Read through Chapter 25 by Friday 3/2
Respond to the following by Wednesday 2/28
Respond to someone else's response or the conversation as a whole by Friday 3/2
Many critics believe that each of the characters or situations that Huck and Jim encounter on their trip down the Mississippi represents an element of southern society in the 1840's. For instance, it is often suggested that Tom Sawyer represents romantic themes that were popular in art and literature in the south at this time. Focus on one of the characters or events below, what does it represent? How does Huck's attitude about the character's actions or the situation in general satirize an element of southern society.
Characters/Events: Tom Sawyer (taking the position above or some other position), Emmeline Grangerford, Buck Grangerford, the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepardsons, the Duke and the Dauphin, The interaction between Boggs and Colonel Sherborn, The King's Cameleopard or The Royal Nonesuch incident
***REMEMBER, YOU MAY NOT POST YOUR LAST NAME OR ANY PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ON THIS BLOG***
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
98 comments:
Are my students able to comment?
I believe that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons is supposed to represent the racial hatred that one existed in the South. Buck Grangerford admits that there is no real reason that he can remember for the grudge between the two families, just lke there was no reasonable reason for whites and African Americans in the South to hate each other. Huck made this clear when he asked why the families were fighting, a good question considering the fact that there was no apparent cause for the feud. This is a satirization of the mindless racial discrimination that occured in the South long ago.
I agree with Jewel that the feud could represent mindless racial discrimination, but I also think that the feud between the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons could be satirization of mindless violence that occured in the south as well. For example, when Tom Sawyer's Gang was created earlier on, they just wanted to create the gang to have fun committing crimes. Buck says that the feud between the two families was started over a lawsuit about an event, but tells Huck that nobody, not even the older people, truly know why the feud was going on. In some of the violence that occured in the South, there was no point to it, just like the fact that the feud was continuing without a real reason.
Interesting posts so far. Let's look even closer at the reason this feud started - and why it continued - what are the two families protecting by killing each other?
I believe that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Sherperdsons, while representing what Jewel and Nadia mentioned, also represents the value of honor in that time, and in human nature. Buck admits that he has no idea why there is a feud. However, the two families continue fighting to protect their honor. The feud continued because of retaliation. When one family member was killed, the family had to fight back to preserve the honor of the family. I believe this is a satire of the definition of honor at that time.
I agree with all that has been said. However, in response to Mr. Fuller's question as to what the two families were trying to protect by killing eachother, what they were trying to protect is not necessarily honor, but a better word to describe might be pride. As said, they had no reason to kill each other, but they kept killing so that the other family could not 'win the battle.' Each family had too much pride and arrogance that if one stepped down, that family would feel as if they'd lost confidence, or satisfaction.The two families were fighting to protect nothing but their pride.
While much of the information previously said makes sense, I thought the feud represents what Huck is feeling inside. He starts an ongoing war within himself about whether or not to free Jim. Much like the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons, his fight within himself is still never concluded when he meets the Sheperdsons. The feud also could mean, as Nadia said, the mindless violence that occurred in the South. It symbolizes some of the recklessness going on at the time. Nobody really had a say in what to do, you could pretty much shoot someone and take there land. Of course, there was a legal system back then which did prevent some of the fighting, but it was not as advanced as the courts today. I think the feud is a representation of the mindless killing, as Nadia said, and the way Huck was torn inside with freeing Jim.
Interesting! But how do we decide who is right? Perhaps some textual support from a new commentator will clarify one of these views.
I think that the character of Buck Grangerford represents the influence of family and tradition that was prominent in southern society. Though, as Jewel said, he has no idea why the feud began, he feels obligated to continue fighting and killing the Sheperdsons, because it is a tradition in his family to do so. And, as part of the family, he sees no problem in murdering the other family in the feud. On page 110 (of the period four book), