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)?
I don't think that Roxy played into the status quo of her heredity. As a slave, stereotypically, she shuldn't be able to switch the children or even be able to come up with the idea because slaves aren't suppose to be smart enough to do such things. Roxy does both of these things anyways.
ReplyDeleteI am going to say "but I digress" so much now. Thanks Twain and Michael. woo.
ReplyDeleteAs for Roxy playing into the status quo, I did not feel so at first because her manipulation of the circumstances and her ability to deceive her owner as a way to benefit herself. But, since her deception was mapped out by none other than Pudd'nhead and his science, maybe she was just another pawn, another meaningless extra in the dominance of the white man.
I think Twain blurs the implications of scientific expansion within the Age of Reason by his use of finger prints, Wilson (the most likeable and rational man in the town) to uncover Roxy's switch, and the "escaping" of "punishment" given to 'Tom' once he is regarded as an enslaved black man. It's all so over-lapped.
I don't think that Roxy played into her stereotypical role as a female slave. She switches the children, which is a very major action for a slave to take. The stereotypical slave ouldn't have the brains or the nerve to try to do this. Also, later in the novel she becomes a dominate figure in Tom's life. This is abnormal for a women of that time, she should have been submissive to a man.
ReplyDelete