Irony and Mark Twain

Chris Schlosser

5/21/14

Engl161/Oster

Mark Twain and Irony

Throughout Twain’s many works, he uses the tool of irony to emphasize the satire displayed by his characters or in the plot. It brings a very humorous effect to his literature and proves to expose the cynicism in the major themes within the story. By doing this, Twain pushes the reader deeper into the book, complementing satire to point out the hypocrisy.   

“‘Most everybody would have a been satisfied with the pile, and took it on trust; but no they must count it. So they counts it, and it comes up 415 dollars short… ‘Hold on,’ says the duke. ‘Less make up the deffisit’-and he began to haul out yaller boys out of his pocket. ‘Its a most amaz’n’ good idea, duke you have got a rattlin clever head on you,’ says the king.”Blest if the old Nonesuch heppin’ us out agin’ and he began to haul out yaller jackets and stack them up.”(Twain 179) 

The following passage is from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and is a dialogue between the swindling characters, the king and the duke. The setting of this passage takes place shortly after the two have successfully stolen money from the Wilks family and are wanting to count it, however they are 415 dollars short so they decide to put 415 dollars of their own money to “make up the deffisit” only to have all of it stolen from them. The irony is jumping off the page.Twain shows the satire in greed, having the thieves stolen from, after their greed has stopped them from getting away with the money. While having a humorous effect, this form of satire unmasks the consequences of greed. The dialect and Huck, the narrator of the story, look past the underlying irony in the passage as well as the irony in the characters themselves. That is Twain’s purpose for the overall satire in the story, for the characters to overlook the key criticism, and to the look foolish compared to the reader who sees the issues addressed with humor.  Looking deeper into the text, we see that the two characters, the king and the duke, have uncapitalized names. The irony in this is that the two are imposters, and though they refer to themselves as titles, both names remain in lowercase displaying a mockery toward the scoundrels. Also, the spelling errors in their dialogue such as the word, ‘deffisit’ shows that the duke and the king are also foolish and don’t realize the possible result of their greed. Lastly, the two reference the Royal Nonesuch again in this passage, “Blest if the old Nonesuch heppin’ us out agin” The Nonesuch is a perfect creation by Twain, just showing how gullible the townspeople really are, as well as society in general. The people do not realize that the mere title of the knock off Shakespearian play, The Royal Nonesuch, displays what they are giving their money to see, absolutely nothing. As we see later, the final showing of the Royal Nonesuch is staged for the two to escape, giving the people what they paid for, nothing. What are some more key examples of irony displayed in Twain’s works that are also used to compliment satire?

Huckleberry Finn and His Psychological Journey

Emma Haas

May 21, 2014

Professor Oster

Huckleberry Finn and His Psychological Journey

“ I thought them poor girls and them niggers would break their hearts for grief; they cried around each other, and took on so it most made me sick to see it. The girls said they hadn’t ever dreamed of seeing the family separated or sold away from the town. I can’t ever get it out of my memory, the sight of them poor miserable girls and niggers hanging around each other’s necks and crying; and I reckon I couldn’t a stood it all but would a had to bust out and tell on our gang if I hadn’t knowed the sale warn’t no account and the niggers would be back home in a week or two” (Twain, 196).

            Without a doubt, the story of Huckleberry Finn brilliantly depicts a typical Bildungsroman as we mentioned in class. Throughout his journey, Huck is faced with many questionable events that he must justify as right or wrong in his head. We know that he has already begun to disregard the moral code of the law, and is living by his own code instead. This passage demonstrates the conflicting ideologies that Huck is currently trying to make sense of.

He is beginning to see slaves as “real humans” who feel and hurt just as much as any white person. They value the same things as any “righteous” white person, such as their families. Huck has observed this when listening to Jim mourn over being separated from his children and wife. Huck resolves that, “ I do believe he cares just as much for his people as white folks does for their’n. It don’t seem natural, but I reckon it’s so” (Twain, 167). This thought resonates with us readers again in observing the Wilks’ slaves be auctioned off and separated. We immediately feel for them as we do for Jim, yet it is unclear if Huck makes that same connection. He feels for Jim and his family because Jim is a close friend he has gotten to know. However Huck might not generalize these feelings to all slaves and black people.

