We discussed in class how in romanticist stories will often feature the idea of 'the childhood'. In that context one's 'childhood' refers to a period of time in one's youth before the world or culture or whatever has corrupted them. Children are supposedly innocent and pure and possess some sort of wisdom that is lost with age. This idea is still alive and thriving in culture, just look at arguments about censorship or ratings regarding movies or videogames or even books like Huck Finn.
Mark Twain is a realist of sorts: his books are very real but as Twain as Huck says in the beginning of the text, there are "stretchers." You don't want you're writing to be too real, since it might become quite boring.
All of that being said, Twain is attacking romanticism throughout Huckleberry Finn. Huck is about 12 or 13 at the start of the novel and has had some real experiences (discount the "stretching" in Tom Sawyer). His father is an abusive drunk, he's found treasure, and other adventures. He might be scared of ghosts but that is not a feature specific to children in the text as Jim and others are also superstitious. We do see him struggle with his conscious, but it's not so much a specific feature of children as a specific feature to Huck. This is since he's telling the story and has access to his own internal monologue.
On page 39, after a drunk Pap attempts to murder Huck and passes out, Huck calmly acquires the gun and points it at Pap. He waits to potentially murder his father and although it was raised in class that he didn't pull the trigger and there's no way of knowing if he actually would have if he needed, I believe he absolutely would have. Huck doesn't cry later (or at least, how he tells it) about it or think too much about it. He did what was in his best interest in terms of survival. At his next opportunity he escapes the cabin, fakes his death, and steals most if not all of the food, abandoning his alcoholic father. All of this is done rationally and with great cunning. Huck isn't traumatized and he doesn't even flinch or look back, he just leaves.
It could be argued that this is all because Huck's life has already been extraordinary and he's had other experiences. Well, having experiences does not imply a former innocence and if we look to Hadleyburg, it's clear that Twain doesn't believe these experiences have corrupted Huck. In Hadleyburg the town's lack of experience led to it's corruption, but even then it was not corrupted forever. Though they were humiliated, in the end they are vigilant to make sure the same thing never happens again.
Later in the novel, Huck watches Boggs get murdered and observes the subsequent lynch mob. Afterwards, he sneaks into the circus. Again, he doesn't cry or melt down or anything, he goes on with his life.
He is traumatized by some of the things he saw in the midst of the Grangerford feud, but it seems that what he saw there would traumatize anyone, child or adult.
Huck may be naive at times, perhaps in realizing how much Jim really understands, but then again Jim has spent most of his life fooling people in order to survive the hierarchy of the period. He does appear to not understand certain activities (like pretending to be robbers with Tom) or jokes (Buck's joke on pg 111) but he's definitely savvy and arguably the most aware character.
Huck has actually read Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. Although, we don't know if he read it after his own adventure or before. Either way, I think that fact alone demonstrates a profound level of awareness.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Three Wilkes Sisters
The nieces of the recently "diseased" Peter Wilkes interested me for some reason or another. While they are generally good and easily lovable, I feel that they are more significant than what Huck portrays. Or, maybe just Hare-lip?
Mary Jane, the eldest, is first described by the young man on his way to Rio as a red-head. When Huck sees her for the first time, he says despite her unfortunate hair color, she was the most "awful" beauty. I think that Twain was evoking sympathy from his readers for her unfortunate hair color as a sort of "poor, ugly orphan" and then as incredibly beautiful in order to win the audience to her side and contrast her with the disgust of how the King plans to rob this unfortunate beauty. She is beautiful and helpless at this point, the typical damsel in distress, only she has no idea. She is quick to welcome the King as her uncle, insists that Huck be treated with kindness for he is a stranger and foreigner, and obedient to Huck when he tells her his plan. She does what she is told and has unyielding kindness.
She, and her two sisters, are also very caring of their slaves, not wanting their "family" to be split up. I think the morality of this is hard for the reader to cipher. On the one hand, she does not want the slaves to be sold and hugs and cries with them and honestly misses them. On the other hand, the are SLAVES and her slaves. Maybe she doesn't have any say in what they are but can only blindly love them and be as kind to them as possible? I'm not sure if she is just stupid and kind. I don't know where to place her.
The "Hare-lip" as Huck refers to her, questions Huck's stories and seems pretty intelligent and harder to convince. She is not so welcoming as Mary Jane and gets scolded for it. She surprisingly obeys Mary Jane in apologizing the most beautiful apology to Huck after she has made him, a stranger, feel uncomfortable. Is this what women are supposed to do: obey and be a good hostess? Was Twain suggesting the silliness in that by shedding light on her inquisitive nature? More so, does the Hare-lip obey Mary Jane because of the power she holds being the oldest and being "handsome?"
The girls act as they are "supposed" to act, fishing for compliments at dinner, giving the money to her "uncle," mourning at the uncle's tomb at night. Actually, they seem to go above and beyond what they are supposed to do, becoming exaggerations of women in society and appropriate behavior according to discourse. I guess these characters are just another example of the strangeness of roles in society and how when done to the utmost extreme, one can get duped out of a lot of money and give a lot of love and kisses to a complete rapscallion stranger.
