Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work
 
 

American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work [Deckle Edge] [Hardcover]

Susan Cheever
4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)

Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover, Deckle Edge --  
Paperback CDN $13.90  
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged CDN $17.09  

Product Details


Product Description

Books in Canada

Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-64) was not fond of Concord, Massachusetts, the town near Boston that was home to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and the other writers at the heart of the Transcendental movement of the 1840s and 1850s. “Never,” he wrote, “was a poor little country village infested with such a variety of queer, strangely dressed, oddly behaved mortals, most of whom took themselves to be important agents of the world’s destiny, yet were simply bores of a very intense character.” Emerson nonetheless persuaded Hawthorne to come live there, luring him away from Brook Farm, the utopian community nearby. But Hawthorne never really fitted in with the Transcendentalists. He held the unusual distinction of disliking Emerson and was ambivalent about slavery in this, one of the staunchest strongholds of abolitionism. But Susan Cheever, an admirable writer, the author of Home Before Dark, a haunting memoir of her late father the novelist John Cheever, is careful to include him in American Bloomsbury. She does so, I believe, because Hawthorne was obsessed with, most famously in The Scarlet Letter, the cruel heritage of the New England Puritans and its soul-deadening ism, with which all the persons indicated in her subtitle wrestled.
Some of their struggles were with the grip of Protestant fundamentalism narrowly defined. Others were about old attitudes generally, opposition to which became what they called their newness, a term that suggests a certain abstraction. Still others were concerned with institutions-the idea of institutions if not always individual examples. Emerson (1803-82), the brains of the outfit, was a Unitarian minister until, finding the theologically and socially liberal Unitarians not liberal enough, he quit. (Old joke: “What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Seventh Day Adventist? Someone who rings your doorbell for no reason.”) Following a lecture on theology, Harvard, his alma mater as it was that of many of the core Transcendentalists, banned him for 28 years from speaking on the campus. Yet he was as far removed from atheism in the Shelleyean sense as any major writer of the time. He was critical of churches, and indeed of the intentional communities that were such a feature of his generation, simply because they were institutions and thus, by their very nature, artificial: manufactured rather than grown.
The Transcendentalists lavished their worship on Nature rather than on God directly, refusing to cut out the middleman, so to speak. This was radical thinking for its day. Thoreau (1817-62) deserves to be remembered as the prophet of environmental awareness. Sad to say, he also epitomised those bores that Hawthorne, who called him “ugly [and] small”, railed against. Cheever’s enjoyable narrative offers several examples of how he must have driven his listeners to despair as he lectured them to the point of the numbest tedium on individual insects, blades of grass and small lumps of dirt as they tarried along country roads and such. Once while trekking with a young Harvard friend, he made a campfire atop a tree stump. The resulting blaze wiped out 300 acres of valuable timber.
One wants to ask Cheever in what ways the Transcendentalists were the American forerunners of the Bloomsburies. Certainly they were a new presence on the scene, artists and intellectuals of various sorts who held slightly advanced social views that, partly through their example, became the norm eventually. Although she is fully capable of doing so, Cheever doesn’t dwell on ideas, avoiding discussion of Transcendentalism as a philosophy, or of Emerson as a philosopher, though he was perhaps the one read most often by his contemporaries. And she doesn’t make the leap to discuss the politics of the Transcendentalists. She mentions how Thoreau went to jail briefly for refusing to pay his taxes, and the less well known story of how the saintly Emerson intervened to keep Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) from ending up behind bars as well. There is nothing here about the libertarian strain in their thinking as exemplified by their reaction to the U.S. invasion of Mexico in the 1840s.
Cheever came to the subject of her book through her discovery that a novel “I had vaguely loved as a girl reading about girls was actually a rich portrait of American writers at a specific moment in history.” The book is Little Women by Bronson Alcott’s daughter, Louisa May (1833-88). She writes about the group mainly in social terms. This leads her to the real similarity to Bloomsbury: the fact that many of the various players seemed to be sleeping with one another, or wished to be. The collective individualism of the Concordians, she writes, put

“a tremendous strain on all things conventional-and the institution of marriage was no exception. How could men and women of the ‘newness’ reconcile their desires for each other with an old-fashioned way of doing things that had been seemingly invented by the Puritans for their own protection? It wasn’t just Hawthorne who compared marriage to execution.”

