Esther is Adams’ second and final novel. The plot concerns a freethinking young woman’s encounter, through artistic pursuits, with a church, an experienced artist, and a orphan woman from the West. As Esther incorporates herself into this world, she agrees to marry the preacher, Mr. Hazard. She is all but an atheist. Her close friend, George, is a paleontologist and agnostic. Her father uses religion only for its moral influence on society, not out of any true believe. Esther is never quite able to resolve her conflict between her love for Mr. Hazard (admitted in the final line of the novel) and her disgust with her finance’s beliefs and practices. The idea of being a church wife, attending services and putting on the face of a devoted believer disgusts her.
The world of Esther is a world in change. We can foreshadow the “dynamo and the Virgin” in Esther. The rise of the new woman, professional, educated, assertive, and in the public, runs in conflict with expectations about the role of women. Listen to Hazard’s expectations of the woman he eventually courts. “The next morning he looked about the church and was disappointed at not seeing her there. This young man was used to flattery; he had been sickened with it, especially by the women of his congregation; he thought there was nothing of this nature against which he was not proof; yet he resented Esther Dudley’s neglect to flatter him by coming to his sermon.” And later on that same page, this is contrasted with his opinion of Catherine Brooke. “Her innocent eagerness to submit was charming, and the tyrants gloated over the fresh and radiant victim who was eager to be their slave. They lured her on, by assumed gentleness, in the path of bric-a-brac and sermons.” (214) The transition to new ideas is clearly represented in the characters of Hazard and George Strong, the scientist. The artist, Wharton, and his failed marriage also suggest the coming of a new era where traditional arrangements break down. That these modern figures (Esther and Wharton) are hired to paint portraits for the church provides yet another dichotomy between tradition and modernity. Catherine Brooke as an orphan from the West brought to New York City, suggests the conquest of the frontier and the end of that epoch of American history.
An atheist reader (like me) will be tempted to cheer on Esther as she allows her modern mind to prevent what could only be a disastrous marriage. We are not entirely sure until the very end what Esther sees in Hazard. He struck me as too authoritarian, too traditional, and too patriarchal for a women like Esther. Yet the final confession, that she loved Hazard, reminds us of the danger of allowing the mind to overcome the heart. Indeed, the conflict between faith and science, between tradition and modernity is not more of a problem than many other things that divide couples (monogamy/non-monogamy, politics, cultural differences). To assume that faith is the irreconcilable barrier is rather irrational and peculate and boring. This realization does not make one like Hazard any more, but it makes one dislike Esther a bit. Without idealizing the concept of “romantic love” (full of capitalist logic, which I can have the chance to discuss in a later post), we can appreciate that Esther threw away an opportunity for happiness, friendship, and community through Hazard. She simultaneously throws away the advances of George who loved Esther from the beginning of the novel. (This time the problem is not intellectual, but a lack of feeling.) These are the mistakes of youth and in my experience common enough.