Mary Jane, the eldest, is first described by the young man on his way to Rio as a red-head. When Huck sees her for the first time, he says despite her unfortunate hair color, she was the most "awful" beauty. I think that Twain was evoking sympathy from his readers for her unfortunate hair color as a sort of "poor, ugly orphan" and then as incredibly beautiful in order to win the audience to her side and contrast her with the disgust of how the King plans to rob this unfortunate beauty. She is beautiful and helpless at this point, the typical damsel in distress, only she has no idea. She is quick to welcome the King as her uncle, insists that Huck be treated with kindness for he is a stranger and foreigner, and obedient to Huck when he tells her his plan. She does what she is told and has unyielding kindness.
She, and her two sisters, are also very caring of their slaves, not wanting their "family" to be split up. I think the morality of this is hard for the reader to cipher. On the one hand, she does not want the slaves to be sold and hugs and cries with them and honestly misses them. On the other hand, the are SLAVES and her slaves. Maybe she doesn't have any say in what they are but can only blindly love them and be as kind to them as possible? I'm not sure if she is just stupid and kind. I don't know where to place her.
The "Hare-lip" as Huck refers to her, questions Huck's stories and seems pretty intelligent and harder to convince. She is not so welcoming as Mary Jane and gets scolded for it. She surprisingly obeys Mary Jane in apologizing the most beautiful apology to Huck after she has made him, a stranger, feel uncomfortable. Is this what women are supposed to do: obey and be a good hostess? Was Twain suggesting the silliness in that by shedding light on her inquisitive nature? More so, does the Hare-lip obey Mary Jane because of the power she holds being the oldest and being "handsome?"
The girls act as they are "supposed" to act, fishing for compliments at dinner, giving the money to her "uncle," mourning at the uncle's tomb at night. Actually, they seem to go above and beyond what they are supposed to do, becoming exaggerations of women in society and appropriate behavior according to discourse. I guess these characters are just another example of the strangeness of roles in society and how when done to the utmost extreme, one can get duped out of a lot of money and give a lot of love and kisses to a complete rapscallion stranger.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Lies and Identity
Kind of building on the previous post, while Huck Finn doesn't really have clear-cut cases of mistaken identity like in The Prince and the Pauper and Puddinhead Wilson, but it does have a lot of instances of Huck lying about his identity. If anyone asks him his name, he makes one up on the spot along with a plausible backstory to go with it; it's pretty impressive that he's able to come up with these stories on the fly like that. I'm not really completely sure of why Huck lies so extensively; it obviously has to do with the fact that he doesn't want to be found (since he faked his death and is traveling with a runaway slave and all) but he pulls it off so naturally that it's obvious that he's had a lot of experience in creating believable alibis. That aspect probably has a lot to do with Pap, since we see how Huck lies about why he's sleeping with the gun (he tells his father that he heard someone outside, when he was really trying to find a way to defend himself from Pap's drunkenness).
Anyway, it's amusing that it gets to a point where even Huck can't keep track of his lies, like when he asks Buck to spell his name for him and writes it down in case someone else asks. However, there are times when lying has come in handy, like when he made up a story about his family having smallpox so that the slave hunters wouldn't get near the raft and find Jim. Huck just takes on identities to fit whatever is going on around him, and despite the "moral reprehensibility" of lying, Huck uses this particular skill to save Jim on more than one occasion, and I think that protecting a friend is far more important than always telling the truth.
Anyway, it's amusing that it gets to a point where even Huck can't keep track of his lies, like when he asks Buck to spell his name for him and writes it down in case someone else asks. However, there are times when lying has come in handy, like when he made up a story about his family having smallpox so that the slave hunters wouldn't get near the raft and find Jim. Huck just takes on identities to fit whatever is going on around him, and despite the "moral reprehensibility" of lying, Huck uses this particular skill to save Jim on more than one occasion, and I think that protecting a friend is far more important than always telling the truth.
Identity in Huck Finn
I'm having trouble relating mistaken identity to the characters and plot of Huck Finn. I know that there are a lot of instances where Huck takes on a different identity to fool strangers on land. Huck uses the alias of "Sarah Mary Williams" and "George Jackson". By being Sarah Willaims, Huck is able to learn priceless information about his hometown and how the town is dealing with his faked death. Without doing this he wouldn't have known that his father was a suspect and had disappeared, or that Jim was being hunted. The identity of George Jackson allowed Huck to experience the "perfect family" that he had always wanted. Huck was taken into the Grangerfords family and treated as one of their own. Through the eyes of George Jackson, Huck saw how it was to be in a family dynamic but unfortunetly also witnessed the death of this family. Without becoming George Jackson he wouldn't have been able to see that even the "perfect family" has it's struggles and imperfections. Huck isn't the only character to adopted false personas. The king and the duke take on different identities to fool the townspeople into watching their comedy show and to fool the Wilks family.
I don't think that these cases of mistaken identity are the same as the ones in The Prince and the Pauper or Pudd'nhead Wilson. I'm not sure what Twain was exactly trying to accomplish by having Huck use so many different aliases. Why couldn't Huck use one alias during all his adventures? In The Prince and the Pauper and Pudd'nhead Wilson, mistaken identity is part of the main plot and is the basis of the story. But this isn't the same for Huck Finn. Why did Mark Twain put this into the story? Aren't the characters safe when they are so far from their home town?
I don't think that these cases of mistaken identity are the same as the ones in The Prince and the Pauper or Pudd'nhead Wilson. I'm not sure what Twain was exactly trying to accomplish by having Huck use so many different aliases. Why couldn't Huck use one alias during all his adventures? In The Prince and the Pauper and Pudd'nhead Wilson, mistaken identity is part of the main plot and is the basis of the story. But this isn't the same for Huck Finn. Why did Mark Twain put this into the story? Aren't the characters safe when they are so far from their home town?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Punishment
Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson is rooted in the relationship within dichotomies, as we pointed out in class today. I found there to be further relationships between the dichotomies that sometimes resulted in a conflict of ideas. Such an example is the punishment of of 'Tom' given to him when he was a white man, and then the punishment after we became an enslaved man. This conflict is thus related to the dichotomy of white and black.