Either way, it is obvious that this moment is something that deeply haunts him. Huck has become so morally conflicted on his journey that it is actually making him physically ill to endure parts of it. He frequently wants to do the “right” thing, but doing the “right” thing could lead to negative repercussions for Jim. If Huck doesn’t play into the Duke and King’s scams then he runs the risk of them selling out Jim for the reward money. Even for us readers it is hard to conclude what the best option for Huck would be. He basically has to pick the lesser of two evils, because no matter what, someone will get hurt.

            I also found the last line of this passage very intriguing. I believe Huck genuinely buys into the idea that this family he has just allowed to get separated will be together again in a week or so. If he didn’t think that, he would go “tell on our gang” (Twain, 196). This shows he has grown enough to sacrifice his own well being, to do right by these girls he has met. By default, it also shows he would risk losing Jim to help them. If the girls weren’t involved in the scenario, I couldn’t see Huck worrying as much about getting the slaves back together again. There is still a fog clouding Huck’s mind as to what is morally right when it comes to slaves.

            While Huck’s perception of black people has definitely evolved over the course of his Bildungsroman, it is important to look at the context of it. Every positive insight Huck gains is directly associated to Him. We have to make sure not to generalize Huck’s progress towards all blacks, because it may just be a directed towards his friendship with Jim.

Works Cited

 Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dover Thrift Edition ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.

Morality

“Well, I can tell you it made me all over trembly and feverish, too, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he WAS most free—and who was to blame for it? Why, ME. I couldn't get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way. It got to troubling me so I couldn't rest; I couldn't stay still in one place. It hadn't ever come home to me before, what this thing was that I was doing. But now it did; and it stayed with me, and scorched me more and more. I tried to make out to myself that I warn't to blame, because I didn't run Jim off from his rightful owner; but it warn't no use, conscience up and says, every time, "But you knowed he was running for his freedom, and you could a paddled ashore and told somebody." That was so—I couldn't get around that noway. That was where it pinched.” (100) 

      I like this passage because it really gives Huck’s character depth and gives the reader insight on Huck’s morality. At the beginning of this novel Huck is quoted saying “she told me all about the bad place, and i said i wished i was there” (10).  Within the first chapter Huck admits that he wasn’t to go to the bad place (Hell) because it sounds like fun. This shows us that at the beginning of the novel Huck is immature and didn’t put much thought into his decisions. Early in the novel Huck just dose things for the sake of being bad. He would sneak out at night to meet up with Tom where they would come up with rebellious plans. Huck also smokes when he is told not to and plays pranks on Jim. Huck is only 13 and at the beginning of the novel it is clear that he acts and thinks as such.

      This quote is important to the novel because at this point he realizes that his actions have consequences. In this passage Huck is trying to decide what the correct decision is regarding turning in Jim.  The fact that his struggling shows that he doesn't know which choice is the ‘right’ choice, but how could he. Huck is trying to do the thing that is morally right whether its turn Jim in of help him become free. The issue here is how can Huck make a moral decision when he has no moral compass.

         In the first chapter the widow is teaching Huck the tale of Moses and how he led the Jews to freedom. This moral lesion of freeing slaves is coming from the mouth of a slave owner. How is a 13 year old boy supposed to interoperate this lesion when it is so contradicting? Huck wants to see Jim a free man because they have formed such a unique bond but in the passage he still refers to him as running “off from his rightful owner”. This means that Huck still sees Jim as the widow’s property. How can Huck give Jim freedom if he is seen as property and not worthy of freedom? Huck is trying to make a decision based on morality but is mixed up in the difference between what are good and bad morals. 

         Huck also says it “made me all over trembly and feverish, too, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he WAS most free”. Why is he trembly and feverish? Is it because he is uncomfortable with the idea that Jim could actually become a free man? Does Huck ultimately think that freeing Jim is a morally good decision of a bad one because he is going against what ‘Sivilazation’ says is okay? Huck isn’t being a trouble maker or acting without thought of consequences anymore.He is trying to do the correct thing but does that leave him in a better place than before since he doesn’t have a moral compass to base his choices off? 

Sources

 https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2291/1806225034_3692692a61.jpg

https://www.google.com/search?q=morality&rlz=1C1TSND_enUS439US453&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IVx9U_2RPIu9oQTX2YK4BA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=667#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=SgijVn7OKqG8MM%253A%3B-1Nm-3LsHGPyJM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkidswithoutgod.com%252Fteens%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F02%252Fmorality1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkidswithoutgod.com%252Fteens%252Flearn%252Fhumanist-morality%252F%3B420%3B387

Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Random House, 1996. Print.