As much as with those of Bloomsbury, the fluid nature of Transcendentalism’s private relationships requires some parsing. Let us begin. Bronson Alcott, no Harvard man, had once been a pedlar but became, in Cheever’s words, a person whose “ideas grew to their looniest ripeness” in the extremity of what would now be called his veganism, his incessant founding of utopias, and so on. The world remembers him best as the father of the alternative education movement in America, but he was a proponent and practitioner of free love as well. Then there was Margaret Fuller (1810-50), the author of Woman in the Nineteenth Century, and the editor of Emerson’s journal, The Dial (and later of Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune). Although her prose is quite unreadable (even Thoreau was more riveting on the page), she reminds me nonetheless of Rebecca West in that she never allowed her fine mind to impair her emotions. She was perhaps the most glamorous intellectual of her time, a protofeminist attracted to at least a few of the men who were so attracted to her. Only the ever-rancorous Hawthorne felt threatened, whereas Emerson was deeply in love with her.
For his part, Thoreau, sometimes in partnership with his brother, was in love with almost everyone: first with the sister-in-law of Emerson, his patron, elder, and patient friend, and then Mrs. Emerson, with various self-destructive affairs in between. All the while he was oblivious to Louisa May Alcott’s feelings for him, which produced the character of Laurie in Little Women-or was Laurie really Emerson, who lived next door and, having married money, seemed to subsidise everyone generously, but not simply in monetary or even literary terms. “During the twenty-five years of their friendship,” Cheever writes,

“years of real intimacy as Thoreau took over Emerson’s household and fell in love with his wife, years in which Emerson supported Thoreau financially, years of intellectual companionship and growth, Thoreau was always the disciple in a way that may have overshadowed him as much as it helped him. Not until long, long after the publication of his greatest work, Walden, about a house built with a loan from Emerson on land owned by Emerson, did Thoreau escape the gossipy assumption that he was more Emerson’s man than his own.”

Cheever holds Thoreau in the highest regard as is mandatory for survivors of the American school system.

“We revere Thoreau for his contempt for material things,” she writes. “We love him for damning new clothes and cautioning us against possessions. We like his judgment that other men and women are leading lives of quiet desperation [and] we love him because we are swamped with things, because even the simplest of us could not list our possessions in a few lines or even a few pages. In a world where materialism has eclipsed religion, Thoreau’s messages have a different ring than they did in a world where religion was changing and materials were few.”

But was he more of an ascetic than he was a layabout? One wishes not only that he had written more but also that he had written better. As well as being the work of someone with an intellect almost immeasurably far beneath that of Emerson, Walden is also a piece of prose richly comic for its amazing ability to anesthetise the reader through its repetitions and numerous other faults.
Some of the participants in the story came to bad ends. Louisa May Alcott, for example, witnessed terrible suffering as a volunteer nurse during the Civil War and emerged with her health broken, though she carried on admirably with writing. Emerson lived long, but died of what today we recognise as Alzheimer’s. Margaret Fuller left the United States for Italy, where she had a child and became the Marchioness Ossoli. On returning home a few years later, she drowned in a shipwreck off Fire Island in New York, moments after seeing her daughter disappear beneath the waves. The bodies were never found.
George Fetherling (Books in Canada)