The reader knows that there are both blacks and whites and Twain also knows then when Tom asks the question of why there "were niggers and whites made?" (117). The dichotomy is presented and fortified within the novel. Now, when 'Tom' is punished for the murder of his uncle, he is at first given the sentence of life imprisonment (225). However, when the creditors claimed that since he was not really 'Tom' but a black slave given to Judge Driscoll, he was then property of the estate. The shift in punishment confuses the notion of justice under law. For a murder crime, the just (as in lawful) punishment would be the life sentence. Any murdering man would then have to be punished according to this law for committing the crime. However, 'Tom' loses the justness of this punishment, this written law of punishment, because he is a slave, a black man. This implies that slaves were not even considered men, for even if they committed the crime, their punishment was not within the realms of law. Where is the justice in that? In other words, slaves were purely property and completely void of justice of the constitution. Twain even admits that if Tom "were white and free" then he would have to be punished. But, he was a black slave and had to be dealt with by other means because he was outside of the requirements for just law (226).
'Tom's' actual punishment then is to be sold down the river. But, I am hesitant to call it a punishment because he is only sold as a means to equal out the debt of an estate. It is more of a business transaction. This transaction is a dangerous one, because Tom faces a fate worse than the punishment within man's law. No, he has to be sold down the river like an inanimate object merely bought to better the white man's situation. That is the scariest punishment a once free man could ever receive: to become not even human. The dichotomy of white and black is more like the dichotomy of human and object.
The reader knows that there are both blacks and whites and Twain also knows then when Tom asks the question of why there "were niggers and whites made?" (117). The dichotomy is presented and fortified within the novel. Now, when 'Tom' is punished for the murder of his uncle, he is at first given the sentence of life imprisonment (225). However, when the creditors claimed that since he was not really 'Tom' but a black slave given to Judge Driscoll, he was then property of the estate. The shift in punishment confuses the notion of justice under law. For a murder crime, the just (as in lawful) punishment would be the life sentence. Any murdering man would then have to be punished according to this law for committing the crime. However, 'Tom' loses the justness of this punishment, this written law of punishment, because he is a slave, a black man. This implies that slaves were not even considered men, for even if they committed the crime, their punishment was not within the realms of law. Where is the justice in that? In other words, slaves were purely property and completely void of justice of the constitution. Twain even admits that if Tom "were white and free" then he would have to be punished. But, he was a black slave and had to be dealt with by other means because he was outside of the requirements for just law (226).
'Tom's' actual punishment then is to be sold down the river. But, I am hesitant to call it a punishment because he is only sold as a means to equal out the debt of an estate. It is more of a business transaction. This transaction is a dangerous one, because Tom faces a fate worse than the punishment within man's law. No, he has to be sold down the river like an inanimate object merely bought to better the white man's situation. That is the scariest punishment a once free man could ever receive: to become not even human. The dichotomy of white and black is more like the dichotomy of human and object.
Status Quo and Survival
We've talked about so much it's hard enough to keep it all straight; let alone choose something to elaborate on, but we survive. (Hey, that sounds a little like the title of this article...)
In most Twain's works, survival and the status quo often depend on one another to, well, survive (nailed the segue!).
Take a look back at The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg and it's plain that this is the case. The town hums along in its "vanity" over its intense honesty and incorruptible nature (or nurture) for about three generations until the stranger leaves the sack of gold. Since the town had kept itself free of "temptations," particularly through childhood, the presence of this new and real temptation upsets the social order. Now, it is true that the town was never really as honest as it claimed to be (Richards knew that Burgess was innocent but didn't stand up for him, etc.), but regardless the town still has the reputation and holds it dear (this reputation is part of their identity, no matter its validity). Also, whatever dishonesty is present in the town is quiet or out of sight for lack of better terms. The introduction of the gold/temptation eventually causes 19 of the town's respected citizens to lie, in violation of the town's reputation, and 18 of them are caught in the lie. The Richardses are fine to have not been caught, but the stranger creates and auction to reward them for being the most incorruptible of the prominent townspeople. The townspeople participate in the auction (possibly to celebrate the last shred of their reputation) and raise $40,000 for the Richardses. They do nothing to stop the auction although Mr. Richards does burn the check. After having spent years internalizing the town's reputation, Mr. and Mrs. Richards are unable to come clean for fear of humiliation and unable to live with the lie or the money. This situation ultimately leads to both of their deaths. The humiliation of the town as a whole tarnishes the town's reputation (upsetting the status quo) and kills arguably the worst among them* (renders them unable to survive).
[*"Worst" meaning they lied/violated the town's reputation the most, although they were the only ones with the opportunity to take the lies that far. That's why it also says "arguably"]
In The Prince and the Pauper, this again the case the status quo and survival are so closely linked. When Tom is the prince (and later king) at first he confesses the truth about how he came to be there, but his behavior is written off as "madness." Not by all though, towards the end of chapter 6 St. John voices his concerns about how the prince is acting differently and Sir Hertford immediately replies with, "thou utterest treason!" Saying the prince is an imposter upsets the status quo and thus if St. John were to speak up any further his own survival would be at stake. The differences bother him but he goes out his way to invent a rational for why he is 'wrong'*, that the prince can't be an imposter because an imposter would enjoy the high station of a prince and would never confess it and would be crazy to do so.
