Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Huck Finn

I'm going to be honest, I really didn't like Tom Sawyer when I read it back in the seventh grade, therefore leaving me with a bias towards Mark Twain.

Huck Finn, though, is admittedly different from Tom Sawyer and more interesting.
What I found interesting was the dichotomy created between the river and the towns along it. Whenever Huck and Jim are on the river by themselves, they tend to be safe and calm, whereas on land Huck is having to lie and is always confronted with society's restrictions (attitudes towards slaves, stigma associated with helping a slave, etc.) When the "duke" and "king" end up on their raft, society's gullibility seems to come with it.

To be honest, I really didn't like the reintroduction of Tom Sawyer towards the end of the story, probably because I don't like Tom's character. He complicates everything has this arrogance about him that always gets in the way of Huck's simple and straightforward plans. I thnk that throughout the story Huck demonstrated that he is capable of duplicity and cleverness as well, but Tom always seems to fail to acknowledge that. Do you think that Tom represents something at that point in the story? Or maybe Mark Twain made him annoying on purpose? Or...I'm the only one that finds him aggravating?

Discuss anything else Huck Finn related. :]

-Tina

32 Comments:

Blogger matthew weiss said...

I completely agree with Tina. While Huck has matured over the course of his journey down the river, Tom has remained exactly the same. His antics might have been endearing to some in the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, bbut after the mature development of Huck Finn, Tom's character chafes on the reader.

3:00 PM  
Blogger matthew weiss said...

Here's a rudimentry coorespondence:

* Journey: Down the Mississippi, Jim's search for freedom, Huck's for a home

* Right of Passage: Huck having to escape from his father's cabin

* Loss/Search for Eden: The North and Freedom, Missing the town in the fog

* Growth Thru Conflict: Each adventure leaves Huck wiser, often more easily daring, but also more concious of himself and his state in the world.

* Nature/ Life Cycle: The whole story is structured in cycles, in miniadventures, each with a smal conclusion. Begins and ends with Tom Sawyer.

* Religion: Huck coming to grips with Providence and the key moment when he decides he's going to hell for helping Jim and he's okay with that.

* Reconciliation of Opposites: Jim/Huck, Slave/Master, Black/White, River/Land, Honesty/Lies

3:30 PM  
Blogger Rachel said...

Ok, does anyone have a clear explanation as to how Batman (the song is going through my mind now), Superman, and our hero Huck? I can associate the mysterious origin with Superman, and the outsider thing because he is not willing to go along with social norms. Instead he goes against them. One example is how he was helping Jim escape even though he feels threatened by the possibility of being caught. If anyone has any other thoughts, please blog!

Tina - I agree that Tom is comparitivly more juvinielle and it is difficult to deal with him after reading about how much Huck has developed.

Matt - Thank you for your list of explanations. I found it very helpful.

7:08 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

I agree that Tom only serves to annoy Huck and hinder his maturation through the story.

Ranna: I'm guessing you're asking how Huck fits into the hero archetype?
I'm not sure we can answer that fully until all the characteristics of the hero are given to us. But he fits quite well into the mysterious origin aspect. He is shunned by society because he's rich, he wishes(?) to be poor, there is no elaboration on his birth/childhood, except that he lived on the streets. He's orphaned, and probably a little psychologically scarred from all the beatings he's received from his Pap.
He definitely is unique when compared to the rest of society.

Anyone feel especially touched by the moment Huck lied to Jim and Jim found out? I feel that this is one of the pivotal moments in Huck's "friendship" with Jim. Huck, trying to play a trick with Jim, outright lies to him, and then feels especially horrible after Jim realizes that Huck lied. I put friendship in quotes because Huck still feels a twinge of guilt about hiding Jim on the raft. Instead he considers turning Jim in as a runaway slave.

D'you think that there's a different kind of relationship between the river and towns? For example, the river could mean safety, but also ignorance. By isolating themselves from the rest of the world, they fail to interact with society. So you can also say that their taking in the duke and king helped lessen their ignorance.
The towns represent, obviously, a kind of fall from innocence type thing. The various towns are the only places where Huck matures. He learns how to act like a girl, he learns of family feuds that ends up killing whole families, he learns about scams, etc. He basically learns that life isn't just about laying around and watching the steamboats go by. Things happen and those events seriously affect other people.

