Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Discussion through Chapter 32.

Patrice mentioned how shocked she was when Kennedy was killed. That would be the shock that I imagined Huck experience when the Grangerfords were shot.
This part could be expanded to many pages of tear jerking scene, but I guess that's not Mark Twain's style. I am only at chapter 20, and I'll see if this killing haunted Huck.

The Grangerford tragedy raised the questions on who had the rights to living and to take away life. Each of the two families at feud was just regarding the members of the other families as wild animals for their gaming. They don't remember what exactly started the quarrel but the well-bred and educated gentlemen bore the grudge through generations. Compared that with Jim and Huck who started at "opposite end" of master and slave yet becoming friends, Jim befriending the nigger who was serving Huck, a complete stranger, and the two con men who pretended to be Duke and King of France were also on fun and friendly terms with Huck and Jim.

I imagine that the whites might also kill their black slaves and easily got away with it, and we might question what gives the master the rights to kill their slaves, to sell, trade and abuse them, etc.

I too was shocked by that incident. However, I found that it was the most interesting section of the book. I liked how Twain depicted this family as warm and loving. How he made Huck really love them and showed them in the best possible light. This made their behaviour seem more baffling; both to Huck and the reader

Sorry to be late in my co-moderating duties. It's neat to know that while I slept, folks on the other side of the world were already jumping into the discussion. In any event, below, are some thoughts about this section. But you are already well ahead of me!

A Greek poet, C.P. Cavafy started a poem titled Ithaka with these lines:

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.

As we begin chapter XII, Huck’s “road” becomes a river. Unlike Odysseus, Huck is not trying to return home-though, perhaps, in metaphorical terms he is. We’ll see. In any case, his trip will be a long one, full of both adventure and discovery.

Although anything is fair game through chapter XXII, because there is so much to talk about leading up to the Wilkes funeral story, I would suggest that people may wish to focus on chapters XII-XXIV until later in the week. Remember, the discussion of this part of the book will last through next weekend into the middle of the next week. Doing so would allow people who are catching up in the reading to do so without having the events of the final fifty pages of the selection spoiled.

Allow me to summarize what this leaves us to start with:

The wreck of the Walter Scott and being stranded with the murderers onboard
The discussion of King Sollermon
Getting lost in the fog and the aftermath when Huck comes back to the raft
Several interior monologues by Huck
Tricking the slave catchers
The Shepardsons and Grangerfords
The King and the Duke: the camp meeting, the circus, the Royal Nonesuch

So, now let us set out together on our journey to Cairo.

In the first discussion someone mentioned how strange it is that a child of Hucks age would think so often of his own death, and how many times throughout the book Huck wishes he were dead, but as we begin to advance further into the story the thing that struck out as interesting to me is how often Huck comes in contact with death throughout the story.

In the first chapters we read he finds the dead body, and than when he comes into the Granger family, he is given the room of a girl who had died, and discovers the girl herself seemed obsessed with death and collect obituaries and he read the hymn she wore to a dead boy. Than he witnesses the death of others during the shoot out.

It is also interesting how many times it is believed that Huck is dead. Starting with faking his own death, and than when they got lost in the fog Jim thought he was a goner, and in the Granger/Shepherd war Jim was told Huck got killed.

Patrice wrote: "Anyone notice that the "Shepherds" are fighting the "Grangers"? Shepherds vs farmers, old, old feud.

And Cairo, Illinois? Or Egypt? The person I know who is from Kentucky caught the geographica..."

If you have access to JSTOR, this whole article might be worthwhile reading. I don't :( But the first page has some interesting insights to some of the local geography in HF.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3197088

Was anyone else amused by Jim's and Huck's discussion on "borrowing" food? There was so much human nature wrapped up in that one perfect little conversation.

First you have the conflict between the Widow's belief that it was just plain stealing to take other people's food, and Pap's rather more accommodating viewpoint that it was OK provided you "intended" to pay them back someday. Jim and Huck obviously have a vested interest in making this argument come out on the side of "borrowing", but they obviously feel some moral obligation to give up something in exchange. So they decide not to "borrow" everything, and then have to decide what they will give up. Of course, they eventually choose to give up crab apples and persimmons which they'd never have taken anyway.

It's such a perfect example of how people rationalize their way around a moral dilemma so that they eventually eliminate it entirely, and yet feel that their honor has been satisfied at the same time.

"And Cairo, Illinois? Or Egypt? The person I know who is from Kentucky caught the geographical inconsistencies in his journey. He changes the geography of the trip so that he can go to Cairo. No accident there!"

