Reply to comment

I wouldn’t say that thinking about UTC as a romantic representation increases its use-value, but it does change my perspective on it.  I think its use-value lies in the social context in which it was written.  It may be offensive to people now, and it may be a story skewed by the author, but it was still a critical catalyst for social change, and that’s where I think its value lies.  If this book hadn’t made the social impact it did, I really doubt that people would still be reading it today, or even recognize the title.  Thinking about it from the perspective of romance does, however, change my reading of it.  I still don’t really like its style from a purely artistic perspective, but I can appreciate its structure a little more.  My problem is that if Stowe really did feel that she was writing a realistic story, is it worth it to think about the novel as a romance?  If her intention was to depict these people realistically (and in my opinion, none of her characters are consistently believable as real people), then should we still consider these new meanings we’ve given to the work?  I’m inclined to say that the author’s intent should be taken into account if the author herself has made it known, because she clearly believes it’s important that the reader know it.  However, I think it’s very possible that, had this story been written more realistically without all the melodrama and sentimentality, it may not have had the same social effect on its readers. Stowe’s goal to tell this story realistically and believably was not met (not for me), but her goal to create social change was, and surely that was her greater goal.  Stowe’s melodramatic style, which would’ve been a hindrance in writing what we think of as “serious literature,” was a boon in creating social change.  That’s why I continue to believe that there are different kinds of classics, and that UTC is a very valuable social or historical classic.  But I don’t consider it great literature.