Agree? Disagree? Agree to disagree?

8:31 PM  
Blogger matthew weiss said...

Maybe it was in the introduction, or elsewhere, but if you notice, each stop along the way down the river involves Huck finding some kind of surrogate family or family-type figure. Maturity aside, the book is really a quest for Huck's family.

I also wonder if Twain set Tom's ramblings about European kings and plots etc, and Huck's "American" practicality as opposites to make some kind of... oh wait: "...persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted..." Oops.

9:32 PM  
Blogger Rachel said...

Albert I'm not ranna...please don't just read the first letter! Thank you.

9:35 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

whoops
my fault
please accept my apologies

9:37 PM  
Blogger Rachel said...

no problem i just didn't want ranna blasted for my ramblings!

9:59 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth Johnson said...

It made me happy that Mark Twain killed off/tarred and feathered all the characters that I disliked... except for Tom Sawyer, that arrogant little prick.

But moving on...

While reading the passages where Tom is formulating his plans for Jim's escape, I couldn't help thinking that Twain was poking fun at the archetypal story (despite the fact that his story is an archetypal one). Tom wants to do everything the way he read about in books, even when Huck suggests something far more straightforward and workable. Everytime Huck questions Tom, Tom says they must do it this way because this is the way that "they all do it." Bascially, my point is that Twain pokes fun at the archetypal story by satirizing (sp?) it in his own archetypal story. Tom wants to plan this escape in the tried-and-true way that all of the escaped prisoners of centuries past have escaped. I hope this rambling made sense and the point that I have in my mind somehow manifested itself in terms that you can understand.

Albert, I think your relationship between the river and the towns is very interesting and I believe that the towns represent a fall from innocence/having your youthful preconceived notions shattered. I also think that the river represents safety for Huck and Jim, but it also represents the calm times when life goes smoothly between the 'tribulations' of growing up. However, I don't think it represents ignorance from society; Huck is still learning many things about himself and how he fits into the world while he is traveling on the raft. And if we go with Matt's theory (which I agree whole-heartedly with), the rafting periods are the time that Huck spends testing out his new "family members" and deciding whether or not they are worth keeping around and making part of his surrogate family.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Kaitlyn said...

Even though Tom became quite annoying at the end of the story because he never seemed to gain maturity or experience, he was a crucial part to the story. I think Tom made Huck more adventureous even though he didn't always set the best example. I think the story would be quite boring without Tom because he seems to light quite a fire under Huck's tail.

I agree with everyone that Tom's character chafes on the reader because he doesn't mature. I just think that he is an integral part of the story and helps a great deal in livening it up a bit.

6:21 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

I hate Tom too, but I think he represents more than the comic relief.

Tom knew the entire time that he was concocting an elaborate and dangerous plan to free Jim that Jim was already free. Maybe some would consider this a reflection of Tom's joking naiveté, but I consider this a very cruel and callous action. Yet we cannot forget that Tom is just a boy. His views are a direct impact of the society in which he lives. I think Tom represents the broader social context of the novel. Tom does not mature, and society does not change. Tom may be free at the end, but no one's views really change. All the whites consider Jim to be a serendipitous anomaly of his race. The Phelpses still own slaves, and no one actually feels that blacks are human beings.

Mark Twain wrote this book after the civil war, when blacks escaped slavery but not oppression. The novel definitely shows how stagnant the views of society remained. And yet, Twain never comes out and disapproves. If we consider Huck Finn to be Twain himself (as Laz so slyly suggested), than Twain turns his back to society. Huck leaves because he does not want to be civilized. Though Huck's personal perception of blacks changed throughout the book, he has no resolve to go out into the world and fight on their behalf. Huck ignores the situation rather than advocate change. I sense a kind of "it is what it is" attitude towards the oppression of blacks. He may not approve, but he does not know how to change it.

As for the archetypes, the silent assassin (Matt Weiss, who did not win diplomacy) pretty much nailed it. I would like to add that Jim may be the guide. He is a highly imperfect guide because he has no idea where they are most of the time. Nevertheless, Jim does try to protect Huck along the way. He won't let him see his father's face when they found the corpse. Jim also possesses a faithful allegiance towards Huck.