Definitely Cairo, Illinois. There are a lot of Egyptian-themed town names in southern Illinois, due to the area having been nicknamed "Little Egypt." My family gets its electricity from "Egyptian Electric." So, I wouldn't read too much into the Egyptian names you see, such as Cairo or the Goshen of the last section. Huck and Jim needed to get to Cairo, because it is the place where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers meet. It really would have been the logical path for them to take, no geographical distortion necessary. As to whether Twain distorted geography when they got farther down the river, I can't attest.

As a minor point of interest, Cairo, Illinois is not pronounced the way you would pronounce its namesake in Egypt. It's pronounced, in true country fashion, either as "Kay-roh" or "Care-oh"

I apologize that I can't recall who it was that made an on point observation about how lyrical Huck can be when talking about nature. I believe it was something like "you could smell the darkness."

Chapter 19 begins with an extended passage that is beautiful. It is interesting to compare the language to a description of morning on Jackson's Island in chapter fourteen of Tom Sawyer. The comparison really shows the difference Huck's voice makes, and the skill of Twain's writing to capture it. Huck's "illiteracy" is far more descriptive than the narrator's artificial lyricism. Here's Tom:

It was the cool gray dawn, and there was a delicious sense of repose and peace in the deep pervading calm and silence of the woods. Not a leaf stirred; not a sound obtruded upon great Nature's meditation. Beaded dewdrops stood upon the leaves and grasses. A white layer of ashes covered the fire, and a thin blue breath of smoke rose straight into the air. ...Now, far away in the woods a bird called; another answered; presently the hammering of a woodpecker was heard. Gradually the cool dim gray of the morning whitened, and as gradually sounds multiplied and life manifested itself. The marvel of Nature shaking off sleep and going to work unfolded itself to the musing boy. ...All Nature was wide awake and stirring, now; long lances of sunlight pierced down through the dense foliage far and near, and a few butterflies came fluttering upon the scene.

It's also interesting to note that this passage occurs just before Huck first encounters the King and the Duke--scoundrels who will bring the corruptions of the shore onto the raft.

I think one of the most interesting episodes within these chapters (thus far) is when Huck is confronted with the full realization of just what his helping Jim escape ultimately means, and his culpability in it.

It is at this point that we really see the manifestation of Huck's struggle with his own sense of right and wrong, and what the law and society dictates is right and wrong.

While Huck does not appear to hold any real prejudices against Jim, and they form a bond of friendship together and have come to rely upon each other and help each other out, and other than a few pranks Huck treats him well, but as they are approaching Cario and he comes to the conflict with the awareness that Jim is the property of Miss Watson, and he is helping deprive her of that property he begins to struggle with his sense of the wrongness in that action. He is further alarmed by Jim's threat to steal his children if he cannot buy them back, as Huck sees the share of guilt he would have in some unknown person being deprived of their rightful property on account of an action of his own.

Yet on the other hand, Huck is capable of viewing Jim as being a fellow human being and not just someone's property, and so he cannot feel all together easy at the thought of betraying someone whom rely so much upon him and puts his trust in him. Huck as equal respect for his obligations towards Jim as a person, as he does for the laws which states Jim is rightfully Miss Watson's property.

Thus Huck is placed in the position in having to choose as he see it and as the society and the law of the day would see it, having to choose between two different wrong doings.

And in the end Huck makes the "naturalistic/humanitarian" choice by once more choosing to go against the law of man, and society and being swayed more so towards his sense of companionship with Jim, and it is a choice which is made from a gut reaction, that internal sense of what he knows is "right."

It is on the spot when he is the midst of getting ready to turn Jim over that something within him revolts against the idea of doing so and he acts upon the whim.

I think you lay out the dilemma nicely Silver. I was struck by the way Huck is at his "best" (in our own modern preferences) when he is forced to act spontaneously. When he comes back from Mrs. Loftus, he tells Jim, "They're after us. I found that pretty moving.

Similarly, when the slave catchers come upon him in the skiff, he thinks quickly and decides to invite them on board the raft because "Pap" is sick and nobody will help him. (And ends up with a gift of money to boot!)

His problems come when he has time to think. He truly does accept slavery. Why wouldn't he?

Here is a question I sometimes ask myself. Are there comparable areas in our society where most people unquestioningly accept things that future generations will judge atrocious?

Zeke wrote: "I think you lay out the dilemma nicely Silver. I was struck by the way Huck is at his "best" (in our own modern preferences) when he is forced to act spontaneously. When he comes back from Mrs. Lof..."

