Perfection, Retrospection and Culture

Jane Tompkins put it well when she said that Wieland is a novel that is wildly fantastical but must be taken seriously. BB sets up am idyllic situation. Wieland’s main characters seem to be ‘perfect’ people living in a ‘perfect’ situation (or at least how perfect might have looked to Americans in the late 18th century). The analogy to America seems like quite the compliment at first, but as the happy foursome starts to become unwound.

The first American ideal to be attacked by BB is religion. And not necessarily the organized religions. Rather, he attacks the rising (albeit still minority) belief in the late 18th century that religion is something highly personal, not something that needs to be regulated through a church. I sort of glossed over this when I first saw it, but as I think over it again, challenging a major religious movement is not something to be done lightly. BB’s confrontation of the movement is even more scathing in the light that he did not try to present a reasoned attempt to persude those in this movement – but rather with pretty ridiculous symbol in the elder Wieland bursting into flames in his temple.

American independence, and to some extent competency, also appears to be questioned (as Tompkins discusses in the handout). In retrospect, BB comes off as bombastic when you take the analogy as far as  Tompkins does (America with independence = crazy and murderous simpletons). But that is in retrospect. Just like with the religion, it took some thought for the true weight of the uncertainty of a revolution would have meant.

I’m curious how this book was received in it’s time. Did everyone get the analogies and not think twice about how utterly strange it was? I doubt it, but the the reactions to a book that had such serious cultural critiques buried in such an outlandish tale would be interesting.