I don't know if I am satisfied with the ending. It is appropriate, but not really satisfying. What does everyone else think?

8:30 PM  
Blogger Bill M said...

I think the ending is unsatisfying as well. Everything just ends perfectly...well as perfect as possible. All the ends are tied up and there is nothing left for us to wonder about. I think the mystery of a fact; or rather, the pursuit of it is more interesting than actually finding it out.

I love the characters however; they have a Yin-Yang quality about them. Pap tries to be good when the new judge has faith in him but he lets his demons get the best of him, and although Huck is reading and being a good kid (good for his standards anyway) he still runs away as soon as he can, but I can't really blame him.

Another thing I liked about the characters was how Pap kind of symbolized everything wrong with the whites at the time... (Imperialism and so forth) by being ignorant, drunk, rude, racist, and violent. Jim is kind and helpful and guides huck around the river the best he can. And that "mulatto" person who comes to town symbolizes harmony. He's educated polite and from what we know, a decent guy.

I also liked the analogy of Pap's two demons. The white one that kept him good for a while and the black one that made him succumb to his addictions. I do not think this has to do with race though. I think that it is just the traditional symbolism of white being good and black being evil. (perhaps because white could represent illumination which is comforting and makes us feel safe and/or knowledgeable, and black represents the night, a time of darkness and uncertainty and perhaps even an instinctual fear of the night that is passed down to us from our ancestors. )

At any rate, I think the characters are some of the easiest to understand, as well as sympathies with, and I feel that there is a character in this book to describe every type of person in society. From the honest and good intentioned (judge Thatcher, Jim...except for his story about the witch but he didn't know any better) to the most evil (pap) to the deceitful (the two con artists, the duke and the dauphin) and even the guy who's just trying to grow up and find a place in the world (of course I’m talking about Huck).

9:35 PM  
Blogger Bill M said...

I didn't realize this until I had submitted my post Theresa, but you said, "Huck leaves because he does not want to be civilized. Though Huck's personal perception of blacks changed throughout the book, he has no resolve to go out into the world and fight on their behalf. Huck ignores the situation rather than advocate change.” I don’t think Huck is about to go out and fight on anyone’s behalf. He gets beaten by his dad and doesn’t fight back although I'm sure he wants to. Since the book is about Huck's journey into adulthood, I don't think he has the knowledge on how to fight for anything. He doesn’t have the capability to think in the long term yet, all he can focus on is the short term, and this keeps him from undertaking any great causes that don't affect him in anyway. Until he grows up, he is powerless to do anything, he's barley educated, and comes from the bottom rung of society. Even if he wanted to do something, I don't think there is anyway he could have.

9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you Theresa.
I think that Twain intentionally made Tom a very aggravating character in comparison to that of Huck Finn. I think that he represents the society that Huck Finn was running from. Tom is so hung up on doing things the way they are established in books and is more fancy and complicating. Maybe Twain felt that society was too hung up on precedence and too obsessed with making things appear grand rather than focusing on the outcome. I think that he serves as a comparison to Huck, who is able to rid himself of society's constrictions, whereas Tom doesn't.

I agree, I didn't love the ending. Even though Huck expresses misgivings about becoming "civilized" again, he still kind of appears submissive. Tom is leader as he was in the beginning of the novel, and though free, Jim is still faced with a lot of social stigma. Jim's situation, especially, I think is reflective of all of the slave's status after being freed after the Civil War. They had the label of being freed, but their conditions were still pretty bad.

9:54 PM  
Blogger matthew weiss said...

Quoth Theresa: "Huck ignores the situation rather than advocate change. I sense a kind of "it is what it is" attitude towards the oppression of blacks."

I don't think so. I think just that the emphasis isn't on a societal impluse, or that it's simply social criticism. They key notion is of Huck's personal developmental journey. The story's characters often act as antistereotypes. That idea of the disconnect between, say, word and idea is a theme that runs through the whole story, from Jim and Huck's discussion of Kings and Dukes, to Tom's pontificating on the right way to free a prisoner. In the end, the challanging characters allow Huck to reach the point where he can judge the people he meets for who they are, not who they seem to be.