In the question of his acceptance of slavery I think it is important to remember he is still a child, though he does show a certain independence in thought and feeling about things, and rebels against society and standard rules.

I think it would be to a degree unreasonable to expect him too have too much philosophical questioning on the rights or wrongs of slavery. It is only natural that at his age and growing up as he did he would not question it as a general concept, though in this instance of Jim, he does display a feeling of wrongness about on an individual level.

But I do not think it would be natural or expected for children even as precocious as Huck to question slavery upon the global level as it where. So I do not think his acceptance of slavery should be put on the same level as adult thinking upon the issue.

Amen Silver. What you say.

In my opinion this is what makes the book compelling instead of being didactic.

I don't think Huck really sees the dilemma in the terms that we would. The way he talks about it reminds me of the talks I've had with myself over receiving sweatshop clothing from my grandmother at Christmas. Shopping with me is one of her favorite pastimes. I can't bring myself to tell her I refuse to go, and if she wants to buy me clothes, she'll have to do it online (which would mean my dad would end up doing it, and she would miss out altogether.) I'm choosing my loved one over societal good. I still feel strongly about the issue of sweatshop labor in general. I feel really bad about making the exception. But I make it nonetheless. I think that this is what Huck is doing when he decides not to hand over Jim. I don't think he does see wrongness in slavery on a personal level. He thinks Jim should be Miss Watson's slave. But he loves Jim enough to make a moral exception.

Audrey wrote: "I don't think he does see wrongness in slavery on a personal level. He thinks Jim should be Miss Watson's slave. But he loves Jim enough to make a moral exception.

I like this analysis and your analogy very much. But I would make a small distinction: Huck doesn't see the wrongness of slavery, I agree, but I don't think he sees the rightness of it either. Slavery is just part of Huck's world. It doesn't seem that Huck believes Jim should be a slave, he just is. But at the same time, he is more than a slave -- he's Huck's friend. Huck's conscience is evolving, I think, and it starts with this friendship.

Yes, nice observation.

As a random comment, I found it interesting that Huck and Jim started going naked most of the time while on the raft. Really underlines the picture of them as being much closer to nature than society.

When the king and the duke get into the story, not only does Huck begin to wear clothes, he actually acquires store clothes, which have a double connection to society.

Audrey wrote: Definitely Cairo, Illinois. There are a lot of Egyptian-themed town names in southern Illinois, due to the area having been nicknamed "Little Egypt." My family gets its electricity from "Egyptian Electric." So, I wouldn't read too much into the Egyptian names you see, such as Cairo or the Goshen of the last section. Huck and Jim needed to get to Cairo, because it is the place where the Ohio and Mississippi rivers meet. It really would have been the logical path for them to take, no geographical distortion necessary. As to whether Twain distorted geography when they got farther down the river, I can't attest./i>

Here is a map of the area

http://www.huck-finn.com/

And a sketch of Huck and Jim's adventures

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-adventu...

Audrey wrote: "As a random comment, I found it interesting that Huck and Jim started going naked most of the time while on the raft. Really underlines the picture of them as being much closer to nature than soci..."

I think the way in which Huck is reintroduced into society is quite interesting because in many ways it seems to be almost a parallel to Tom's gang of bandits.

He is brought back into society, and also back into the light of day again, resolving how to get around the issue of what to do about Jim, in the company of Duke and King, who are themselves playing out roles and not whom they claim to be, in addition they make their livings through a variety of fraudulent schemes. And quite literally engage in play acting with the skits from Shakespeare.

In this there seems to be an indication that Huck's returning to society is in itself all part of a play acting scheme and does not reflect who he really is, but much like Duke and King, he is putting on a role, and the clothes he wears are like his own costume. For he recognizes the truth that they are not whom they claim to be, but much in the same way he went along with Tom's gang for a while, here for the sake of Jim, he just goes along with them, but he does not by into it. He sees through to the truth behind it all.

In Chapter 20, "My folks was living in Pike County, in Missouri, where I was born, and they all died off but me and pa and my brother Ike. Pa, he 'lowed he'd break up and go down and live with Uncle Ben, who's got a little one-horse place on the river, forty-four mile below Orleans. Pa was pretty poor, and had some debts; so when he'd squared up there warn't nothing left but sixteen dollars and our nigger, Jim. That warn't enough to take us fourteen hundred mile, deck passage nor no other way. Well, when the river rose pa had a streak of luck one day; he ketched this piece of a raft; so we reckoned we'd go down to Orleans on it. Pa's luck didn't hold out; a steamboat run over the forrard corner of the raft one night, and we all went overboard and dove under the wheel; Jim and me come up all right, but pa was drunk, and Ike was only four years old, so they never come up no more."