From Publishers Weekly

This beguiling book is Cheever's exploration of the extraordinary cross-fertilization of creativity in Concord, Mass., during the mid-19th century, when Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne and the Alcotts lived as neighbors there. If it won't offer much new information for serious students of American literature, it does provide a lively and insightful introduction to the personalities and achievements of the men and women who were seminal figures in America's literary renaissance, and who, Cheever theorizes, influenced the social activism of succeeding generations. In episodic chapters, Cheever describes their entwined relationships. Margaret Fuller was their brilliant, free-spirited muse and a model for Hester Prynne. Louisa May Alcott, was forced to support her family because her feckless father, Bronson, had no intention of doing so. Herman Melville briefly entered the enchanted circle through his friendship with Hawthorne. Cheever touches on their love affairs and intellectual platonic attractions, their high-minded idealism, their personal losses, their intermittent misunderstandings and jealousies, the years of penury suffered by all except Emerson and their full-fledged tragedies—such as Margaret Fuller's drowning. While Cheever sometimes indulges in high-flown speculation about their personal lives, she keenly analyzes the positive and negative ways they influenced one another's ideas and beliefs and the literature that came out of "this sudden outbreak of genius." 8 pages of photos. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Tag this product

 (What's this?)
Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items.
Your tags: Add your first tag
 

 

Customer Reviews

1 Review
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
4.0 out of 5 stars (1 customer review)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most helpful customer reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars snapshots of an accomplished group, Jun 11 2011
susan cheever has described a significant time in american literary history and the curious, sometimes volatile interweaving of key players. concord, massachusetts is the center of the dramatic and mundane lives of this group of thinkers and writers in mid-nineteenth century new england. the characters and their eccentricities are brought forth in very readable form, sometimes poetically, but too often with writing that seems lazy and uninspired - repetitive use of "get" and "go" (got sick, got up, had gone, would go) when more interesting simple verbs could have provided variation. the chapters are often repetitive as the focus shifts from one person to another. in summary: interesting study of an important time, place and its people, unevenly written and sometimes disorganized. still worth the read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.1 out of 5 stars (50 customer reviews)

99 of 106 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Something is seriously amiss here, Jan 18 2007
By Ann H. Harris - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work (Hardcover)
What a peculiar book! American Bloomsbury is easy to dislike for all
the reasons given in a number of the editorial and customer reviews:
the factual errors riddling the book beginning right on page 1 (little
Waldo Emerson was 5 when he died, not 9; Emily Dickinson and other
"neighbors" were not neighbors to the Concordians; the Emersons were
not married in 1838; and on and on and on), the jarring colloquialisms
(Emerson as sugar daddy, Thoreau as moocher, Hawthorne as rat), the
sweeping and totally unfounded assertions, and the sporadic
real-clunker sentences.

Such factors as these contribute to making a bad book, but what makes
this book peculiar is that the author shows herself capable, on a
number of pages, of producing compelling, factual, graceful prose, but
just as you are lulled into the story and willing to forgive and
forget the clunkers and errors just passed, she pulls you up short
with some sensationalistic or speculative doozy that utterly breaks
the spell. In the worst cases, these sojourns into fantasy make one
angry because they are so clearly untrue -- and purposeless except as
means to stoke the potboiler theme of the book: unconsummated lust,
cerebral adultery (and maybe more!), jealousy, seething
resentment.

The best example of this is her depiction of Hawthorne,
whose complex moral and intellectual flaws receive no attention at all
because Cheever chooses instead to focus one glaring spotlight on him
as "a rat with women." She quotes him out of context referring to his
wedding as an "execution," says by marrying Sophia he traded "passion
for stability," and has him panting after Margaret Fuller to the
extent that poor equally misrepresented and maligned Sophia is
depicted as almost "gloating" over the horrific death by drowning of
Margaret Fuller, her husband, and their baby. Cheever's depiction is a
colossal miscarriage of historical justice because in truth we admire
Hawthorne the man (as opposed to Hawthorne the author) perhaps most
for his gloriously happy and, yes, very passionate marriage and his
faithfulness and devotion year after year to Sophia. Cheever's version
is ridiculous, especially given that her bibliography is peppered with
biographies and other critical works that provide no foundation for
her story and in fact, if read, reveal just the opposite.

