On Ambivalence Of Dreiser’s Thoughts In Sister Carrie

The first half of the twentieth century was the golden age of American novel, during which appeared many great novelists. Theodore Dreiser was not only the first distinguished novelist but also the pioneer of American modern novel. In the history of American literature, Dreiser was the first who described cities with an objective attitude. Hence, critics usually labeled him either as a naturalist or as a realist, which however, emphasized too much on his commonness while ignored his personality. Obviously, evaluating Dreiser with a single standard is insufficient because his creating thoughts were different at different periods. Even at the same period, affected by the dominant ideology and his unique experience, his thoughts were ambivalent.Dreiser’s first novel was Sister Carrie and his ambivalent thoughts showed evidently in it. On one hand, affected by European naturalism and the Women’s Rights Movement, he stressed on the determinant function of environment and instinct and strived to shape Carrie into a new woman who successfully broke the Victorian definition of women as house angels; on the other hand, due to Dreiser’s unique experience, though he admitted the value of human struggle and free will, he could neither break the bondage of traditional morality nor surmount the fear caused by the new women’s revolutionary power. This thesis mainly focuses on the reflection of Dreiser’s ambivalent views of naturalism and womanhood in Sister Carrie and attempts to figure out the root of his ambivalence.Besides introduction and conclusion, the thesis is divided into three parts. Chapter one analyzes Dreiser’s contradictory view of naturalism, pointing out the fact that he was infatuated with naturalism while at the same time distasteful to some of its aspects; Sister Carrie is actually a mixture of naturalism and humanism. Chapter two mainly focuses on Dreiser’s ambivalent view of womanhood. He oscillated between traditional woman and new woman and his deconstruction of male superiority was incomplete. Chapter three summarizes factors leading to Dreiser’s ambivalent thoughts and claims that it is the dual influence of the dominant ideology and his unique experience that causes his ambivalence.