I could see that there are a lot of "deaths". Huck's story isn't separation from his parents, but that everyone in his family died. Since this story is told after he encountered the Grangerfords' deaths, he could still be experiencing the shock. But I notice he doesn't "make up" any sisters or aunts in his story to the Duke and the King. The mother presumably died right at the beginning.

It's fitting that the wrecked steamer in chapter 13 is named the Walter Scott. Several steam boats were named after his books: Ivanhoe, waveryly, Lady of the Lake.

But Clemens hated Walter Scott's writing because it epitomized a European sensibility and, "sets the world in love with dreams and phantoms...sham grandeurs, sham gauds and sham chivalries of a brainless and worthless long vanished society."

For Clemens this is not just a literary dispute. He goes on to say, "[Scott] did measureless harm; more real and lasting harm, perhaps, than any individual that ever wrote...Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character as it existed before the war that he is in great measure responsible for the war."

Twain wouldn't do anything so obvious as to have the people on the wrecked ship reflect this perverted Southern character, but I think at least two of Huck's onshore encounters are classics of the type.

I also find myself wondering about the distinction between Tom Sawyer's role playing and the delusions of Southern character Twain is excoriating.

I think it would be a mistake to pass by chapter 14, the "discussion" between Huck and Jim about King Sollerman. It has significance to their developing relationship,evolves into a deeper philosophical discussion that resonates thematically through the rest of the novel, yet also poses challenges to a modern reader.

Let me share two perspectives and you can decide where you come down on this.

It cannot be denied that Twain loved minstrel shows and that he loved this chapter. In fact, on his lecture tour with author George W. Cable he always included it, and he played it for laughs.He was particularly fond of the heated exchanges between Bones and Banjo, two stock minstrel characters.

For those with the stomach for it, I am posting at the resources thread web links from the University of Virginia's Stephen Railton about the minstrel tradition and an analysis of how this discussion mimics it.

However, there is another case to be made: that this is serious stuff and not parody or offensive-outdated garbage.

Ralph Ellison, author of Invisible Man wrote of the scene: "Twain fitted Jim out with the outline of the minstrel tradition, and it is from behind this stereotype mask that we see Jim's dignity and human capacity --and Twain's complexity--emerge."

And Joceyln Chadwick-Joshua in The Jim Dilemma: Reading Race in Huckleberry Finn "Readers must acknowledge what Jim is saying on the surface as well as below it in order to comprehend fully the language manipulation....The relationship that emerges with this form of satire attempts to push the reader past the literal level to one that agitates the reader to rethink the occasion that caused the statement or scene."

And, in addition, I think there is one more problem. Huck quits the argument in frustration, saying, "I see it warn't no use wasting words--you can't learn a nigger to argue." Often Huck says one thing while Twain means another. And, in this case, the reader will probably agree that Jim's logic is the better of the two.

Given the biographical information, do Ellison and Chadwick-Joshua over-interpret? Or, on the other hand, does a creative reading of the text outweigh what even the author might have intended?

Silver wrote: "In the first discussion someone mentioned how strange it is that a child of Hucks age would think so often of his own death, and how many times throughout the book Huck wishes he were dead, but as ..."

I was also struck by how often Huck mentions and/or comes into contact with death. I wondered how much of it had to do with the time. What I mean is - we are more "removed" from death these days it seems, yet at that time the average life span was shorter,children died of diseases that are under control now, and when a family member died the body was laid out on the table for viewing before burial. Wouldn't this make death more present? I don't know, just a thought.

Zeke wrote: "I think it would be a mistake to pass by chapter 14, the "discussion" between Huck and Jim about King Sollerman. It has significance to their developing relationship,evolves into a deeper philosoph..."

One of the things which I think is interesting about the argument between the two of them here is the fact that throughout much of the story Huck tends to be the one to see things from a literal point of view, and take the practical side of things but in this instance we have Huck become frustrated with Jim because of his arguments on the practically of the story, as he takes it at face value. While Huck is the one who attempts to argue it from the more subjective point of view and he sees past the literal implications.

Another divide between them in their perceptions of the argument is the way in which Jim draws from his own life experience, as a runway salve, a poor man, who has been separated from his own children, it is inconceivable to him, the idea that a child would be "wasted" in such a way and that a man proposes to cut a child in half.