[*St. John inventing a rational is a sort of reverse of how the stranger in Hadleyburg allows everyone to reach the conclusion that they performed the deed instead of outright telling them. This seems like a form of... wait for it... INCEPTION!!! That sound is so much fun, but I digress...]
Since this post is getting quite long, rather than go into this theme in Pudd'nhead Wilson, I'll leave it open to the readers of this post. Here's a quick example/question: does Roxy play into the status quo of heredity and the one drop rule to attempt to make Tom rich and subsequently herself (her having no other means of support, this is her best way to survive)? And another (although it may be more aimed at general society of the time): as science rose to greater prominence, was it more or less bent to support the status quo or more specifically to rationalize racial ideas (ie eugenics)?
In most Twain's works, survival and the status quo often depend on one another to, well, survive (nailed the segue!).
Take a look back at The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg and it's plain that this is the case. The town hums along in its "vanity" over its intense honesty and incorruptible nature (or nurture) for about three generations until the stranger leaves the sack of gold. Since the town had kept itself free of "temptations," particularly through childhood, the presence of this new and real temptation upsets the social order. Now, it is true that the town was never really as honest as it claimed to be (Richards knew that Burgess was innocent but didn't stand up for him, etc.), but regardless the town still has the reputation and holds it dear (this reputation is part of their identity, no matter its validity). Also, whatever dishonesty is present in the town is quiet or out of sight for lack of better terms. The introduction of the gold/temptation eventually causes 19 of the town's respected citizens to lie, in violation of the town's reputation, and 18 of them are caught in the lie. The Richardses are fine to have not been caught, but the stranger creates and auction to reward them for being the most incorruptible of the prominent townspeople. The townspeople participate in the auction (possibly to celebrate the last shred of their reputation) and raise $40,000 for the Richardses. They do nothing to stop the auction although Mr. Richards does burn the check. After having spent years internalizing the town's reputation, Mr. and Mrs. Richards are unable to come clean for fear of humiliation and unable to live with the lie or the money. This situation ultimately leads to both of their deaths. The humiliation of the town as a whole tarnishes the town's reputation (upsetting the status quo) and kills arguably the worst among them* (renders them unable to survive).
[*"Worst" meaning they lied/violated the town's reputation the most, although they were the only ones with the opportunity to take the lies that far. That's why it also says "arguably"]
In The Prince and the Pauper, this again the case the status quo and survival are so closely linked. When Tom is the prince (and later king) at first he confesses the truth about how he came to be there, but his behavior is written off as "madness." Not by all though, towards the end of chapter 6 St. John voices his concerns about how the prince is acting differently and Sir Hertford immediately replies with, "thou utterest treason!" Saying the prince is an imposter upsets the status quo and thus if St. John were to speak up any further his own survival would be at stake. The differences bother him but he goes out his way to invent a rational for why he is 'wrong'*, that the prince can't be an imposter because an imposter would enjoy the high station of a prince and would never confess it and would be crazy to do so.
[*St. John inventing a rational is a sort of reverse of how the stranger in Hadleyburg allows everyone to reach the conclusion that they performed the deed instead of outright telling them. This seems like a form of... wait for it... INCEPTION!!! That sound is so much fun, but I digress...]
Since this post is getting quite long, rather than go into this theme in Pudd'nhead Wilson, I'll leave it open to the readers of this post. Here's a quick example/question: does Roxy play into the status quo of heredity and the one drop rule to attempt to make Tom rich and subsequently herself (her having no other means of support, this is her best way to survive)? And another (although it may be more aimed at general society of the time): as science rose to greater prominence, was it more or less bent to support the status quo or more specifically to rationalize racial ideas (ie eugenics)?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Only Children and Madmen Believe
While The Prince and the Pauper brings up very interesting questions about identity as defined by society it also causes the reader to think about, if they were in a similar situation, would anyone believe them? Would they be labeled as crazy by the majority, as what happened in the story? And if anyone did believe them, what kind of people would they be?
Twain tackles this question, at least in part, throughout the novel; out of all the people that Edward tells his real identity to, the only ones who immediately believe him are the little children that he meets in the barn and the former monk who declares himself an archangel. This fits hand in hand with the novel's overall theme of social identity, since children and madmen are considered to be outside of the social realm; children are deemed "too young to understand," and madmen are, well, mad. However, Tom and Edward's unique circumstances call into question whether the monk really is mad--after all, his story may be fantastic and unbelievable, but isn't it just as unbelievable as a prince and a pauper trading places? In that light, it's very possible that the man was telling the truth, even though Edward immediately decided that he was mad, which was how everyone else treated him.
The children, like the monk, accept that he is the king "because it was so, and that was the end of it," but they are definitely not crazy. I think that the difference lies in the fact that the children were not yet jaded to the world the way that Edward was through the weight of all the power given to him at such a young age, making him not as able to easily believe despite what had happened to him. If those children had met that monk and he had told them his story, I'm sure that they would have believed it all. But another question remains? What is "crazy"? What is "madness"? Where is the line between someone having a condition or just being someone that society doesn't want to deal with? Maybe we should ask the kids.
