Post blog entry #7: Compare O’Connor’s reading of the play to your own and assess its uses and limits. What is useful about her analysis that you would forward (and how)? What are some of its limits, in your view, and how would you counter them? You might also consider how Parks herself forwards or counters Hawthorne’s representation of Hester’s story (especially in light of what Korobkin feminist reading teaches us).  Since we’re practicing the “countering” move, you’ll want to spend comparatively more time discussing the ways you’d redirect the analysis.

O’Connor effectively contextualizes In the Blood withThe Scarlet Letter.  She writes in depth about the economy and privileged groups in society that are structures to keep marginalized people down.  I think O’Connor’s work effectively shows how a rereading, or rewriting, of a text can answer questions the original volume doesn’t address.  I personally think In the Bloodeffectively forwards Hawthorne’s work.  The Scarlet Letter gives Parks a voice of authority and is what allow her work to be effective, and likely better well received.  In the Blood addresses race in a way The Scarlet Letter does not, or rather simply can’t.  I think Parks’ work takes Hawthorne’s into the twenty first century and put a contemporary feminist lens on it.  Critics like Nina Baym (who I’m working with for my midterm) have tried to argue for Hawthorne’s feminism.  However, African Americans aren’t present in The Scarlet Letter.  Intersecting race, class, and gender are essential to modern feminism.  I think Parks voice could be better received than Hawthorne’s because it is so contemporary.  Not everyone appreciated the canon and Parks’ work definitely challenges it.