Huck and Jim’s Hazy Reunion

            In this passage from Chapter 15 of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck and Jim have been reunited after getting separated by a thick and dreary fog that almost disconnects them permanently. Jim, being asleep when Huck returns to the raft, wakes up to the wonderful surprise of his presence. This reunion turns sour rather quickly, though, when Huck tries to play a trick on Jim by telling him that the fog and all of its trials were only a dream. In this dialogue from Jim, it’s hard to interpret his exaggerated happiness as genuine or feigned.

            Does this passage show the deepening of a relationship between Huck and Jim? Has Jim turned into a father figure for Huck and are they both just looking out for each other?  Jim even goes as far as to call Huck “chile” when he gets back onto the raft (Twain 63). Does Jim think of Huck as his own? It’s hard to say what Twain wants us to take from this passage, but evidence in the text suggests that Huck and Jim love each other and that Jim shows parental care and love for Huck. Jim acts so ecstatic and surprised to see Huck again, and it was “too good for true” that he was safe (63). Jim is thankful that they both made it out of the crippling fog and that Huck is back safe with him. Jim tells Huck that “[his] heart wuz mos’ broke bekase [Huck] wuz los’” (65).  It seems as if Jim was extremely upset by the separation that the fog caused between them. Huck feels bad after hearing Jim say this and this could be interpreted as true feelings of gratefulness and appreciation for each other.

            Why would Jim fake such joy at Huck’s return? Is it possible that Jim has ulterior motives by staying with Huck on their “adventure”? This passage can also be interpreted that Jim is so ecstatic to see Huck again because his chance at freedom and buying his family’s freedom is safe and sound once more. Once Jim lays eyes on Huck back on the raft, he is incredibly pleased and starts to rant about how great it is that Huck “ain’ dead” and that he is “’live en soun’” (63).  Symbolically, one can interpret that Jim’s attempt at freedom for his family is what really “ain’t dead” and this shows that Jim’s run for the free states is still viable. Jim uses many exaggerated terms of endearment when addressing Huck, such as “honey” and he even goes on to say that “de tears come” when they are reunited (63, 65).  Is this just an example of Jim tiptoeing around his words and vying for Huck’s approval and help up the river? We have seen in previous chapters that Jim is dead set on getting to the free states and eventually buying the freedom of his wife and kids. Is his relationship with Huck just a folly?

            It’s impossible to know exactly what Mark Twain wanted us to take from this passage. There are many ways to interpret its meaning beyond the literal and figurative. Did Twain want us to see Jim in a different light at this point? Was this a turning point in their adventure as well as their relationship? Did Jim have some type of paternal love for Huck because he was an honest and good man? It’s all up to speculation.

Works Cited:

 Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dover Thrift Edition ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.

“Playing God” and Changing Fate

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Mark Twain

“Playing God” and Changing Fate

            In Mark Twain’s novel Pudd’nhead Wilson, characters are consistently trying to tamper with their fate by making drastic life changes. At the very beginning of the novel, we witness Roxy make the biggest change of them all. Out of fear that her beloved son will undoubtedly end up “down the river” as a slave, she switches her son with the son of her master. Her hope is that her son Chambers, now known as “Tom” will live a life of success and happiness because of her sacrifice. We all know that in reality, “Tom” grows up to be an ignorant pain in the ass, consistently bringing trouble upon himself, his “family”, and the town of Dawson's Landing.

            Upon discovering Roxy’s secret and realizes he is actually a “black” man, “Tom” also meddles with his fate. He steals, murders, and changes his identity in multiple instances in order to get what he desires. The irony in all of this meddling with fate is that in the end, every character that tried to alter their fate failed. “Tom” ends up being sold “down the river”, and Roxy ends up working in Dawson’s landing without her son. To me this raised the question: can ones fate even be changed?

Obviously this question goes far beyond Pudd’nhead Wilson and can’t truly be answered. However, after reading the entirety of the text, it seems that Twain would suggest that you cannot alter your fate. The only person who came out of this novel with a desirable ending seems to be Pudd’nhead Wilson. He stuck to the cards he was given, and didn’t try to alter what life handed to him despite 20 years of ridicule. I think that this conveys you can’t really cheat life because in the end, it will catch up to you. In the instance of Chambers, the question of fate is very unclear. He played out the cards that were handed to him, but they were tampered with before he received them. Yet he still ended up right back where he started from. Upon further inspection, it is difficult to figure out what message Twain was trying to convey with the use of fate. Was he merely saying ones fate cannot possibly be altered? Or was he taking a stab at those who try to “play God” and cheat life unfairly?