Twain tackles this question, at least in part, throughout the novel; out of all the people that Edward tells his real identity to, the only ones who immediately believe him are the little children that he meets in the barn and the former monk who declares himself an archangel. This fits hand in hand with the novel's overall theme of social identity, since children and madmen are considered to be outside of the social realm; children are deemed "too young to understand," and madmen are, well, mad. However, Tom and Edward's unique circumstances call into question whether the monk really is mad--after all, his story may be fantastic and unbelievable, but isn't it just as unbelievable as a prince and a pauper trading places? In that light, it's very possible that the man was telling the truth, even though Edward immediately decided that he was mad, which was how everyone else treated him.
The children, like the monk, accept that he is the king "because it was so, and that was the end of it," but they are definitely not crazy. I think that the difference lies in the fact that the children were not yet jaded to the world the way that Edward was through the weight of all the power given to him at such a young age, making him not as able to easily believe despite what had happened to him. If those children had met that monk and he had told them his story, I'm sure that they would have believed it all. But another question remains? What is "crazy"? What is "madness"? Where is the line between someone having a condition or just being someone that society doesn't want to deal with? Maybe we should ask the kids.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Mistaken Identity
The Prince and the Pauper and Pudd'nhead Wilson have a central theme of mistaken identity. In The Prince and the Pauper Edward, the Prince of Wales, accidentially switches places with Tom Canty, the Prince of Pauperdom. In Pudd'nhead Wilson the slave Roxy switches her son with her owners son in order to save him from being "sold down the river". Twain uses clothing as the way that the characters are idenitified to outsiders. The Prince or slave owner is recognized by his "gaudy" appearal, whereas the peasant or slave child is known by his rags.
While searching the internet I found a website, http://www.twainquotes.com/Lookalikes/lookalikes.html, that showed 16 different cases of Mark Twain being mistaken for someone else. This site shows pictures of both Twain and the other person. One case that popped out at me was with Mark Twain and Frank Moulton. I couldn't find much information on Frank Moulton but the website said that he was a high profile figure during the Henry Ward Beecher case in 1875. The New York Sun newspaper compared the two men using their clothing.
I think that this case of reallife mistaken identity shaped how Twain wrote both the previous stated stories. Because Twain and Moulton were compared based on what they were wearing, Twain then used this to be the method of recognition in both his books. During the Beecher case the two men were brought together and asked to stand next to one another. This is the exact ending of The Prince and the Pauper. The two young boys were brought together in front of a group of people in setting much like a court room.
Frank Moulton Mark Twain
Prince and the Pauper Quotes
For my quote of the day, I actually had trouble choosing between these two because both represented the text so well, so I posted both. Here, I will discuss them.
PG 10 "The mother and father had a sort of bedstead in the corner; but Tom, his grandmother, and his two sisters, Bet and Nan, were not restricted--they had all the floor to themselves, and might sleep where they chose."
This line appears early in the text but I was never able to get it out of my head. It sets up Tom and his family's poverty, introduces members of his family, and is quite funny. The use of the word "but" rather than "while" is interesting. "While" would communicate the same information, but "but" is much sharper word, that sets the reader up for the shift of "were not restricted" and the following explanation. Using "while" would probably confuse the reader a bit and force him/her to reread the sentence.
Speaking of the shift and explanation that's what makes the sentence so funny. "[W]ere not restricted" subverts the reader's instincts, but that isn't enough to get the laugh. The following explanation provides the laugh through the contrast of its upbeat tone and sad fact.
I have heard that there's a kernel of truth in every joke (I'm fairly confident I don't believe this to be true of every joke) and if that's the case than there's a Fight Club-esque kind of argument being made: specifically that 'the things you own end up owning you.' Try to sleep in a room that has a bed, but not on the bed. It would drive some people crazy. The prince lucks out in the story when he take Miles Hendon's bed and he allows it because he slept in a dungeon for 7 years, which brings me to my second quote.
PG 17 of the Prince and the Pauper
"Their garment! Have they but one?"
"Ah, good your worship, what would they do with more? Truly they have not two bodies each."
For much of the story, the prince is absolutely unbearable to those around him. He clings to his class despite how ridiculous he seems and I'm not sure he's ever really aware that everyone assumes he's crazy. Miles is only able to tolerate him because he spent 7 years in a dungeon. This bit of conversation really illustrates that he really is an out of touch royal and at the same time reinforces Tom's poverty. All while being funny.
Miles Hendon, the Ever So Gallant
"And so he had. He did as men have always done, and probably always will do, to the end of time--held the needle still, and tried to thrust the thread through the eye, which is the opposite of a woman's way."The quote I have chosen depicts Miles Hendon in his attempt to thread a needle to make sewing adjustments to the new, but used, garments he purchased for the little king, Eward Tudor. At this point, Eward has convinced Hendon that he would have made a good little king, for he sure has the attitude of one. However, Hendon believes that Edward is mostly delusional and takes him in as a sort of pet, dressing him up like his own little doll. He sews the clothes while Edward is sleeping, revealing right after the above quote that he plans on adopting Edward on his journey to Hendon Hall where the "little one" shall be merry. Edward runs away, however, and Hendon is dead set on finding him and bringing him with him.
-The Prince and the Pauper, Chapter XIII p. 67
Hendon's complete infatuation with Edward interests me. Was Twain intending to parallel his character with that of dedicated Knights to their King, stopping at nothing to protect him? More so, Hendon does not believe that Edward is the King, and yet he finds himself constantly on the search for him in order to save him from the cruel world. I suppose he is supposed to be the soldier, the protector, the dedicated knight who will stop at nothing in order to maintain justice and safety of those fairer than him. What's the word? Ah, yes, chivalrous. Of course, Twain takes this chivalrous soldier to an extreme, exaggerating his role in the story and also the prototypical knight of Renaissance England.