Further, she writes: "As for the archetypes, the silent assassin (Matt Weiss, who did not win diplomacy)..."

Playing with fire Theresa, never a good idea. Need I tell the class how you failed miserably at even the slightest hint of victory? How you commanded the largest nation in Europe, overextended yourself, got crushed again, again, again, unable to defend yourself from the singlest, puniest blow? How you ended up in Central Europe, with but two armies left of your former false gradeur, surrounded on all sides by the slavering dogs of your imminant destruction and left alive only by the grace of God, aka Billy? How even then, even then, even after all that, you were hemmed in from all sides, cowering like the pitiful groveling knave you are, until you turned tail and ran, ran as fast as you could, throwing away all your pieces to France, betraying all you stood for, all your dreams and hopes, days ago, years ago in game time, while I lived on and thrived, spiting you every moment, a living, breathing testament to your shameful mediocrity?

I could. Oh, indeed I could.

For the rest of you, I apologize for that minor tangent. In any case, beware.

10:58 PM  
Blogger caroline cross said...

Firstly, although Tom is indeed annoying, he is crucial to the story because he is in a way the last obstacle for Huck's maturity and perhaps the strongest one to overcome. Although Tom isn't a threat to Huck's life the way the con artists and the family feud were, he is harder to fight because he's Huck's best friend. (It's often hard to disagree or question a best friend's beliefs). As Tom and Huck are planning Jim's evasion, Tom consistently suggests annoying ideas, Huck questions them, but he finally caves in. Perhaps this ongoing routine with Tom is in a way a descent into darkness because Tom is pretty much the symbol of childness (mixing reality and fantasy, failing to think in reasonable terms, etc.) and when Huck gives in to Tom and his child impulses, he is going further anf further away from maturity and closer to the "dark side" (not that childhood is evil, but that it is the opposite of Huck's journey towards maturity). However, I think the moment where Huck steps away from Tom and shows his maturity is when he agrees with Jim that Tom needs a doctor to heal his leg, despite Tom's professing that he's fine without a doctor. Although Huck promises Tom that he will enact Tom's stupid plan concerning the doctor, he does the mature thing and simply lets the doctor examine Tom the way he sees fit. Also, at this moment, Huck doesn't agree with Tom and takes more of the leadership position. Earlier, Huck lets Tom basically bully him around and he passively gives in, but by the end Huck isn't afraid to step up the plate. By being able to be mature even when his best friend isn't, Huck passes the final test.

Secondly, I don't think we can excuse Tom's behavior because he's a "child," because I actually think that he's older than he seems. I forget where exactly in the story, but I think Huck says he's between 12 and 14. I would assume that Tom is about the same age, so Tom is by no means a child. His behavior may be excusable for a six-year old, but his plans which are disrespectful to Jim and Jim's safety (i.e. wanting to put rattlesnakes in Jim's cabin!) cannot be excused for a twelve-year old. Tom's childness starts to be destructive for himself too. If Tom hadn't tried to make Jim's escape extravagant, they could have escaped a lot faster, and Tom probably wouldn't have been shot. Also, it was very foolish of him to tell the family that people were coming to free Jim. Basically, Tom wanted to get caught so he could have adventure, not thinking of the dangerous effects that this capture could have. He also waited until the farmers were somewhat in the cabin so could escpae them in the knick of time like prison fugitive heroes, but he failed. Obviously if Tom had been more mature, he could have easily spared himself getting shot in the leg, and thus his childness was destructive. Even with his wound, Tom was happy that he had been shot and by not wanting a doctor, Tom showed that he did not care if he had a wound. If it weren't for Jim's and Huck's getting the doctor, Tom's foolishness would have injured him more.

Well, after all my ranting and raving, it's probably pretty obvious that I hate Tom. I'm so glad that we got to read about Huck and not that annoying Tom Sawyer!
--Caroline

9:10 PM  
Blogger Kaitlyn said...