And yet, there are thoughtful pages on Thoreau and dozens of pages
that cleave to the truth and show a faithful grasp of events and
influences. There are lovely paragraphs describing nature. There are
passages that show sensitivity to the new thinking of that time, the
rebellious ferment,the originality and energy of this complicated
group of convention-busting freethinkers. But each time you begin to
float happily along, basking in the rich glow of a glorious American
renaissance, you strike an iceberg like the following paragraph:

"But the middle of the nineteenth century was a time when sexual
energy was pent up in this country, and all these people were
high-minded prudes, usually too wrapped up in Goethe to be thinking
about the carnal aspects of love. Even Walt Whitman had joined the
popular antimasturbation movement. None of them drank. Perhaps the
absence of actual physical intercourse, with its groping with the
endless skirts of the time, made the affairs of Emerson and Hawthorne
with Fuller even more intense than they might have been otherwise. The
only thing more powerful than lust is lust denied."

This paragraph's problems go beyond its numerous factual errors. But
even those factual errors are inexcusable. Emerson loved wine,
Nathaniel and Sophia loved their bed, and Nathaniel perhaps drank too
much. And that "popular antimasturbation movement?" Who knows. The
dozens of books I've read on this period have never mentioned it.

So, who actually wrote this book? A split personality? A committee? A
bunch of Bennington grad students with occasional oversight by the
author? A ghostwriter? A dabbler who spread her keyboard sessions too
far apart? It's almost hard to believe it to be the work of one
coherent person. But perhaps this is no harder to believe than that
the virtual army of "inestimable" and "brilliant" literary lights,
musicians, photographers, editors, agents, and educational
institutions acknowledged at the back of the book were unable to help
Cheever with the countless boo-boos, fibs, hyperbolic fits, and verbal
infelicities that fatally mar this book.

-----------------------------------------

Postscript: Does the truth matter anymore?

I've just read all of the currently posted reviews, which shoot from one end of the spectrum ("fabulous" & "a treasure") to the other ("shoddy" & "shameful"). The positive reviews appear to be written largely by people with little knowledge of the book's subject matter before reading, who were entertained by its content. The negative reviews appear to be written primarily by people knowledgeable about the American Renaissance and upset by the book's many errors, conjectures, and untruths, which, for them, precluded any entertainment value.

So I guess potential readers have to ask themselves: Do I place a higher value on entertainment or truth? Our current political situation and the best-seller status of fabricated works like James Frey's A Million Little Pieces would certainly indicate that as a culture we're not very concerned with the truth anymore.

My recommendation then boils down to this: if you are a person who loves and values truth, do not buy this book. If you are seeking entertainment and are indifferent as to the truthfulness of what you read, you may enjoy it.



114 of 125 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Shoddy Effort, Feb 2 2007
By Stube's Auntie "Stube's Auntie" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work (Hardcover)
I did not expect a great book on this subject by Susan Cheever, but I expected a fun and readable book. This is neither fun nor interesting nor particularly readable. Not only is _American Bloomsbury_ rife with factual errors -- an inexcusable breach considering the subject matter, upon which so much ink has been spilled that there is no excuse for shoddy research -- it is written in a bizarrely disjointed, juvenile tone and is the most poorly edited book I've seen in years. The interpretation of personalities and events are embarrassingly shallow, and the author can't decide if this is a personal reflection or a historical literary overview. Why, for instance, should we care about Cheever's revelation on p. 43 that "my ancestor Ezekiel Cheever was part of the [Salem witch] trials"? Ah, nepotism! Ms. Cheever must assume that her great literary name will interest readers of this book. Is there any other reason to skip into first person in the eleventh chapter of a book about the Transcendentalists?

I'm such a huge fan of the Transcendentalists that I'll read *anything* on them, but slogging through the rest of this stilted mess is going to take a LOT of commitment.

If you haven't purchased it yet, do yourself a favor and get the eminently superior _Emerson Among the Eccentrics_ by Carlos Baker. Read anything by David Robinson. Read _Daughter of Boston: The Extraordinary Diary of A Nineteenth-Century Woman Caroline Healey Dall_ by Helen Deese. Read Megan Marshall's marvelous contribution, _The Peabody Sisters_, read Phyllis Cole's absolutely brilliant _Mary Moody Emerson And the Origins of Transcendentalism_.

There is such a wealth of wonderful books out there on this subject, there's no reason to support this shoddy effort.


