[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Reaction Paper on "The Birthmark" - Nathaniel Hawthorne
                                                Agatha Vanstone
                                                3/12/96
	In my opinion, science which manipulates living things is usually beneficial. Most 
medical practices are beneficial; they are done to cure people from illness and to save 
people's lives. The only time when science borders on going too far is when it is used to 
alter people or animals -- for instance changing the genes of a fly to give it eyes on its legs. 
Making mutants like that violates the sanctity of life, and although it is condonable for 
research with flies, to do something similar to humans would be beyond comprehension. 
	It is clear that Hawthorne does not look favorably upon manipulating humans with 
science. He is especially wary about using science to try to make things worse; "Do not 
repent that with so high and pure a feeling, you have rejected the best the earth could offer. 
... I am dying!" says Chillingworth wife after she is "cured" of her birthmark, a large brown 
mole on the upper left side of her right arm.
	Chillingworth feels that this experiment is justified because his wife is nowhere near 
perfect, withstanding the birthmark. "...upon another arm perhaps it might, but ... you came 
so hideous from the hand of Nature that this slightest possible defect, which we hesitate 
whether to term a defect or a beauty, shocks me, as being the visible mark of earthly 
imperfection." If she hadn't been so close to detestment, he would not have minded the 
birthmark, but because she is otherwise beastly, the birthmark stands out. Significant is the 
use of the phrase "earthly imperfection", which hints at Hawthorne's theme. By removing 
Georgiana's "earthly imperfection", Chillingworth is playing God. It is hard to say whether 
it was justified in my opinion, even if the experiment had succeeded. If I take the story 
literally, and put myself in one of their positions, it might be. But I don't think that this is 
what Hawthorne wants us to be concerned with; he wants to show us why it is wrong to try 
to change nature with science.
	Hawthorne's theme of tampering with nature can easily be applied to society. 
Hawthorne somewhat overtly makes a comparison between Chiilingworth and his assistant, 
Herald. He says that Chillingworth is "pale [and] intellectual", while Herald "seemed to 
represent man's physical nature." Herald mutters to himself, "if she were my wife, I'd never 
live with myself." This also shows how Chillingworth was playing God; the man who did 
not want or need perfection was perfectly willing to keep the birthmark (in fact, he did not 
want to part with it at all) but Chillingworth, who always aimed for what was beyond his 
grasp, could not live with it. Or perhaps even Herald realized that the birthmark was 
Georgiana's earthly tie, that she could not live without it.
With each new technological advance, we try to change nature and society, presumably for 
the better. Hawthorne is saying that we should not try to alter nature to make it perfect with 
science and technology. Especially so with innocuous things, like his ugly wife's blemish. 
Furthermore, the closer we get to perfection, the more obsessed we get with it, and the 
more we lose sight of the fact that the innocuous blemishes are just that, innocuous 
blemishes. I don't think that Hawthorne had anything against science in general, even 
though his descriptions of Aylmer's laboratory were somewhat grotesque. But he is giving 
us a warning -- or a reminder -- to not take things too far.
Search For:
Free Essays – Free Term Papers – Free Book Reports