Well. I have to agree that Laz kind of managed to ruin the whole "movie magic" with his nice power point, but what's imagination for right? I'd have to agree that Huck Finn definetly fits into most of those archetypes. I agree with Matt's post about the different situations. I'd also like to add the feeling of the hero bearing his burden alone. Even though someone is with Huck almost all of the time, he makes his most important decisions by himself and ultimatly decides that he has to leave and travel alone to truly find his place in society.

9:12 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Heavens, Matt Weiss, that was harsh. A note on diplomacy: you still lost even though you managed to turn the entire board against me and surrounded me with your bitterness. How can one face such insurmountable odds? You, on the other hand, with outstanding defensive position and temporary control over the other players, did not manage to pull off a victory. My dreams, what I stood for, was your defeat. Therefore, I betrayed nothing. Obviously, you did not thrive, as the game ended with Bri and max in a standoff while you lingered without realistic hope in Northern Europe. I understand though that this angry outburst of yours was probably provoked by your tragic self worth issues and propensity towards being a sore loser, so I forgive you for calling me a groveling knave. (Ice for fire, anyone?)

Back to the Twain: I agree that the novel is a social criticism, but I sense a tone of defeat in the ending. Almost like Twain feels like oppression of blacks is wrong, but how can we change it? I don't think Twain has an answer, and Huck Finn makes that clear.

I am still curious as to whether Jim is the guide. He seems like such an imperfect guide. He and Huck travel together the whole time and Jim cares about Huck's wellbeing, but Jim is a simple character. He does not know where they are as they go down the river. He is superstitious, uneducated, and in trouble with the law. Jim can't even understand that people speak different languages. By the end of the book, Huck has to protect and save Jim. So is he the guide? Feedback anyone?

Feel free to throw in as many unkind words as possible. I, fortunately, am not overly sensitive.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

In response to Theresa's post:

Jim is actually a perfect guide. As we talked about in class, he serves more as a moral compass vs. actually giving him tips on how to get through his journey. So he is a guide, but not in the Obi-wan/Gandalf way.
I feel that this type of guide is the most useful to the hero in any story. The hero, after the journey, is undoubtedly changed in some weird way. He seems to be less sociable because he has reached a higher plateau of wisdom, etc. Having a guide that is "dumber" (forgive the bluntness) gives your more valuable skills than one who is smarter. When you have a dumb guide, you have to think about what kind of lesson you can get from the guide and it's usually a common folk type lesson. The dumb guide teaches you how to be a human being, instead of an elevated hero.
But, Jim also serves as a companion (obviously). So what part is he more adept to playing? Taking back what I said in class, Jim seems to be more of a guide than a companion, but it's relatively even. He does need to be saved in the end, but that's the fault of him being a guide, as in all stories. The guide always has some fault.

To Danielle:
For #9, I guess you can liken an emotional or psychological wound to the physical wound described in the archetype, but that might be reaching. I think the wound serves to remind the hero what happened. Frodo will always look at his hand with the missing finger and remember the quest he undertook. Luke will look at his robotic hand and always remember the fight he had with his father. An emotional wound fails to fulfill that task. As Mr. Lazarow said in class once, all of the characterstics don't have to completely match a story. There are numerous occasions where this happens yet we can still call the story a mythic heroic story.
This is my own opinion but I think that's what role the wound serves in a hero story.
Any opinions?

4:20 PM  
Blogger Bill M said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:03 PM  
Blogger Danielle G said...

Since a lot of material about Huck Finn has already been covered, I'll just post a few fragmentary thoughts about Huck Finn as a Mythic Hero.

Mythic Hero Principle #3: The path is not always clear or direct, but there is a goal.

Huck and Jim had the goal of procuring Jim's freedom by passing through Cairo on the way out of the south. The "path" basically involved the Mississippi River with various pit stops along the way (note: not always clear or direct). The fog that covers Cairo at one point is an obvious manifestation of the path's "non-clearness."

Mythic Hero Principle #4: The journey/quest is filled with dangers/loneliness/temptation.

Huck is tempted to turn Jim in at the very beginning and has some misgivings along the journey about whether he is doing the right thing. Despite having Jim for company during the majority of his journey, Huck is lonely in the sense that he longs for a family. (Note: at each of his various stops, Huck crafts a new identity and is "adopted" by the family there)

Mythic Hero Principle #5: The hero is often accompanied by friends/servants/disciples. ///
Mythic Hero Principle #6: There is a guide.

