes a few attempts to reason with his owner, but Mr. Harris' final answer is "it's a free country, sir; the man's mine, and I do what I please with him,--that's it!" (13) For Mr. Harris, of course, it is a free country. He can own whatever or whoever he wants. However, for George and the other slaves Mr Harris' cry for freedom is nothing but a sorry excuse for cruelty which seems to torment George throughout the novel. Such a blatant and shocking cry for one man's freedom to be granted while another man's freedom is diminished causes me to ask two questions:

1. What, if anything, was Stowe trying to accomplish by having Mr. Harris play the "it's a free country card"?

2. How do the slaves, particularly George Harris, respond to the slave owners' contradictory definition of freedom?

To start, I have to point out how conscious I think Stowe was of including Mr. Harris' famous, but contradictory line. She had to have known that this would catch the attention of those readers who used that same type of flawed reasoning in order to justify the practice of slavery. I think Stowe included Mr. Harris' "it's a free country" bit in order to show how ridiculous that sounds when those freedoms are not available to all.

After having sold over 300,000 copies the first year it was published, it's safe to say that people who supported slavery read Uncle Tom's Cabin. Stowe was surely aware that this would be the case even before completing the book. I sound so confident in this claim because the book is full of shots at the pro-slavery population. One of the first shots is Mr. Harris' remark on freedom. Although subtle, Stowe uses the "it's a free country" line in order to show how contradictory and unreasonable the slave laws really were. This lack of reason in both slave owners and legislators is furthered by Stowe's description of Senator Bird. Although readers sympathize with Bird because he helps out Eliza and her son, Stowe also depicts him as a coward. Senator Bird has a good heart, but his reasoning gets in the way of his kindness. The saddest part about this is that this probably really happened. I don't know if there was a Senator Bird who supported the Fugitive Slave Act, but there were likely legislators who supported the law even though they knew they wouldn't be able to live up to it themselves. This is another critique of those who used law to support their own freedoms, yet trampled the freedoms of others.

Although George is a slave, his idea of what freedom is and how it should be extended is more enlightened than any other character in the novel. He knows that he's been wronged throughout his life, but that doesn't stop him from hoping for better days. It seems that Stowe uses George as an example of someone who understands the concept of a free country and uses him to propagate her own beliefs on freedom and laws. The problem that George has with slave owners has to do with their reliance on freedom to protect their rights even though they diminish the rights of others. This contradiction of what freedom is is summarized above in the words of Mr. Harris. In the chapter titled "The Freeman's Defense," George reminds his pursuers of his and the other slaves' stance on laws, "we don't own your laws; we don't own your country; we stand here as free, under God's sky, as you are" (168). This attitude towards the white man's laws is dangerous, but also inspiring. George sees freedom as something that can't be limited by laws or decrees. He sees freedom as an "inalienable right."

Readers of Uncle Tom's Cabin both today and when it was first published learn about what it means to be free, but perhaps more importantly, what it means to support freedom. For the majority of the slave owners freedom was a word they used in order to support slavery. However, for George freedom was something that was cherished even though he didn't have it. To play the "it's a free country" card without really knowing what that means is an error that Stowe recognized and sought to correct in her novel. Sometimes it takes learning about people like George before freedom can be truly understood and appreciated. And now, we can say with pride "it's a free country!"

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Children (and Prison Guards) in Power

Most people only view slavery in terms of the Africans who were forced to be slaves; what this narrow minded viewpoint does not show is how slavery affected everyone who was at all involved. The Caucasian children in Uncle Tom’s Cabin seem to have different reactions to slavery and also seem to treat the slaves in very different ways. The ones who became cruel and grew to be adults that most people now days would view as evil and sadistic perhaps should not be as hated as they are because that is what they were taught and pushed towards these attitudes since they were born. We should also respect the children in the novel who were able to recognize the evils of slavery despite their young age and all the influences from family, society, and psychology even more. What these few special children were able to overcome in their perception of slavery is truly remarkable.