While we have Huck, who in spite of his many adventures, being still a child, has no real life experience yet as is often the case between the youth and their elders, because of his greater education, and his book learning he thinks he knows better than Jim, but the subjective view behind the story has no real world meaning, it is not practical in real life experience, this to someone like Jim there can be no point or purpose in it.

I think this argument between the shows a lot about the different perspectives people have and the way in which our life experiences and back grounds effect the way in which we look at things and how we perspective things.

It is also interesting, that regardless of which person you are inclined to agree with Jim, or Huck, Jim unquestionably wins against Huck in the argument, as for one thing as mentioned above Huck completely gives up the argument and blames his losing upon Jim's stubbornness, and Huck fails to ever actually explain the point in which he declares that Jim is missing. He never really conveys his side of the argument to Jim, while Jim rather clearly lays out his point, Huck is silenced in his inability to express himself beyond the fact that Jim misses the point.

Silver wrote in post# 7: In the first discussion someone mentioned how strange it is that a child of Hucks age would think so often of his own death, and how many times throughout the book Huck wishes he were dead, but as we begin to advance further into the story the thing that struck out as interesting to me is how often Huck comes in contact with death throughout the story. "
-----------------------

That was me who stated that. I like how you noted the death theme in various forms. Good post !

Alias Reader wrote: "Silver wrote in post# 7: In the first discussion someone mentioned how strange it is that a child of Hucks age would think so often of his own death, and how many times throughout the book Huck wis..."

Thank you, and sorry I could not remember exzactly who had said it.

In the midst of an overall interesting post, Silver mentioned the "illogic" of cutting a beloved baby in half. A small point that some may find intriguing is that Twain was fascinated with Siamese twins. I think this reflects on some things we've already spoken about regarding his own "divided" nature.

Also, he wrote another novel, later, called Pudd'nhead Wilson. In it, a very light skinned slave switches her baby with the baby of her master, whose wife died in childbirth the same day both babies were born.She will care for her son as a white master and the master's son will be a slave. Needless to say, things don't go smoothly.

Anyway, the character gets the nickname because when he first moved to town he told a joke with the same premise as the King Solomon story and the townspeople decided he was a pudd'nhead.

---

In that same month of February, Dawson's Landing gained a new citizen. This was Mr. David Wilson, a young fellow of Scotch parentage. He had wandered to this remote region from his birthplace in the interior of the State of New York, to seek his fortune. He was twenty-five years old, college bred, and had finished a post-college course in an Eastern law school a couple of years before.

He was a homely, freckled, sandy-haired young fellow, with an intelligent blue eye that had frankness and comradeship in it and a covert twinkle of a pleasant sort. But for an unfortunate remark of his, he would no doubt have entered at once upon a successful career at Dawson's Landing. But he made his fatal remark the first day he spent in the village, and it "gaged" him. He had just made the acquaintance of a group of citizens when an invisible dog began to yelp and snarl and howl and make himself very comprehensively disagreeable, whereupon young Wilson said, much as one who is thinking aloud:

"I wish I owned half of that dog."

"Why?" somebody asked.

"Because I would kill my half."

The group searched his face with curiosity, with anxiety even, but found no light there, no expression that they could read. They fell away from him as from something uncanny, and went into privacy to discuss him. One said:

"'Pears to be a fool."

"'Pears?" said another. "_Is,_ I reckon you better say."

"Said he wished he owned _half_ of the dog, the idiot," said a third. "What did he reckon would become of the other half if he killed his half? Do you reckon he thought it would live?"

"Why, he must have thought it, unless he IS the downrightest fool in the world; because if he hadn't thought it, he would have wanted to own the whole dog, knowing that if he killed his half and the other half died, he would be responsible for that half just the same as if he had killed that half instead of his own. Don't it look that way to you, gents?"

"Yes, it does. If he owned one half of the general dog, it would be so; if he owned one end of the dog and another person owned the other end, it would be so, just the same; particularly in the first case, because if you kill one half of a general dog, there ain't any man that can tell whose half it was; but if he owned one end of the dog, maybe he could kill his end of it and--"

"No, he couldn't either; he couldn't and not be responsible if the other end died, which it would. In my opinion that man ain't in his right mind."

"In my opinion he hain't _got_ any mind."

No. 3 said: "Well, he's a lummox, anyway."

That's what he is;" said No. 4. "He's a labrick--just a Simon-pure labrick, if there was one."

"Yes, sir, he's a dam fool. That's the way I put him up," said No. 5. "Anybody can think different that wants to, but those are my sentiments."

