Reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" can be a struggle, especially if forced to by school, but for me it was an interesting story when I first came across it, through the film with Demi Moore and Gary Oldman, and then the book. I have been aware of speculations about its source of inspiration for a while, all of them steeped in 17th century Puritan New England history with its witch hunt trials, its laws against adultery that hoisted red A letters on the convicted, and the generally oppressive atmosphere that Hawthorne himself detested.
So the idea presented in this novel was intriguing: what if "The Scarlet Letter" was based on Hawthorne himself? Supposedly, all his other novels' source of inspiration are known save for "The Scarlet Letter," a claim that had me doubting it from the start, as I'm not aware that there's a lack of candidates for Hawthorne's inspiration for Hester Prynne. Nonetheless, I kept an open mind and read on to see unfold this premise that Hester really existed and that Dimmesdale was Hawthorne himself, who later would base his bestselling novel on this adulterous love affair he was involved in.
And it was utterly unconvincing. For one, the author provided no argument but "What if?" The gist of it being that since there's supposedly no personal life inspiration for the novel, then that must mean Hawthorne had to have experienced the story himself and must have had an affair with a real-life Hester. And that's it. No proof. No argument as to why it's plausible. Nothing but a circular argument that it had to be personal experience. And that's where the story lost me, as there's absolutely no logical basis and it disregards any other possibilities that are far more plausible, and have actual proof, for what could've been Hawthorne's inspiration, which isn't as mysterious as it's claimed here. And also, why is it assumed that novelists need to have personal experiences with something to write about that particular topic? Even the most personal and inward-looking writers do write about stuff outside their experience sometimes, especially historical fiction writers because the very nature of the genre requires they write about things they haven't experienced personally. And "The Scarlet Letter" is a historical novel. Furthermore, there are bits in the novel that are easy to tie with Hawthorne's personal life besides the Hester/Dimmesdale affair, and there's actual historical records of cases that are surprisingly like the plot of the novel and that took place within easy distance of Hawthorne's own hometown. So no, it's not convincing to me.
But even if we take the premise as purely speculative and go along with it, it still didn't make for a captivating story by the telling. I struggled with the often flowery bordering on purple prose, the back-to-the-past inserts that throw you back centuries to tell a parallel story that was choppy and syncopated. And I also struggled with the synesthesia descriptions, that is the intersection of two sensory networks that results in the mingling of two or more senses (you "see" sound, you "hear" colours, etc.), which is overdone. My older sister is a synesthete, she can do what the character of Isobel Gamble can do, so I can tell that the descriptions of Isabel's synesthesia is exaggerated, Hollywoodish, and described like a non-synesthete imagines it is. Also, the ideas about synesthesia in the times before modern neurology could study it are far more complex than the detestable mindset that assumes anything not liable to be explained by modern science was automatically linked to witchcraft by the people back then.
The real Hawthorne was an interesting person, but here he comes across as weak and mostly subservient to the story of the fictional Isobel Gamble, who is hard to like and harder to relate. I do get that the novel tries to show how terribly constrained a woman's life could be back then, and it does succeed in that, although this is not exactly hard to achieve given that Salem, Massachussetts practically writes itself as the byword for oppressive, misogynistic Puritanism. Basically, it turns into a "The Scarlet Letter" fanfiction about the real author with a fictional character instead, a relationship too underdeveloped and full of adolescent angst that doesn't resonate the same way Hawthorne's novel does, whose strength is in showing the most iconic strong and independent woman in American literature.
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.