Young master Tom, the son of George’s master, is one of the unfortunate cruel children who gave into the stigmas of society. He treats slaves as less than human even though he is just a child. He lies and says that George is fighting with him in the beginning when George asks that he not scare the horse and is able to manipulate his father into whipping and eventually letting him whip George. He acts in a way society has taught him to. He has been put in a position of power over other people and that has affected the way that he thinks of and in turn treats slaves. This way of thinking is similar to what happened in Zimbardo’s experiment at Stanford with prisoners and guards. The people who were placed in positions of power as guards became cruel and sadistic. According to the experiment close to one third developed these extreme tendencies. Similarly Tom was placed in a position of power over the slaves. Growing up in such a position he was cruel to those who he viewed as inferior which obviously included slaves. He also learned from his parents when growing up as he watched them treat the family slaves poorly. His behavior is probably learned from a combination of family, society and psychology; it should not be excused as it is by far the cruelest of all the Caucasian children in the novel who also grew up in similar positions, but perhaps there is more to the story to consider than his simply being an evil little child.

Now compare Tom to George, the son of the Shelby’s. He is very kind and loves spending time with the family slaves. He is fond of Uncle Tom and Aunt Chloe. He finds joy in trying to help Tom learn to write and would rather spend time in Uncle Tom’s cabin than at the main house. Overall he is a sweet and kind boy who is not turned cruel by slavery. In fact as he grows older his compassion for slaves continues to increase. Towards the end of the novel he even travels to where Tom is and tries to buy his freedom. Unfortunately, he arrives too late to save Tom as Tom dies from a cruel beating, but he is inspired to free the rest of his families slaves in Tom’s memory. George is different from Tom as he did not grow up seeing his parent horribly mistreating slaves, however he still could have been influenced by similar social pressures and psychological influences. Despite these other influences he was able to remain an overall good and moral character that fought against slavery because he was able to see how it was wrong.

Eva St Clare is the other child that is mentioned in the novel. She is clearly a Christ like figure in the novel. She seems blind to race and accepts everyone. She is especially kind to Tom and her family purchases Tom at her request. She is an ideal figure in the novel and acts as an example of a child who is not negatively impacted by slavery. She is similar to George as she did not see her parents abuse the house hold slaves but she still would have encountered the societal pressures and psychological influences. Personally I don’t think that she fully escaped these influences as even though she clearly loves the slaves and seems to have a special connection with Tom I wonder if she truly views the slaves as human beings. The way that she interacts with them suggests that she almost views them as pets that she can love and dote on and can love her in return but they are still not equals to her. This sort of perception of slaves is much better than reacting cruelly but it is still not ideal. It would be interesting to see what might have happened to her perceptions if she had lived longer and actually grown up, but unfortunately this didn’t happen.

I’m not justifying Caucasian people mistreating others in any way, but it is important to recognize how slavery affected Caucasian children who grew up in this sort of environment and how they were influenced by the actions of their family and society. Despite these terrible influences some children in this novel at least were able to make their own moral choices and see how horrible slavery truly is.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Earth's Holocaust: Hearts aren't Black and White

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

One hundred years before John Lennon’s anthem, Nathaniel Hawthorne imagined such a world in his short story, “Earth’s Holocaust,” and it was a downer. The short story appears to illustrate that the intention to eradicate all debauchery from society not only fosters unemployment and unhappiness, but is ultimately pointless since there can be no removal of the human heart. Although Hawthorn’s conclusion might be seen as a dismal view of human nature, a closer reading of the story indicates that an equal supply of goodness, as well as depravity, is found within mankind.

“Earth’s Holocaust” then becomes not just one story in a collection of Mosses, but is part of the long debate over man’s inherent virtue that continues today.

In an article called “Hawthorne and Reform,” literary critic Arlin Turner argues that, “what passes as progress achieved through human efforts is sheer delusion—the evil resulting from any reform accomplished balances the good, and mankind is no better off, however sincere and diligent the efforts” (705). Turner apparently agrees with Hawthorn’s most visible thesis: that any reformation cannot last since people are wretched. I doubt, though, that Hawthorne was 100% convinced of his description that the heart is a “foul cavern, [where] from it will reissue all the shapes of wrong and misery."