"I'm with you, gentlemen," said No. 6. "Perfect jackass--yes, and it ain't going too far to say he is a pudd'nhead. If he ain't a pudd'nhead, I ain't no judge, that's all."

Mr. Wilson stood elected. The incident was told all over the town, and gravely discussed by everybody. Within a week he had lost his first name; Pudd'nhead took its place. In time he came to be liked, and well liked too; but by that time the nickname had got well stuck on, and it stayed. That first day's verdict made him a fool, and he was not able to get it set aside, or even modified. The nickname soon ceased to carry any harsh or unfriendly feeling with it, but it held its place, and was to continue to hold its place for twenty long years.

---
The book is not on a par with Huckleberry Finn, but it is a serious attempt (in a satiric form) to explore race and difference. The book is probably best known for its chapter epigraphs which are collectively known as Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar [Almanac]. I will post these on the Related Writing thread. Some of them are among the most familiar of Twain's sayings.

Before the "evening crew" digs into the chapter 14 debate between Huck and Jim, I thought I might broaden the subject a little bit by linking it to the ending of chapter 15. This is the chapter where Huck plays his trick on the sleeping Jim. though written in very different keys, they seem two fit very closely together.

It's the chapter that ends with Jim humbling Huck with his words in one of the most poigent lines in the book.

African American novelist David Bradley noted that when he read this scene as a boy he discovered that not all poor white trash are bigots. "My responses might have been unsophisticated, but, reading Huckleberry Finn, I began to distinguish connotation from denotation, to judge intent by action rather than rhetoric."

Chadwick-Johsua finds "this section is the turning point of the novel." How can that be? Isn't it just a failed joke by an adolescent?

Two chapters. Two different types of dispute between Huck and Jim. An altered relationship that is the "turning point of the novel?" How is this possible?

Zeke wrote: "Before the "evening crew" digs into the chapter 14 debate between Huck and Jim, I thought I might broaden the subject a little bit by linking it to the ending of chapter 15. This is the chapter whe..."

This makes e think of the scene which occurs later in the book when Huck is surprised to discover that Jim is just as capable of missing and caring for his own family as white people are at caring fro thier own.

This revelation is astonishing to him because of the culture he grew up within prejudicial ideas are deeply embedded within him, and being a child he simply takes these thinks as they are, having no alternative view to compare them too.

But through is own personal experiences he sees the wrongness of these prejudicial views and displays his ability to think for himself and still being young is not so rigidly set in a certain way of thinking he is open to having his opinion about Jim and consequently African-Americans in general changed.

Silver: But through is own personal experiences he sees the wrongness of these prejudicial views and displays his ability to think for himself and still being young is not so rigidly set in a certain way of thinking he is open to having his opinion about Jim and consequently African-Americans in general changed.

I am sure that at some point we will be discussing Huck's conversation with Mrs. Phelps about the steam ship accident. Have you gotten that far yet? If so, you may want to think about how to defend this comment at that time.

I don't think so. I just finished the chapter about Huck's going to the circus, and than Duke and the King putting on the play after and running out of town for thier farce.

OK. So let's hold your thought until later in the week and then please revisit it. I am not saying you are wrong. Just that there is another importance piece of data to consider.

Really appreciating your thoughtful contributions as a first time reader of the book.

Zeke wrote: "...Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character as it existed before the war that he is in great measure responsible for the war."

Twain wouldn't do anything so obvious as to have the people on the wrecked ship reflect this perverted Southern character, but I think at least two of Huck's onshore encounters are classics of the type.

I also find myself wondering about the distinction between Tom Sawyer's role playing and the delusions of Southern character Twain is excoriating.
"

Could anyone briefly outline some characteristics of the southern character ? My US map shows the "South" to include West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas and the states further south. What's above the South is named as "Midwest" on my map, which include Ohio, Missouri and Minnesota. So when I read about the "north" in American literature, is that actually the midwest, or does the "north" include the Plains, the Rocky Mountain areas ?

Selina wrote: "Zeke wrote: "...Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character as it existed before the war that he is in great measure responsible for the war."

Twain wouldn't do anything so obvious..."

I wonder if Samuel Clemens ever examined his delusions about Southern character.

Selina wrote: "Zeke wrote: "...Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character as it existed before the war that he is in great measure responsible for the war."

Twain wouldn't do anything so obvious..."

At a first simplistic cut, "North" refers to the Union and "South" refers to the Confederacy. This roughly corresponds to the free states and the slave holding states, but not exactly.

Division of States

The Midwest and Great Lakes states were part of the "North". The plains states weren't states yet, the far Western States were part of the Union, but I've never heard them referred to as "North".

