Warnings of Wieland

Despite having technically finished Wieland in class, I have a few lingering questions/thoughts that I’d like to blog about instead of moving onto Blithedale Romance just yet.

After reading Tompkins essay arguing for reading Wieland as a federalist text, I was having difficulty in seeing whether Brown’s novel held any content that was applicable to life today, whether or not there was still something valuable in a text whose primary goal was to warn against the dangers of freedom immediately post-revolution (assuming the acceptance of Tompkins’ argument). Tompkins asks “the paramount question in America in the 1790’s was, can people get away with revolution?” To which, she answers for Brown saying “No, no no” (56).

If in fact Brown’s primary point is to warn early American’s against the dangers of freedom, is he proven wrong by the fact that America has survived its infantile stage to become one of the dominant powers in the world? My first, somewhat circular proposition is that we can’t with certainty say that America has survived its revolution without the absolute end of history in mind. My second, more direct approach is that Brown’s novel is still pertinent even if he was wrong about revolution.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the novel, and the entire course up to this point, is how eerily applicable the discussion of these ~200 year old texts are to current American affairs. As a class we haven’t really discussed it explicitly, but we have referred on multiple occasions to this odd mirror of sorts – a mirror that reflects the cultural legacy of America in current events. In a comment to the post “Shifting Identity and Its Meaning,” Andrew somewhat sarcastically pointed to George Bush’s use of religious language in justifying the War on Terror as a possible historical derivative of Wieland. Even today – people are easily “transformed from rational and human into a creature of nameless and fearful attributes” (Wieland 165), just as Wieland was.

The real legacy of Wieland then isn’t its warning against anarchy and chaos caused by revolution, but rather the precious equilibrium that America (both country and culture) rely on for its stability. Brown details a tension that is constant through time between the history that defines us, and simultaneously threatens to destroy us.

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.