Morrison and Hawthorne - Fenneuff

When it comes to the style of two books, none are as different as are Toni Morrison’s Sula and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. The books are both regarded as stellar pieces of literature, however, the two could not be any more different.

Of course, the two books were written in vastly different time frames. The Scarlet Letter was first published in 1850, while Sula was first published in 1973. Because of this over a century long gap, the writing styles are quite different. Hawthorne uses more intricate, complicated wording, as was the style of the time, while Morrison, adjusting to the more modern literature style of the time, uses simpler, less complex language. Hawthorne's story uses Olde English, which can at times be a struggle to get through, while Morrison provides readers with a less complicated, more modern writing style which is much easier to read and interpret. 

Each author's way of telling the story is different as well. Morrison creates two characters that start off with separate story lines that become entwined as the story goes on. Hawthorne only has one story line with a handful of characters that progresses naturally and is a strong enough story line that it does not need to rely on another one to make the story feel complete and logical. The Scarlet Letter starts off with a lengthy introduction, then dives into the story, which is put together seamlessly, broken up only by chapters that flow together and connect easily. Sula breaks the story up more concretely, first into two separate parts, and then furthermore separates the story by breaking the two parts up into chapters. Each chapter takes place during a different year, which is made clear at the beginning of each chapter, where the year the chapter takes place during is printed boldly at the top. Morrison’s way of dividing the story into years, rather than having it progress naturally as Hawthorne does, results in the story making occasional jumps as far as time is concerned, but provides a clear time line so that the reader does not get lost. With The Scarlet Letter there is no need for a dated timeline because the story is straightforward and does not contain any lapses in time.

The style that books are formatted in contributes greatly to the way that the reader interprets and intakes the story, and Morrison and Hawthorne chose very different ways to format their books. Morrison chose to start each chapter, or year, on a new page which shows clear distinction between each part of the story. Hawthorne chooses to do quite the opposite. The chapters in The Scarlet Letter are separated only by a heading, and rather than starting each chapter on a new page, one chapter ends on the same page that another chapter begins. The chapters are not separated as distinctly in The Scarlet Letter as they are in Sula, because the separate parts of The Scarlet Letter do not need to be as clearly defined as they do in Sula due to the way that time progresses and the way that the story is organised in each book.

Hawthorne uses more powerful and distinguished descriptors throughout his story. For example: “’…not to an earthly physician!’ cried Mr. Dimmesdale, passionately, and turning his eyes, full and bright, and with a kind of fierceness, on old Rodger Chillingworth” (94). His descriptions are more literal and specific, and provide the reader with the vision or interpretation that Hawthorne wants the reader to have. Hawthorne allows for limited, but not completely restricted, use of the reader’s imagination. It’s similar to bowling with bumpers: one may throw the ball however they wish, but regardless, the ball will ultimately end up rolling down the bowling lane, ending up where it was intended to go. Morrison, on the other hand, relies on the imagination of the reader to create the story. Morrison uses more metaphorical descriptions throughout her story such as: “he was full of such dreams… his hands already curved to the pick handle” (82) and “Her parents had succeeded in rubbing down to a dull glow any sparkle or splutter she had” (83).  Morrison triggers the reader’s imagination and requires the reader to interpret her words in their own way, allowing the reader to complete the story in a more literal sense where she chose use metaphorical descriptors instead. Readers are free to fill in the blanks that were left by Morrison by not providing a descriptive, literal definition of the goings-on of the characters.

Overall, Sula is an easier, slightly more enjoyable read. While the times of both books are outdated, the story of Sula is much more modern than The Scarlet Letter. The events in Sula are slightly easier to relate to, or at least comprehend. It is harder for modern-day readers to even fathom or understand the events in The Scarlet Letter, simply due to the fact that the time frame and dramatics of the story are not very relatable to what most readers have had to deal with current day. In addition, the less complicated writing style and word choice of Sula is not as hard to understand as The Scarlet Letter. That’s not to say that Sula is an easy read, or that The Scarlet Letter is impossible to get through: they both have similar levels of challenge, however, the writing style of Sula keeps with the times and is easier to understand while the writing style of The Scarlet Letter is simply outdated and more difficult to understand.