Works Cited 

Twain, Mark. The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson. New York: New American Library, 1964. Print.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_2.html

The Failure of Reconstruction

The Failure of Reconstruction

By Chris Schlosser

Race proves to be one of the larger themes in Twain’s work given the time era. This post will briefly cover some background information about race relations toward the end of the Civil War, but more importantly during the Era of Reconstruction. With President Lincoln issuing the famous emancipation proclamation on January 1st, 1863 and the Union claiming victory in 1865, it was time to rebuild the United States of America. The Reconstruction era was meant for change and prosperity for a country once divided now whole again, but little did change in race relations among the Southern states, and discrimination continued to thrive. Though the institution of slavery was abolished, the elicit racism and inequality threatened blacks more than ever before.

Race Relations:

.The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

  

http://tinyurl.com/drn3n

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed shortly after the Civil War. The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including former slaves, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws. The 15th amendment prohibited states from disenfranchising voters “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”  

Race relations during the Reconstruction were also complicated and presented many problems for the national government to address.

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) swept across every southern state by 1870 and proved resistant to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies. These policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Congress passed legislation in order to stop the Klan terrorism, however the organization continued toward its primary goal, to reestablish white supremacy and the glory of the Confederacy via Democratic elections across the southern states in the 1870s. This was done with intimidation and violence targeted at white and black Republican leaders.

http://tinyurl.com/69k9aug

Education also proved to be an issue. The government recognized the necessity and pressing need for education in the South it was clearly a process that would take years and millions of dollars in funding. Schooling also brought up the question of integration, which a majority of the South strongly refused the idea. Further segregation continued and eventually the Jim Crow Laws were imposed creating a nation once again divided, by race.

Check out the Jim Crow Laws Here---> http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

This racial discrimination divided the Republican Party, showing the limitations of the party and its ability to work as a unified front towards racial equality. As a result Reconstruction was to be a long arduous process that would not truly end in many ways for nearly 100 years.

From 1876 to 1883, Twain wrote his novel Huckleberry Finn. This was also the time period where the Reconstruction programs toward black equality was null and void. The idea of racial equality was not accepted in the North any more than in the South. Twain points out the hypocrisy in the failure of Reconstruction throughout Huck Finn, what are some examples of this?

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. Nurture

            Do you think human behavior is inherited or acquired? Do you think that Mark Twain believed in nature or nurture? Through Twain’s writing in Pudd’nhead Wilson, I have interpreted that he believes in the latter.

            According to the psychological definitions, nature is considered “that which is inherited or genetic”, while nurture is defined as “all environmental influences after conception” (1).  Through this novel, I have interpreted that Twain falls more on the empiricist side of the argument, that the human mind is born a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and their environment and upbringing completely shape their behavior and characteristics. In Pudd’nhead Wilson, “Tom”, a “black” slave, is brought up by a rich, well known, white family in Missouri. From infancy, “Tom” is pampered and gets all the “pettings [and] delicacies”, resulting in him being a “fractious” and spoiled child (2). On the other hand, “Chambers”, a white baby coming from the same prominent family, is switched into the fate of slavery. As a result of his upbringing, he is “meek and docile” (2). As time progressed, and the boys’ situations shaped them into adults, “Tom” grew up to be a dishonest gambler, while “Chambers” matured to become a calm and agreeable slave. From infancy to young adulthood, the nurture side of the debate is favored by Twain, and this is supported throughout the novel.

            I have interpreted that “Tom’s” lenient and indulgent upbringing is what results in his dishonesty and bad character flaws. “Tom” goes on to steal and eventually kill his uncle because he has no morals. At the end of the story, “Chamber’s” true identity is discovered and he is able to live a life of freedom and riches, as the heir to his family. His reaction to this situation also supports the nurture argument. If “Chambers” had lived his entire life in the white man’s role, he would have been comfortable with his fate, however, his upbringing and environment instilled the opposite in him, and he can’t find solace living in the white man’s world.

Works Cited:

1."Nature vs Nurture in Psychology." Nature Nurture in Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014.

2. Twain, Mark. Pudd'nhead Wilson. Dover Edition ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, 1999. 17. Print.