That is where my quote comes into play. Twain has Hendon doing such a dainty and loving thing: clothing a small boy by his own hand. Hendon maintains his manliness by Twain's juxtaposition of his attempt to "thrust" the thread through the eye in the typical man-way, so opposite of a woman. Even though Hendon is demonstrating an absurd amount of care and sensitivity for Edward, he is still a big, manly man's man...man. He is both an insanely dedicated knight and protector and carer for Eward. Twain makes silly his running about and pursuing Edward at any cost in order to complete his mission quite like the tales of the Knights of the Round Table. I hear the Monty Python and the Holy Grail song over and over again in my mind.
Or, Hendon is like all of the characters who helped Frodo Baggins in his quest to destroy the ring! Maybe? I could see Viggo playing him in a movie. Well, maybe a little less serious than Viggo. In any case, Hendon is the recurring gallant and reverent protector.
The quote can also be taken more seriously, reflecting on the soldier's loss of social norms when in battle. Twain says that men will always try to thread the needle...but why? Because, in war, men have to thread their own needles and take care of themselves while protecting their country? And they "always" will because war will always be an issue and there will always be a need for soldiers? I wonder if Twain was commenting on the horrible inevitability of war and the loss of reality in war where men have to adopt roles that normally are not meant for them...Yikes, a hasty statement since I am all for women's rights. But, during the time period in which Twain was writing, this would have been more acceptable.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
Quote of the Day-But the Animals Don't Mind
The distant dogs howled, the melancholy kine complained, and the winds went on raging, whilst furious sheets of rain drove along the roof; but the Majesty of England slept on, undisturbed, and the calf did the same, it being a simple creature, and not easily troubled by storms or embarrassed by sleeping with a king. (Chapter XVIII, last sentence)The Prince and the Pauper is primarily a story of mistaken identity, despite how much the two protagonists insist on their true identities, and it was very amusing to read about the little calf, who is probably the only living being in the story that makes no judgement on him or decides for himself whether the King is mad or telling the truth. I think that this quote speaks to the fact that the idea that "clothes make the man" is completely a human trait; no other species judges its members the way that we do.
Quote of the Day-5/9
The quote that I choose was from chapter 3 of The Prince and the Pauper. It is "A few minutes later the little Prince of Wales was garland with Tom's fluttering odds and ends, and the little Prince of Pauperdom was tricked out in the gaudy plumage of royalty. The two went and stood side by side before a great mirror, and lo, a miracle: there did not seem to have been any change made!" I thought that this was one of the most important quotes in the book because it sets up everything that is going to happen. In the lines above, the two young boys switch their clothing to see how it feels to be in the other's shoes. Little do they know this is the beginning of a huge case of mistaken identity.
I love how Mark Twain decided to name Tom Canty, The Prince of Pauperdom. I think that this is extremely fitting for Tom because he would daydream about being with the royals and read about them in his everyday life. It also points out the irony of the two children meeting; one of them being the future king and a real prince, while the other one is a pauper.
I also enjoy this quote and find it important because it shows the innocence of children, no matter what their backgrounds are. Twain has the two boys stand "side by side" which is unusual because it makes Tom equal to Edward. If the boys were older and under more pressure to abide by protocol they wouldn't have been able to stand next to each other. This is also seen when the two change clothes with one another. I doubt that many grown Princes swap their clothing for rags with a strang commoner.
I like how Twain uses the word "miracle" for what has just happened. I think that the use of the word is ironic because I don't think during most of the story any of the characters feel like this event was a miracle but more of a curse. It isn't until the very end of the story that we can see the true miracle that has occured for all of the characters.
I love how Mark Twain decided to name Tom Canty, The Prince of Pauperdom. I think that this is extremely fitting for Tom because he would daydream about being with the royals and read about them in his everyday life. It also points out the irony of the two children meeting; one of them being the future king and a real prince, while the other one is a pauper.
I also enjoy this quote and find it important because it shows the innocence of children, no matter what their backgrounds are. Twain has the two boys stand "side by side" which is unusual because it makes Tom equal to Edward. If the boys were older and under more pressure to abide by protocol they wouldn't have been able to stand next to each other. This is also seen when the two change clothes with one another. I doubt that many grown Princes swap their clothing for rags with a strang commoner.
I like how Twain uses the word "miracle" for what has just happened. I think that the use of the word is ironic because I don't think during most of the story any of the characters feel like this event was a miracle but more of a curse. It isn't until the very end of the story that we can see the true miracle that has occured for all of the characters.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Cash Rules Everything Around Me
"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, and over these ideals they dispute and cannot unite--but they all worship money. "
- Mark Twain's Notebook
In his short stories, Mark Twain frequently addresses money. In "A Canvasser's Tale" he remarks upon the ability for the government to make "taxable" something as abstract as an echo. A simple piece of paper in "The 1,000,000 Pound Bank Note" with an absurd amount of money written out on it allows for Henry Adams to become a celebrity in England and wins him the heart of his love in a very round-about manner. He relies on loans and incurs debt, knowing the risk, but buys into the "now-ness" of credit. The lure of $40,000 in "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" makes the whole "incorruptible" town greedy; all nineteen citizens and their wives, quite a feat. Twain himself fell into the various traps of money when he invested $300,000 into the Paige typesetting machine. After losing so much of his wealth, he himself became enslaved to creditors.
