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.
I think that this is an interesting point. Not all of the children in the story believe that the switch really took place. Edward's sister and cousin(i think that is the relationship) don't believe that Tom switched with Edward and they are children. I think Twain might have been trying to make a point about what kind of children and madmen that believe him. The mad priest and the children both live outside of the city and all the social influences that comes with that. Is Twain suggesting that living within a city or social construct takes away a person's ability to see the truth and instead forces everyone to conform to the idea of madness?
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me about how only a few children and a madmen believe Edward's story is how they have little to no investment in society. The madman seems to be a recluse and the children are away from the city. It might be that the children within the city didn't believe him because city life is more deceptive (those sneaky cityslickers...) or there's a greater deal of social pressure because the children are essentially on their own. In a way, they're forced to grow up quickly while the children on the farm are still able to be children (I can't remember the ages on the different children, so I suppose it could just be that the farm children are younger and not "trained" as much)
ReplyDeleteMaybe Twain was also saying that children and outsiders were able to see the "truth" that Edward was in fact the king because they had not yet been blinded by the social discourses of the era. The adults within the city seem to have developed many distractions (clothes, gaudiness, prejudices, reputation) whereas the children and monk were disassociated with these things. Might be a stretch and I could develop this further but I'll keep it short and sweet.
ReplyDeleteI think that Twain was saying something about how society corrupts us into not being able to believe anyone. Only outside of society is Edward believed and never from anyone who lives within the city limits. Why can only societies outsiders see the truth?
ReplyDelete