Generally the Southern states were agrarian with a large disparity between a wealthy land-owning elite and poor sharecroppers. The more well to do owned slaves and they were a necessary source of unpaid labor to make plantation farming profitable. They had an aristocratic class structure reminiscent of European privilege, a sense of class entitlement, a resentment toward the North which was much wealthier and controlled a lot of the political power. They were resentful of any constraint the US congress put upon their ability to expand their power base.

The North was much more egalitarian, consisting of mostly smaller farms, successful fishing and whaling industries, growing industrialization. Full of competitive entrepreneurs and wealth instead of family status was the entre into society. Very much influenced by Puritan religious beliefs so there was a large amount of public support for Abolition.

This is all really simplistic. If Zeke had something else in mind with his comment, I'm sure he'll be willing to fill it in.

When Huck asks Buck about the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, Buck says that even the old folks don't know how it started exactly. (ch. 18). But they just accept the fact that they're enemies, so they fight. When Huck accuses one of the Shepherdsons of cowardice, Buck defends his enemy, saying none of them on either side are cowards. This is a respectable war, even though they don't know exactly why they are killing each other. It's just generally accepted that this is how things are.

Later on, when the King and the Duke are putting on their "thrilling tragedy" and the audience feels rightly duped, the townsfolk's solution is to "talk this show up, and sell the rest of the town! Then we'll all be in the same boat. Ain't that sensible?" As if the more people who are victimized, the less harmed that first crowd will feel.

(Interesting that after the Grangerford/Shepherdson feud the performance is a butchered up version of Romeo and Juliet.)

I'm starting to wonder if Twain isn't making fun of the blind acceptance of popular opinion, mob mentality in general. Especially with Jim hiding in the woods while all this is going on.

Thomas wrote: "When Huck asks Buck about the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, Buck says that even the old folks don't know how it started exactly. (ch. 18). But they just accept the fact that t..."

I think there is a lot of critique of mob mentality, or just going along with the crowd, being sheep and not really thinking for yourself or standing out, which can be seen within this book.

As the idea of the sensationalism for the crime when it was believed that Huck was killed had been discussed, we see the same sort of thing happen again when Sherborn shoots the drunk who was mocking him and than the town out cry's that he should be lynched and he gives his speech about the nature of man, and how the crowd took up the cry for lynching just to go along with Buck Harkness.

@Laurele: Not sure I get your point about Clemens's "delusions" about southern character. Could you explain more?

Elsewhere, he wrote something favorable about the vast majority of southerners. But, to me, it's pretty clear he despises the southern "gentry."

Silver and Thomas seem to be on to something important here: the nature of the mob mentality. Colonel Sherburn, another example of the southern gentry, really nails it in his remarkable speech about the nature of man.

So now it seems in these chapters we have two types of conformity: the mob and the upper class pretensions of a family like the Grangerfords with their collection of "fashionable" possessions.

Selina, thanks for your questions about North and South. It's great to have you, and other, non-Americans reading with us. What are your first impressions of the book?

I think Kate did a great job answering your question. Even many of us who have grown up knowing about the Civil War often forget that there were very real splits within both the north and the south. The distinction between plantation economy and that of the "border" states is very important.

And Missouri was very much affected by the war because the Mississippi River was shut down. The simultaneous expansion of the railroad west, meant that the river would never again have the economic value it had when Twain was a pilot on a steam boat.

For Selina and anyone else who may be interested, I will post a few key dates and events over at the Resources thread. Feel free to add to or contest them. Selina, be sure to check out the interactive graphic in the last of the links. It shows the changing relationships of slave and free states over time, and highlights the importance of the contest in the western territories.

Thank you for explaining the history and geography. My first impression of the book is negative, mainly because of the language, the way Huck, his father, and Jim speak. This certainly isn't the book to help in polishing up English grammar. Also, I don't know much about boats or rafts and water and current. I do like the plot, and the way the story develops holds my interest. I'm waiting to see how Huck gets rid of the tiresome king and duke.

I tip my hat to you Selina for your persistence with the book. Please keep asking questions that we can help you with. I imagine that in the reverse situation --Americans reading a book about China written in Chinese vernacular-- few of us would get as far as you have!

Here is a place where you may be able to help us here in the States. Many of us view Huck Finn as a kind of national archetype and his journey a sort of national myth. We'll probably get into how valid those perceptions are eventually. Meanwhile, your post made me wonder: is there a comparable figure/story in Chinese literature?