It is so intriguing that even though these stories and Twain's personal experiences occurred in the late 19th Century, money still has such natures in the current society. Winning the lotto is anticlimactic when one considers the amount of gift tax they have to pay upon receiving the money. Futhermore, considering estate tax the winner is wise to spend the money smartly and urgently if they want the amount to be stagnant, let alone, accumulate.
Like Henry Adams, many people become the victim of purchasing expensive items like cars and houses on credit. However, in such a society houses and cars are a necessity, not a commodity. We become the victims of our own standard of living and strive to have the basic commodities and then some. This can be elaborated into the evils of consumerism and the ability of items to make a person a member of "community." And how many times does it occur that a family is broken apart by the greed of their share in a will? Just like the people of Hadleyburg, strong and close families become sworn enemies and the toss of a coin.
Money and greed are constantly the theme of songs, movies, plays, literature, poetry, art, television, etc. Twain was both satirizing his era and the eras to come. The echo of money, money, money still reverberates today.
youtube: Notorious B.I.G. "More Money More Problems"
youtube: Aloe Blacc & Wu-Tang Clan - I Need A Dollar (Bakija Remix)
Forbes: Top Ten Movies About Money
Antebellum Dogs and Frogs
Here's the Wikipedia article about "The Notorious Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" or should I say "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" or should I say "Jim Smiley and His Jumping Frog" as it was originally titled. I don't want to spend too much speculating as to the significance of the title changes. Personally, I find the term "notorious" to be more appropriate than "celebrated" within the context of the story, but I can't help but wonder if the change was due to the changing of the times.
The story was first published in 1865, but the change from "celebrated" to "notorious" took place in 1872 or 7 years after the Civil War ended. During this time Twain and the rest of the nation had time to reflect on the Civil War and the Antebellum period and perspectives more than likely shifted.
There are two animals in the story: a pug and a frog named Andrew Jackson and Daniel Webster respectively. Each animal is successful in their respective competitions, winning Jim Smiley a good deal of money.
The pug's main fighting technique was to grab on to the back legs of its opponent until it had won, but eventually the pug had to face a dog with no hind legs. Confused about how to fight back, Andrew Jackson gave up and lost. In the story, Simon Wheeler says of the fight:
"It was a good pup, was that Andrew Jackson, and would have made a name for hisself if he'd lived, for the stuff was in him, and he had genius I know it, because he hadn't had no opportunities to speak of, and it don't stand to reason that a dog could make such a fight as he could under them circumstances, if he hadn't no talent. It always makes me feel sorry when I think of that last fight of his'n, and the way it turned out."
It's ambiguous as to whether Twain or Wheeler feels that way about Andrew Jackson the president. Regardless, it's clear that someone believes Jackson had potential and talent but never had "opportunities" and fell short of that potential. It's unclear to me what the legless dog represents, perhaps a scandal or issue. My first instinct is that the legless dog was the Bank of the United States, an institution Jackson hated and repeatedly attempted to destroy. If I remember correctly, Jackson attempted to tax the Bank to the point of dissolution but the Supreme Court removed his ability (or rather, Congress' ability) to tax the bank on the grounds that "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Eliminating Jackson's ability to tax is similar to the way that the legless dog renders the pug Jackson unable to use his usual technique to win. This is the most fitting historical metaphor or parallel I have been able to find at least.
Daniel Webster, the frog, is described as being able to jump better than any other frog and being "modest" and straight forward. Smiley eventually bets a stranger on the frog's jumping ability and leaves him with the stranger so he can find another frog. The stranger fills Webster with buckshot so he doesn't jump when the time comes. The stranger takes his money and disappears and soon after Smiley realizes what has happened but is unable to catch the stranger.
The real Daniel Webster was a Senator and Secretary of State at different points in his political career and was renowned for his oratory abilities as well as being one of the main forces behind compromise in the antebellum period. His mouth is stuffed in the story, a reference to his oratory abilities being silenced, although I'm not sure if this correlates to any specific event (possibly his death in 1852?).
What needs to be figured out is who Smiley, Wheeler, and the stranger are, or rather who/what they represent.
Smiley's first name is Jim, like the boy in "The Story of the Bad Little Boy" who became a legislator and is clearly disliked by Twain. Smiley could be Congress or the Supreme Court or the American people. Smiley is always gambling and either puts his animal in a fight it cannot win or makes a mistake that results in him being cheated, each costing him dearly. The Supreme Court fits the pug situation while the frog could fit any. For example, perhaps the American people neglected Webster while looking for another "frog" which resulted in Webster's silence when the moment of truth came (Webster ran for president 3 times was never elected).
It seems to me that Wheeler is either how the American people remember the antebellum period or how historians remember it. The narrator could be the American people, disinterested and trying to leave the antebellum conversation since the Civil War was over and its restructuring of the political landscape made the old landscape irrelevant in a way (no longer relatable or useful perhaps?).
Once again, the stranger could be Congress, the Supreme Court, or the American people. Which one depends on what the other characters represent, like different puzzle pieces, but then again it may be several small puzzles or simply an imperfect puzzle.
In case you were wondering, yes, I did love AP US history.
The story was first published in 1865, but the change from "celebrated" to "notorious" took place in 1872 or 7 years after the Civil War ended. During this time Twain and the rest of the nation had time to reflect on the Civil War and the Antebellum period and perspectives more than likely shifted.
