Shaping Huck's Morality

We have discussed a lot about Huck’s morality in class.  He is a pretty tough character to read.

 Throughout the book, Huck’s morality is slowly shaping through the events and experience he has been going through.  Initially, Huck has been taught by Pap and widow Douglas as to what is “right.”  Back in chapter 7, Pap essentially told Huck it is okay to take something and call it “borrowing” if there are “intentions” to pay the person back.  Widow Douglas referred to Pap’s idea of “borrowing” as simply stealing.  In chapter 16, the slave catchers wanted to search the raft for slaves (where Jim was hiding), but Huck makes a lie that it is his family who has chickenpox so they don’t go near the raft.  Huck realizes that sometimes telling lie can actually be good.  But then he feels bad that he is betraying Miss Watson (as well as the slave catchers) for not turning in Jim because all she has done for Huck is care for him.  On the other hand, he would have felt bad if he has turned in Jim since they are friends and he would have broken a promise.  This is a turning point for Huck because he comes to a conclusion that he will “always do whichever come handiest at the time” (104).  Huck will do whatever he thinks will be best for him, not by what he has been taught.  So we still don’t really know where he stands on his moral judgment.  Like in chapter 26, he has been telling lies to Joanna and continues to lie to Joanna when she asks him to swear on a book (the dictionary).  Huck realizes this and decides it is completely okay to lie because it’s not the Bible.  Also in chapter 26, Huck still goes along with the King and Duke’s scam but then decides not to go through with them.  This was a giant turning point for Huck.  Huck always felt bad with this scam but all of a sudden he felt way worse decided to either turn in the King and Duke or hide the money (188).  It seems like when it starts to deal with the emotions of someone close to him, Huck begins to realize what is really wrong and what is good.

Jim As A Father.

Today, my group and I quoted passages regarding Jim and his family, and we thought about it together. One of the things that came up was the way in which Jim has been a father figure to Huck throughout the entire novel, and the information about his wife and children make strong headway in solidifying that paternal notion.

Upon learning about Jim's family, certain aspects of his behavior with Huck seem that much more genuine and fatherly. For example, shortly after their partnership is forged, Jim begins to speak to Huck in affectionate terms, calling him things that a caregiver would call the one cared for. "I tell you, chile, I 'speck it save' ole Jim - ole Jim ain't gwyne to forgit you for dat, honey" (104). And on page 128: "Lawsy, I's mighty glad to git you back agin, honey."

Even more interesting though is Jim's honest gratitude and happiness each time he is reunited with Huck, which is most certainly derived from the loss of Jim's own biological children and family. Even though Huck plays a nasty trick on him, which Jim may or may not have fallen for, he is still there to teach the little one a lesson, comfort him with his company, and appreciate his youth. "Goodness gracious, is dat you, Huck? En you ain' dead - you ain't drownded - you's back agin? It's too good for true, honey, it's too good for true. Lemme look at you, chile, lemme feel o' you. No, you ain't dead! you's back agin, 'live en soun', jis de same old Huck - de same old Huck, thanks to goodness" (96). Twain goes through great detail to describe Jim's reaction upon seeing the child. He acts as a parent physically running hands along the child's person, not only to look for injuries or breaks, but to reaffirm the fact that it truly is the child in question. And it is important to realize that Huck let's Jim perform this check. There is a trust and connection between the two.

When Huck returns from the Grangerfords, there is a similar reaction from Jim, but this is described through Huck's perspective. "It was Jim's voice - nothing ever sounded so good before. I run along the bank a piece and got aboard, and Jim he grabbed me and hugged me, he was so glad to see me" (128). So not only does Jim have a deep affection for Huck, but we as readers are made aware the those feelings are reciprocated through this passage. Further down the page, Huck describes the "home" that they experience on the raft. It is true that Huck appreciates the raft for its freedom, but given these passages, we can conclude that the notion of home comes from said raft, and from the companionship and family that flourishes there with Jim.

Why does Jim Act like He knows Nothing?

Throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, runaway slave and companion to Huck, Jim, acts as if he knows really no information about anything. Yet, with Huck being the narrator, does Jim actually know as much as he leads on to know? Or does Jim actually hide his intelligence from Huck knowing that it could get him into trouble?