I have to say that I'm with Selina in finding the duke and the king tiresome, and that is the perfect word for it. I found I didn't enjoy the chapters where the shenanigans of these two dominated; the humor was just not enough to override their tiresomeness for me. And yet of course Huck has to be very, very careful in dealing with them, because they know about Jim and so are a constant, if background, threat to the Huck-Jim team.

Zeke wrote: "Silver and Thomas seem to be on to something important here: the nature of the mob mentality. Colonel Sherburn, another example of the southern gentry, really nails it in his remarkable speech abou..."

I also wonder, is the way in which Twain seems to offer criticism of the idea of mob mentality, and with the speech given by Sherburn, in how men are cowards and will do things which they don't really want to go and goes against their nature, simply because they are egged on by someone else as he says:

""You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. YOU don't like trouble and danger. But if only HALF a man—like Buck Harkness, there—shouts 'Lynch him! lynch him!' you're afraid to back down—afraid you'll be found out to be what you are—COWARDS—and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves on to that half-a-man's coat-tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do."

And also in the scene in which the first group of people are duped by the Duke and King and their solution is to get the rest of the town to fall for it so they can have a solidarity in their foolishness.

Is Twain making a statement about the nature of racism and acceptance of slavery, stating that there are people who know it is wrong but everyone just goes along with it, knowing it is wrong, because no one wants to be the one who stands out from the crowd. Because people prefer to all be fools together, than rather anyone stand apart from the group and speak for themselves, because they are more worried about what the rest of the group will think of them than they are about what they are doing. So everyone just lets it happen, because they are all too much cowards to be the ones to draw attention to the fact that they are wrong.

Seems to mew that we have four "crowds" in pretty close proximity in the novel. And they are similar and different in various ways: the crowd at the camp meeting;the audience at the Royal Nonesuch; the lynch mob that Col. Sherburn faces down; and the audience at the circus.

Huck is an observer of the first three, but a participant at the fourth.Doesn't his credulous, though delighted,response to the "drunk" on the horse make you wonder if he is really learning anything?

A small point: it's kind of nice how the drunken Boggs comes in on a horse and gets off of it, while the clown staggers around and then gets on a horse. Of course the bloodthirsty crowd is hoping he will fall off and break his neck.

Thomas--nice catch noting how the King and Duke act out Romeo and Juliette after Huck has just unwittingly played a part in a "real life" setting of two lovers in a family feud.

Mark Twain doesn't do poetry the way a Shakespeare does. But he has a way of putting words in Huck's mouth that can be pitch perfect and quite moving. When Huck has to drag Buck's body out of the water , he says, simply, "I cried a little when I was covering up Buck's face, for he was mighty good to me." Nothing more is needed.

Thomas wrote: "When Huck asks Buck about the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, Buck says that even the old folks don't know how it started exactly. (ch. 18). But they just accept the fact that t..."

I'm with you, Thomas. I do think Twain is making a statement about blind acceptance of popular opinion. And I think it's re-enforced in several areas of the book, for example the blind acceptance of slavery.

M. wrote that the (tiresome) King and Duke pose a threat to the "Huck-Jim team." I like her phrase, but it got me thinking. Are they a "team?" If so, in what way? If not, what are they?

Zeke wrote: "M. wrote that the (tiresome) King and Duke pose a threat to the "Huck-Jim team." I like her phrase, but it got me thinking. Are they a "team?" If so, in what way? If not, what are they?"

I have to say I myself quite enjoy the King and Duke duo, as to whether or not they are a team, I think in a way they can be seen as such for they are working together at least in a fashion. As it seems that Huck is just sort of tagging along after them and does not take an active role in thier schemes, but it seems that they share the wealth together which King and Duke scam off other people, and they are helping Huck to conceal Jim in daylight. In a way they offer Jim and Huck a certain protection.

Yet at the same time Huck and Jim seem to be at odds with the loose morality of King and Duke, Huck does not agree with what they are doing, in particular when they hatch the scheme to try and find the buried treasure of the man how died, and Huck makes the remark:

" It was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race."

In a way they are all providing something for each other, and helping each other out as King and Duke provide for Jim and Huck the advantage of being able to travel openly during the day time, and the ability to enter into towns, as well as being provided with clothing and money. While Huck provided Duke and King the means to escape with the raft, giving them a quick and easy way of transportation when they have to go on the run again.

Perhaps they have something of an unspoken truth behind them as Huck is aware of the fact that for the time being they are stuck with Duke and King, and though he does not like it he sees for the moment there is nothing they can do but continue to humur the.