There are two animals in the story: a pug and a frog named Andrew Jackson and Daniel Webster respectively. Each animal is successful in their respective competitions, winning Jim Smiley a good deal of money.
The pug's main fighting technique was to grab on to the back legs of its opponent until it had won, but eventually the pug had to face a dog with no hind legs. Confused about how to fight back, Andrew Jackson gave up and lost. In the story, Simon Wheeler says of the fight:
"It was a good pup, was that Andrew Jackson, and would have made a name for hisself if he'd lived, for the stuff was in him, and he had genius I know it, because he hadn't had no opportunities to speak of, and it don't stand to reason that a dog could make such a fight as he could under them circumstances, if he hadn't no talent. It always makes me feel sorry when I think of that last fight of his'n, and the way it turned out."
It's ambiguous as to whether Twain or Wheeler feels that way about Andrew Jackson the president. Regardless, it's clear that someone believes Jackson had potential and talent but never had "opportunities" and fell short of that potential. It's unclear to me what the legless dog represents, perhaps a scandal or issue. My first instinct is that the legless dog was the Bank of the United States, an institution Jackson hated and repeatedly attempted to destroy. If I remember correctly, Jackson attempted to tax the Bank to the point of dissolution but the Supreme Court removed his ability (or rather, Congress' ability) to tax the bank on the grounds that "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Eliminating Jackson's ability to tax is similar to the way that the legless dog renders the pug Jackson unable to use his usual technique to win. This is the most fitting historical metaphor or parallel I have been able to find at least.
Daniel Webster, the frog, is described as being able to jump better than any other frog and being "modest" and straight forward. Smiley eventually bets a stranger on the frog's jumping ability and leaves him with the stranger so he can find another frog. The stranger fills Webster with buckshot so he doesn't jump when the time comes. The stranger takes his money and disappears and soon after Smiley realizes what has happened but is unable to catch the stranger.
The real Daniel Webster was a Senator and Secretary of State at different points in his political career and was renowned for his oratory abilities as well as being one of the main forces behind compromise in the antebellum period. His mouth is stuffed in the story, a reference to his oratory abilities being silenced, although I'm not sure if this correlates to any specific event (possibly his death in 1852?).
What needs to be figured out is who Smiley, Wheeler, and the stranger are, or rather who/what they represent.
Smiley's first name is Jim, like the boy in "The Story of the Bad Little Boy" who became a legislator and is clearly disliked by Twain. Smiley could be Congress or the Supreme Court or the American people. Smiley is always gambling and either puts his animal in a fight it cannot win or makes a mistake that results in him being cheated, each costing him dearly. The Supreme Court fits the pug situation while the frog could fit any. For example, perhaps the American people neglected Webster while looking for another "frog" which resulted in Webster's silence when the moment of truth came (Webster ran for president 3 times was never elected).
It seems to me that Wheeler is either how the American people remember the antebellum period or how historians remember it. The narrator could be the American people, disinterested and trying to leave the antebellum conversation since the Civil War was over and its restructuring of the political landscape made the old landscape irrelevant in a way (no longer relatable or useful perhaps?).
Once again, the stranger could be Congress, the Supreme Court, or the American people. Which one depends on what the other characters represent, like different puzzle pieces, but then again it may be several small puzzles or simply an imperfect puzzle.
In case you were wondering, yes, I did love AP US history.
Personification in Mark Twain
Personification is everywhere in Mark Twain's short stories. One story that is based on this literary technique is "What Stumped the Bluejays". In the text Jim Baker gives several animals human characteristics, but none that compare to the bluejay. The main ability that these animals have is communication with one another. Jim Baker claims that he has witnessed all animals speak to other animals. He preaches that the bluejay has the best grammar and could out-swear any human or animal. "Baker said, that after long and careful observation, he had come to the conclusion that the bluejays were the best talkers he had found among birds and beats." Another short story that shows Twain's use of personification is "The Notorious Jumping Frog of Caleveras County". In this piece of work, Twain gives the jumping frog personality traits that wouldn't normally be associated with an animal. "You never see a frog so modest and straightfor'ard as he was, for all he was so gifted."
Narration and Framing in Twain's Short Stories
In stories like “The Notorious Jumping Frog of Caleveras County” and “A True Story,” among others, Twain uses narrative as a framing device that helps the reader draw conclusions about the story that probably never would have occurred to them without the frame. For example, in “A True Story,” we don’t just hear the story. We also get to see the statement made by the narrator that caused Aunt Rachel to tell it. In “The Notorious Jumping Frog of Caleveras County,” we first hear from the narrator’s perspective that he is looking for information on a specific man, which gives us the context for the rambling tale that follows (which may or may not have been a warning to the narrator, who was a stranger). It would have been much harder for the reader to figure out the significance to these stories and why they were being told (or retold, in this context) if it weren’t for the framing. The frame also makes the reader challenge their own initial impressions of people that are given to them through the narrator (“Aunt Rachel, how is it that you’ve lived sixty years and never had any trouble?”) and then changed by the story that is then told to both the narrator and the reader (“Oh no, Misto C, I hain’t had no trouble. An’ no joy!”). It possible that by providing a frame, Twain is not only recreating the situation of a story being retold to someone but also challenging people’s perceptions of the reliable narrator, because all of us have our own biases and misjudge people, so no one could truly be a reliable narrator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)