I actually like Theresa's idea that Jim serves as the guide because I don't see anyone else who could possibly be the guide. The only person who wants Huck to free Jim is Jim himself. Can the guide also be a friend?

Mythic Hero Principle #9: The hero suffers a physical wound.

Um... I don't remember if Huck gets wounded. I don't recall him being physically wounded. His emotional issues about not having a family, however, could be viewed as a wound. Huck's need to fit in manifests itself in his constant creation of new identities, personalities, and pasts for himself.

7:34 PM  
Blogger Ranna said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:26 PM  
Blogger Ranna said...

darn so much has been said already.

okay so caroline cross, i couldn't agree with you more on your most recent post! I, too, believe Tom is a CRUCIAL element of Huck Finn's story. He may be immature and annoying and behaves unexcusably; however, like you stated, he is one of toughest obstacles Huck has to overcome.

I mentioned this in class today: Huck didn't have a taste for what it was like to be a leader. He always had some form of authority over him or an oppressor who silenced him. From his caretaker, Miss Watson, and her sister, Widow Douglas, to Tom, the ringleader of the "gang," to Huck's father, who kept him locked up in the woods, Huck was never able to make his own decisions or express his own opinion. Those characters were all obstacles in the first portion of the book on his path to experience/adulthood/maturity. As the story continued, the obstacles shifted to being the towns he encountered along the river.

I really liked the point Mr. Lazarow made about how Huck had to try out different identities at each stop. In order to achieve maturity, Huck needed to find himself. Maturity is characterized by a certain degree of self-awareness. Since Huck was always influenced and controlled by other figures in his life, it was vital for him to establish a personal foundation for himself in order to reach "experience." Although the stops along the river can be viewed as obstacles, they were also experiences that helped shape the person Huck became by the end of the story and the decision he made (to free Jim).

8:29 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

Ranna:
I agree with your point that Huck didn't enjoy being in a leadership role, especially in making critical decisions.
Whenever faced with a decision that would affect himself and other people (Jim), he would turn the question over and over again in his head until he'd get sick with the thought of doing either choice.
Could it be that he doesn't like being in that role? Or does he just have no experience in that kind of role? Ranna, you touch on this by saying he's always had some sort of authority over him making important decisions for him. As evidenced in the story, he gladly (I use that term loosely) submits to their authority. Miss Watson, Tom, and Pap all do things that Huck has some doubts about. But nevertheless, Huck follows along.
So, to sum it up, Huck has never been in a leadership position, so he doesn't feel comfortable being in said position.

If Miss Watson hadn't taken him in, if Tom hadn't been there to be the ringleader of their gang, and if Pap hadn't been there to abuse him, would Huck be a different person, and more importantly, would the story be affected by it?
Could leadership qualities be gained through Huck's journey to maturity?

I really like this aspect of the story. Let's see if we can get more discussion out of it. I'd like to see everyone's opinion on this.

9:07 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth Johnson said...

In response to your post Albert, I don't think that Huck disliked being a leader, rather he lacked the experience and skills necessary to do the job properly. As you and Ranna mentioned, Huck never had the chance (or a reason for that matter) to become a leader because there was always someone standing over him telling him what to do. I think if Miss Watson, the widow, Tom, Pap, etc. hadn't been in this story and hadn't played the roles that they did in the beginning, Huck Finn would have been very different, or may not have even existed at all.

These characters all inhibit Huck's growth and maturity, thus putting him in a situation where he feels the need to leave town (embark on his journey to maturity, etc, etc, ...). Throughout the journey, Huck is forced to make decision to ensure his and Jim's safety and survival, which would mean that he would have to take on some kind of leadership role. A crucial part of growing up is learning to take responsibility not only for yourself, but for others as well. Throughout his journey, Huck learns how to care for himself and others and how to accept responsibility for himself and his companions. I think that Twain deliberately made it so Huck lacked leadership skills in the beginning of the novel because it made the changes that he had gone through all the more poignant.

10:49 PM  
Blogger Albert said...

