Time Capsules

This blog has become as much about collective memory as it is about raw history. Part of understanding the collective memory of a society, of a culture, of the world, is being able to look back and -- through different mediums -- learn about the past.

Often we use literature to study history, especially specific time periods. And there is a debate on whether it is ever possible to define a novel (or other piece of writing) as "timeless". Can you take a story out of its time? It's similar to discussions on ignoring the background of the author. Opinions on this issue vary widely. There is a specific school of literary thought, called New Historicism, whose central argument is that all works are essentially tied to their time and place in the world, no matter what. You cannot , by any means, separate a novel from when it was written. As a result, it is very beneficial -- and often quite easy -- to study a time period by reading literature written during it.

But here's something I, myself, am struggling to comprehend about New Historicism: how are we supposed to study works of literature written in one period about another?

For example --

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, a story set in the mid-17th century, in 1850, far removed from the setting of his story. I've read The Scarlet Letter and studied both time periods rather closely. There are definitely points in the novel where Hawthorne's very romantic style and theology shines brightly through the tale of a Puritan woman in 1640s Boston. Yet, in my opinion, there is still an argument that the novel is a legitimate medium for educating oneself on Puritan America. The story is realistic; the values are conveyed. On the other hand, if you take a more language and symbol centered approach to analyzing The Scarlet Letter, you can learn about Romanticism and the 1800s --- a time extremely different from the 1600s.

I suppose a New Historicist would stress reading The Scarlet Letter to study Hawthorne's time period over using it to study the 17th century...? But, by doing that, aren't you ignoring Hawthorne's original intent? He chose to make Hester Prynne a Puritan woman for a reason, irregardless of whether he was unconsciously expressing to his readers something about his own time.

But personally, I take a rather New Historical approach to the world of literature. I love reading books set in a different time period because I love history. But reading something written by someone in a different time period has a another kind of splendor. It's almost like a time capsule -- a perfectly preserved gem of the Italian Renaissance or the American Civil War. And, however hard you try Nathaniel Hawthorne, you just can't recreate that true experience. That is the joy of reading something old. It doesn't know what happens next. It is purely then.

< Histrophile >

Four People Who Really Messed Up (in one way or another)

I think I might have a brain tumor. For the past week, I have been thinking non-stop about King John. Normal people don't do things like that. I've been thinking and thinking about why people always talk about how badly he screwed up English history by signing the Magna Carta. Isn't that the first document to guarantee people things like, um... liberty? How is that a screw-up? Finally I came to the realization that he did sort of muddle up the place of the monarchy within the political system of the nation. So if it was the king or someone royal that was the first to place blame on King John, that makes some sense.

But that question has, once again, planted a broader question inside of my brain. How much would it suck to be someone remembered for doing something dumb? So, here are four people (of many) throughout history who just, plain messed up...

1. King John: Although I don't completely understand the modern day criticism of his actions, he, nonetheless must make the list because, at the time, it was by no means a good idea to sign the Magna Carta (ignoring, of course, the fact that he was somewhat forced).

2. Jacob Malik: on January 13, 1950, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations (Malik) stormed out of a meeting of the Security Council and never returned. He was angry about the United States blocking the expulsion of the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the Security Council. In June of that same year, the United Nations voted to intervene on the Korean Peninsula. There was no Soviet delegate (one that would have blocked this resolution) present. Three years of war followed --three years of war that the USSR opposed vehemently. Funny thing is that they could have stopped much of it.

3. Herbert Hoover: Three years into the Great Depression, President Hoover vetoed a bill that would have given World War I veterans their federal bonuses early. If that wasn't bad enough to wreck his public opinion ratings, when the veterans decided to organize a makeshift tent village in protest of the veto (and dubbed themselves the "Bonus Army"), Hoover sent in General MacArthur to clear out the poor, unemployed, homeless veterans of the Great War (and their families). Let's just just say it didn't end well for him...

4. Hongle, Ming Emperor of China: In the early 1400s, Emperor Yongle commissioned a series of maritime expeditions, led by General Zheng He, to explore the unknown. For less than twenty years, Zheng He and his crew discovered the previously undiscovered and reaped the benefits of acquiring exotic treasure from far off lands. Years later, the Europeans made exploration and colonization fashionable, but the Chinese did it first. They didn't create colonies, but, in the span of a decade, they literally became the most affluent and powerful nation in the world. The trade routes were theirs, the commodities were theirs, and all the wealth they could dream of was at their finger tips. Then, it all ended. Emperor Yongle died, and Hongle took over. He immediately halted all of the expeditions and imposed a policy of isolation, thrusting China into 500 years that involved little to no contact with the outside world. By the 19th century, they were fresh meat for the new, powerful cannon of European and Western powers.

Something that is hard to process when pondering the actions of people like Hongle and Jacob Malik, is that at the time it might not have seemed like such a bad idea. I've done many things in my eighteen years that seemed like a good idea at first, but, in retrospect, we're just dumb. All four of these historical characters did what they thought was right. Not one of them was malicious or self-sabotaging in their actions. But the way the story played out just didn't go their way.

How would you feel if the only thing people ever remember about you is the worst decision you ever made?

< Histrophile >