In several instances throughout The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck would tell a story or give his opinion on something and it slightly seemed like Jim was hesitant or did not completely agree with Huck, and in some cases did not agree at all. One instance of this covered intelligence was after the Duke and King dooped the city and took all their money, which was in chapter 23. As soon as the two men fell asleep, Jim was suddenly alert of what was really going on. Jim soon asked “Don’t it ‘sprise you. de way dem kings carries on, Huck?” (Twain, 165). Huck denies this claim by Jim yet thinks to himself after their conversation what “was the use to tell Jim these warn’t real kings and dukes?” (Twain, 167).

Every time Jim would get into some kind of argument or questioning of what was actually going on, he would soon concede to whatever Huck had to say on the matter. This is strange for anybody now days, but then it was very ordinary. Slaves were not to hold any type of intelligence or education, which was exactly what Jim was prior to his escape. So what it really seems like is that Jim knows exactly what is going on, but has to hide his real thoughts on everything. The feelings for Jim must have been fear when he would start to question these type of things with Huck, for at any moment Huck could have him chained up and collect his reward. I just could not imagine what it would be like to live like that, no ability to think except to yourself, yet to just live in imaginary stupidity, as Jim had to live.

Morality-Shmorality

We discussed Huck's "conscience" vs his "Heart". But something else I have been thinking about that has come up a lot is guilt. In the section where Huck is pondering his own moral code, guilt seems to have its place on both sides of the dilemma. He feels guilty for not turning Jim in, because it goes against what society has taught him to be right, and he would have felt "just the same way" even if he had turned him in, because he would have broken a promise to a friend. It feels like the opposition on the side of what is "wrong" is because it isn't really wrong. Huck knows this, but at the same time cannot shake what he has been taught.

When Jim and Huck are trying to decide if "borrowing" food is wrong. They compare Pap's belief that there is no harm in taking things "if you was meaning to pay them back, sometime" (76) to what the widow said about it still being stealing and not something any decent person does. Since they find merit on both sides of the argument, they try to compromise. The way they alleviate their guilt is by choosing a couple things they will not take. However they choose crab apples, which Huck doesn't like, and persimmons, which are not in season. Even though this is not a sacrifice it appeases the guilt and "it was all comfortable now" (76)

I think Huck also feels guilty when he helps the Duke and the King swindle the dead man's family. At one point, after messing up his story, he swears on a dictionary that he hasn't been telling lies, even though he has. This seems to him to be okay since it isn't a bible. He decides that if he tells on them it will be more trouble for him, instead he plans to fix the situation by stealing the money back. He manages to do so but he has to leave it in the coffin and doesn't have a chance to get it back before the funeral. He then feels guilty once more when the slave family is separated and sold. He comforts himself by telling him that they are going to be back in a couple weeks after the fraud is exposed.

I still don't feel like I have a solid understanding of Huck's morality. He seems to operate in this liminal space, in which sometimes what he does is what society values, or what he believes should be right, or just what is best for his survival.

Roxy - good or bad?

In class, we brought up questions about Roxy and where she stands exactly.  Throughout the book, we see Roxy’s morals/personality flip-flop.  As a general idea about Roxy, we see a dichotomy between a loving mother and a greedy individual.  Initially, the persona of a loving mother comes out for she switched “Tom” and “Chambers” in order to save her son from being sold down the river.  She wanted to see her son have an enjoyable and successful life.  However, her son “Tom” becomes spoiled and cruel.  Once Roxy became a free slave, she saved up money but her bank lost all her money, so she goes to “Tom” and begs him for money but he couldn’t due to his gambling debt.  Roxy told Tom to sacrifice her (sell her as a slave in a local area) in order to create a better life for Tom.  However, Tom betrays Roxy and sold her down the river.  Luckily Roxy escapes and makes her way back and as a result, Roxy began to blackmail “Tom” in threatening him to reveal his true identity, a nigger, to the rest of the town.  So Tom pays Roxy a sum amount every so often.  He gets the money from his thieving escapades that Roxy plans out.  This is when I began to view Roxy as a “bad person.”