Could you (Liz) or someone cite an example where Huck seemed to enjoy making those decisions? He didn't really try to tackle all of his problems with enthusiasm and zeal. Instead he ran the problem over and over again in his mind till he became sick with grief.
I think he didn't like being a leader, which was a result of his lack of leadership skills.

11:21 PM  
Blogger matthew weiss said...

I think Huck's a generally average guy, with a hint of brilliance, shaped by any number of odd circumstances. That could describe most of us. I don't think he wanted to be leader and he didn't have ambitions there per se. He only wanted to be independent and left alone. Maybe at some level he wanted a family, but the book seems to be clear that the best moments of his life were out on the river.

The ending with Tom, to me, is satisfying because it makes a good point about change in general. Huck finds himself right back where he began. Despite whatever changes he himself may have gone through, the rest of the world has pretty much stayed the same. Twain portrays in a psychologically realistic manner how people really do change. It's never with grand statements, dramatic monologues, or striking breaks with the past. Usually, we plod along in mainly the same way as before, only with a few crucial differences, discoverable by those who're looking for them.

Lastly, for Theresa who's looking for a response, I'll say I'm sorry too. ;)

12:11 AM  
Blogger matthew weiss said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:11 AM  
Blogger Ranna said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:06 PM  
Blogger Ranna said...

I really liked the question Laz posed for us today as well as the conversation it entailed. The class mentioned various opinions about the expectations for maturity that are granted to girls versus guys. The conversation evolved into a discussion about how maturity seems to occur at a slower rate in general now as opposed to the past. Right as the bell rang, I wanted to mention this:

Society today embraces several philosphies that weren't as prevelant in the past. It seems as if people in the past were more practical in the sense that their lives were more structured and determined. One was expected to act as a child for a set period of time, then once they hit their teens, a great deal of maturity was expected from them, and by 16-18 they were treated as mature adults. Any appearance of immature behavior outside those parameters was simply not common. On the other hand, it seems that our mentality these days is to elongate our youth as much as we can. We have thus acquired phrases such as "young and reckless." The younger population ( <30 ) is more carefree than ever. I'm not saying there aren't ambitious people out there with set goals and aspirations that they want to acheive at certain points in their lives, but life is more flexible for this age group now since there are so many options out there that allow them to maintain their life while they still have "reckless" fun. With modern technology, people can get their degrees by taking online courses. People can go to college and major in one thing but then work in a completely field. There weren't as many options and there wasn't as much flexibility in the past for people in terms of their careers and means of acheiving success. This ties in to the point that was mentioned earlier in class about how people used to get married earlier and died younger. I'm not trying to generalize too much, but I hope some people get the jist of what I'm saying.

8:12 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I agree with much of what Ranna says, but I'd like to offer a counterpoint/addition: there are different parts of our beings in which we can mature. Huck's adventures down the Mississippi seem particularly daunting to us. I think what makes the whole thing so scary is that his whole life and journey was unstructured, and the systems and codes that I discussed earlier tonight (see Woman Warrior entry) were not in place then. Huck is truly facing the physical world, head on. While he was full of street smarts and practical knowledge, we have come to be incredibly well-informed and intelligent (well, in some ways). Look at any piece of research that says we learn more information each day than any of our ancestors. While we might take less responsibility than those before us, our minds are much more developed.

But then the whole thing gets muddled by my copyrighted "the internet conversely streamlines and bastardizes the absorption of new information" argument. In other words, we're learning so much more now, but as we progressively get sucked into a virtual world, does it really make a difference? Does Wikipedia intellectualism count for anything?
Really, tell me the answer, please.

11:56 PM  
Blogger Rachel said...

Ranna -
While I agree with your thoughts on the young and the reckless I feel that it is only appropriate to "Western" countries that are more developed. It also seems to be more appropriate a term for people who have amazing advantages (i.e. money, education, activities).

In underdeveloped countries I think there are still examples of early coming of age tales that would've have been found in the U.S. in earlier times. Many children lose parents because of unrest or illness and as a result they must care for themselves at a young age. While we think that this is the exception, it is not. This is about the time I would rant about how lucky we are, but I will step off of my soapbox...

Will - I know that your response was rhetorical, just thought I'd at least say I agree with you.

11:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home