74 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars A mild diversion unfortunately riddled with factual errors, Jan 4 2007
By Corinne H. Smith - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: American Bloomsbury: Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau: Their Lives, Their Loves, Their Work (Hardcover)
The premise seems interesting enough: use a light-hearted approach to detail the lives of the major Concord authors (Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau) and their sometimes steamy interpersonal relationships. To that end, Ms. Cheever does a decent job here. The nearly endless combinations indeed weave a transcendental web: Louisa-Henry, Louisa-Waldo, Henry-Lidian, Waldo-Margaret, Nathaniel-Margaret. And that's not even mentioning Ellen, Sophia or Count Ossoli. Thus does "American Bloomsbury" provide an overview of the lives of the originators of truly American literature.

And yet, nonfiction readers deserve accuracy. And the Concord writers deserve to be remembered honestly. This book is fraught with factual errors. And we're not talking about infinitesimal, esoteric, or subjective ones. We're not even talking about interpretations. These are mistakes that could have, nay, SHOULD have been corrected by consulting the very books listed in the bibliography on pages 211-214.

To Ms. Cheever's credit: she at least knew that the North Bridge wasn't standing in the mid-1800s. That's the most common mistake that writers make about this time period. But what about something as basic as the natural environment? Thoreau wouldn't have pointed out deer tracks or beaver dams to his students because both animals were rare in New England back then. He didn't see cardinals either, for they were "Dixie invaders" that didn't come north until decades later. OK, you might say. Those don't sound like big deals. We could overlook those assumptions. Fine.

Concord devotees will find here more than a dozen inaccuracies regarding Thoreau alone. Some of the most egregious ones appear on page 168, where the author states that Henry died in "the family house he helped build on Texas Street -- now named Thoreau Street." Well, that statement has multiple problems. First of all, the Thoreau family did indeed once inhabit a house built by Henry and his father. It was located on what was then Texas Street but is now Belknap Street in Concord. That house no longer exists. Secondly, there is a Thoreau Street, but the Thoreaus never lived along it. Third, Henry died in "The Yellow House," now referred to as the Thoreau-Alcott House, which sits on Main Street. He lived there for the last 12 years of his life and died in its living room in 1862. Members of the Alcott family lived in this same house after the Thoreaus were gone. Given that the author deliberately looked for path-crossings of the Concordians, it's a wonder she didn't mention that coincidence or even that house, for that matter. And the ultimate irony is that an old photograph of the Thoreau-Alcott house graces the cover of Cheever's book! But casual readers won't know that because the photo isn't identified anywhere on the jacket or otherwise in the text.

Though Cheever did a nice job with the end notes and bibliography, I'm shocked to see no credits given for the eight pages of photos. (I'll bet the suppliers of those photos are shocked as well.) That's certainly a research no-no. And even the brief photo captions are not without a glitch. The image of Thoreau is identified as having been taken "ten years after the publication of _Walden_." What a ghoulish trick that would have been, since the book was released in 1854, and he died in 1862. No, that daguerreotype dates from 1856. Perhaps we can give the author the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her original notes read "two years" instead of "ten years," and the printer got it wrong.

Ms. Cheever is obviously passionate about her subject matter, and her research isn't all bad. But when even basic facts are misrepresented, a shadow is cast over the entire work. Remember the movie "Runaway Bride"? The USA TODAY editor told columnist Ike Graham, "Journalism Lesson Number One: If you fabricate your facts, you get fired." I continue to be mystified by (a) how this inaccurate book got published, (b) why it continues to sell to members of an unsuspecting public, and (c) why descendants of Emerson and Hawthorne aren't lining up to file libel lawsuits. Readers of "American Bloomsbury," beware.

AFTERWORD: This review was written about the FIRST edition of this book. As of April 2007, I hear that a new edition is available which corrects the errors. I have not yet seen it to compare for myself. But readers and purchasers should be aware that multiple versions are out on the market.
 Go to Amazon.com to see all 50 reviews  3.1 out of 5 stars 
 
 
Only search this product's reviews



Listmania!

Create a Listmania! list

Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject


Feedback