In one of the earlier chapters when Percy Driscoll discovers that things are stolen from the house and blames it on his slaves.  All of the slaves confessed they stole something.  Here we see that Roxy is a “good person” by not stealing and has recently become religious.  But at the end of the book, we see that Roxy is part of these thieving plans and that she becomes less of a loving mother and more of a greedy individual, basically more self-interested and less about her son. I think this may be due to the fact that once she has seen her son has become this cruel individual that she gave up hope.  What do you guys thinks?

Reading Twain.

Having already read multiple stories by Twain and discussing most of them thoroughly, it is especially interesting to read Pudd'nhead Wilson and find clues that the author has left for the reader - specifically clues that wouldn't be noticed if said reader was not familiar with his work or his tendencies.

For example, in the beginning of the story, the ways in which Mr. Wilson received his nickname of "Pudd'nhead" are established after making an especially sarcastic comment about a noisy dog. Later, on page 86, Twain calls into question not the sanity of Mr. Wilson, but the ability of the town to truly grasp or appreciate sarcasm and irony in general. "But irony was not for those people; their mental vision was not focused for it. They read those playful trifles in the solidest earnest, and decided without hesitancy that if there had ever been any doubt that Dave Wilson was a pudd'nhead, - which there hadn't - this revelation removed that doubt for good and all." After our class discussions, it seems like this is a direct statement to the reader warning them that taking the writer's irony as literal would be detrimental to his own understanding of the book, and possibly life in general.

Similarly, Twain frequently hints towards his own views of religion and piety in his stories. It seems that this book is no exception. Upon Roxy's return to the area, we begin to see the ways in which she has flourished with her new found freedom. "And there was the church. She was more rabid and devoted Methodist than ever, and her piety was no sham, but was strong and sincere. Yes, with plenty of creature comforts and her old place in the amen corner in her possession again, she would be perfectly happy and at peace thenceforward to the end" (102). As in the case of Hadleyburg, religion and piety are described as possessions, and as such (as Gill said in class) they are capable of being bought, lost, or stolen. And for Roxy, this sudden religious conviction was only after losing all her life's savings to the failed bank. Therefore, Twain could be implying that religion is only something found when money cannot be its stand-in.

True Blood

I had a hard time deciding what to actually write about for this post. I feel like we have brought up so many topics in class that could still be delved into, but they branch off in too many directions. However I have been thinking a lot about the question of "What is the Truth?". Thinking about this lead me to wondering about who's truth we are looking for. I feel as though there are two levels to the book, the level for most of the readers of Twain's time (the ones like the citizens who cannot understand Pudd'nhead's ironic comments) and then another layer very subtly criticizing the norms of Dawson's Landing.

Before reading the end of the book I wondered if Mark Twain would end it in such a way as to suggest that he may agree with the slavery and racism that goes on throughout the novel. At times it felt as though Tom's attitude and behaviors were blamed on his "drop of black blood", so I thought it might feel in the end that even though he was held accountable for his actions it was not his upbringing but his heritage that was to blame. In a way that is what happened, no one stopped to think; Tom came from such a nice family, how could he do a thing like that, or something of the like. No, he lost his identity when he was exposed as a, albeit unintentional, usurper. Yet, I believe it is written in such a way because that is how the people of the town would think. Certain excerpts such as the following lead me to feel as though he is subtly hinting at the hypocrisy of the situation.

"The real heir found himself rich and free, but in a most embarrassing situation. He could neither read nor write, and his speech was the basest dialect of the negro quarter. His gait, his attitudes, his gestures, his bearing, his laugh - all were vulgar and uncouth; his manners were the manners of a slave. Money and fine clothes could not mend these defects or cover them up, they only made them the more glaring and the more pathetic."

Unlike in The Prince and the Pauper, this quote mentions the inability of clothing and fine things to disguise the man inside, they do they opposite and highlight his differences. To me Chambers after the trial is an example of how the changelings were shaped by their upbringing. Yet despite his speech and manners he is accepted if not welcomed into the upper tier of the hierarchy. All the things that set him apart from them can suddenly be ignored, in the same way that the Tom the associated with for twenty years can be "sold down the river" without a second thought. How can things get turned upside down so readily? Doesn't that imply that blood only has the power allotted to it by supposed knowledge and the societal perceptions that go along with it?

I find it hard to think of Twain as a racist, although the satire in many of his other works has been a lot more apparent and biting than in this novel. Is there a purpose behind that? or is it really meant literally? Does anyone agree of disagree with me?