First, the narrator is one who journeys to the bonfire hoping to find “some profundity of moral truth.” He wants to learn something that can help him become a better person. As the evening progresses, he makes no judgment on the proceedings, though his companion seems to have a grasp on the true futility of the bonfire. “What have you done?” he cries. “This fire is consuming all that marked your advance from barbarism.” The very first person the narrator speaks to is different from the general crowd. Although this alternative voice is quickly silenced, Hawthorne wants the reader to understand that this social movement is by no means a unanimous event.

Second, Hawthorne spends several pages describing the hypocrisy, pride, and wantonness of the individuals at the fire. But why? Why would Hawthorne spend so much time outlining how wretched these people are? Because he knows the reader will feel sick about it. Hawthorne in particular outlines the burning of literature—describing in detail what kind of books and poems were burned and how precisely they decayed. He does this so that his readers will feel intense disgust for this society. Critic Richard Harter Fogle said in his article “Hawthorne and the English Romantic Poets” that, “the whole human past is destroyed . . . for naught [since] all books, of course, go into the fire” (224). According to Fogle, a world without literature is worth nothing, no matter what other kind of progress there may be. Hawthorne is counting on the book-loving hearts of his audience to sympathize with the pages that are in the fire. He is using the goodness of our hearts to make this story poignant.

The story climaxes when the Bible itself is cast into the flame. And it’s pretty shocking. Yet while the narrator is crestfallen, his companion reminds him that, “come tomorrow morning, or whenever the combustible portion of the pile shall be quite burned out, you will find among the ashes everything really valuable that you have seen cast into the flames.”  Moments later, the narrator in fact sees “a copy of the holy scriptures, the pages of which, instead of being blackened into tinder, only assumed a more dazzling whiteness as the finger marks of human imperfection were purified away.” Hawthorne’s sharpest criticism of man doesn’t last an entire paragraph before a resolution! Because people see faith as something with great value, no matter what revolutionist philosophies are in vogue, spiritual guidance will endure.

Literary critic Nina Baym sums up the conclusion of “Earth’s Holocaust” by saying, “the origin of all sin [lies] in the heart . . . where evil remains because the human heart remains” (34). This theme is definitely relayed, but how? Not by the narrator, his companion, or anyone the reader knows. The bearer of this grim message is “a dark-visaged stranger, with a portentous grin.” He has red eyes like a devil and comes out of nowhere to share this idea. Is he a trustworthy source? It’d be like setting up Maleficent of  Sleeping Beauty as the movie's primary source of truth. Hawthorne carefully chose the bearer of this message as someone whose authority is questionable. Even as he’s driving home the conclusion to the story, he wants there to be some doubt.

So while evil may reside in the human heart, plenty of good also lies there. This story includes the inspiration that, “not a truth is destroyed nor buried so deep among the ashes but it will be raked up at last.” No matter what happens, man is so connected to goodness that truth can never really be lost. War, famine, injustice, abuse—yes all of that exists, but so does the desire to be better, find beauty, have compassion, and protest when the reality of an ideal proves harmful. We spend this story watching the narrator come to terms with the duality of the human heart. And while we can’t join Lennon yet to “live as one,” there’s plenty to live for in this world.
Word Count: 930

Baym, Nina. “The Head, the Heart, and the Unpardonable Sin.” The New England Quarterly 40.1 (1967): 31-47.

Fogle, Richard Harter. “Nathaniel Hawthorne and the Great English Romantic Poets.” Keats-Shelley Journal 21.22 (1973): 219-235.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “Earth’s Holocaust.” Eng 360: Early American Bestsellers. Provo, UT: Zachary Hutchins, 2011.

Turner, Arlin. “Hawthorne and Reform.” The New England Quarterly 15.4 (1942): 700-714.