Coverdale & Pierre: Arguing Across Texts

I think one of things that jumped out at me most from the most recent reading is the relationship of Pierre and his cousin Glen which is, to say the least, weird. Melville describes their relationship as spicy, jealous, passionate “boy-love” (216). It immediately reminded me both of Coverdale and Hollingsworth’s homosocial connection, as well as the connection between Melville and Hawthorne.

I was also reminded of the letters between Melville and Hawthorne and Temple’s “Ineffable Socialities” in which she argues that “Pierre’s attraction for Isabel mirrors Melville’s attraction for Hawthorne” (127). I’d have to say that much more about their relationship can be gleaned from looking at Hawthorne’s perspective as mirroring Coverdale’s relationship with Hollingsworth, and reading Melville as conflated with Pierre in his discussion of Glen (I am starting to find it interesting how Melville’s conscious seems to drift between Pierre and the narrator).

From the letters and from Temple’s analysis we know that the relationship between Hawthorne and Melville started to drift apart after a while, largely due to Hawthorne distancing himself. This is directly mirrored in what I would argue is Hawthorne’s perspective of a homosocial bond: Coverdale retreating from Hollingsworth into his hermitage in the woods to hide away, to pull at the bond, to push against its tensile strength until it snaps suddenly (110-111). Temple argues that Hawthorne/Coverdale is ultimately unable to overcome social institutions, and thus has his characters capitulate some part of themselves in favor of maintaining the status quo.

In thinking of Melville as Pierre, we gain the opposite side of the argument. We are privileged to observe from the other half of the homosocial bond. Pierre is the half that seeks to continue the bond, despite the fact that Glen has obviously moved on and no longer feels any sort of devotion or love for Pierre. There is a lot of interesting commentary in this passage on writing, especially in greetings – and Pierre judges his relationship with Glen based on the gratuitous introductory “Dear….’s” that he uses (219).

The narrator notes how “the eventual love for the other sex forever dismiss[es] the preliminary love-friendship of boys” (217). What I find interesting is how despite Pierre “getting over” Glen, the “love for the other sex” that he replaces it with is for his own sister Isabel – and in this way, Melville/Pierre refuse to succumb to rules/institution like Hawthorne does , Melville’s characters actively rebel against the normative even while seemingly following a “typical” pattern in love.

Herman is not happy.

I was particularly looking forward to Chapter 17 of Pierre after Dr. Stockton mentioned that from 17 on is where Melville starts to receive bad reviews of Moby Dick.

The chapter starts off with an embittered passage about two modes of writing, of which the narrator (fairly unambiguously Melville himself at this point I would argue) chooses to elect neither, finishing with the proclamation that “I write precisely as I please.”  Melville separates writing into writing that all events/facts are set down together as they occur in time, and the other as the narrative calls for them. We’ve already talked about how Melville heads away from being a celebrated author to basically dying in obscurity. He continues his rant, discussing the literary hobby of Pierre -and dismisses his lack of criticism, noting that he is young and immature. Melville obviously needs a hug…

I wonder whether or not we can accept the aphoristic comment that he writes for himself, as we’ve seen through the historical context that he cares deeply about Hawthorne’s opinion, if no one elses’, and he is obviously angry about the lack of critical success/understanding for Moby Dick, which he believes to have been his great novel.

I’m excited to continue reading Pierre because of the opportunity to read more about what Melville thinks about writing, especially in response to negative criticism.

Thoughts after today’s class

What a fascinating discussion of naming, alegibility, otherness, textuality, Gothic monsters, manipulation, and incest. Ah, Pierre.

We talked a good deal today about two “arts”–writing and music. Last time, we talked about another art–visual art and portraiture. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about what is going on here in terms of the relationship between literary arts, visual arts, and music. Do different arts convey different kinds of information or feeling?

I also wonder if one art form is better at conveying/representing/wallowing in ambiguity? As we talked about today, there’s something about Isabel’s guitar that enables her to convey the “mystery” of her “history.” What about literary arts? Painting?

And forget about what Melville thinks. Which art form do you think celebrates ambiguity best without trying to straighten out life’s gossamer threads?

Correspondence

Did anyone else find Melville and Hawthorne’s relationship a little strange? Temple presents it in her essays that Melville as this really optimistic guy who thinks that we can overcome societal structures to come together as fellow (hu)man. His letters to Hawthorne show him trying to convince him that this sort of intimate bond is possible, despite what society tells them about relations between religion and sex and class. Temple points out that Moby-Dick’s Ishmael exemplifies that. Ish leaves society, develops close relationships with the men around him, and manages to live his life the way that he feels he should – in spite of how the society of the time would have viewed it. What an idealist.

And Nathaniel?

Well, his letters were destroyed, but Temple makes a good case for projecting Hawthrone on Coverdale. This makes Hawthorne out to be a the cynical opposite of his friend. While Melville sees the possibility for new sorts of relationships and overcoming contemporary society, Hawthorne feels like there is no escaping these ties. Coverdale and Hollingsworth clearly have chemistry, Coverdale (Hawthorne?) does not have it in him to transcend the boundaries that say that he should not act on his feelings (the same can be said for his relationships with the women in the commune).

whether or not it is wholly accurate, Temple paints a picture of Melville just laying himself out emotionally to Hawthorne, and Hawthorne, with what we can assume is a horrified look on his face, telling Melville that he is sick in the head and has no idea how reality functions. This really makes me curious to see if Pierre (which is chronologically after Moby and Blithedale) answers back to Hawthorne. While I’m sure thinking of the pair’s literary works as a conversation is overstating the case, it would seem that there is an element of this present.

These two could have made a great sitcom pair, don’t you think?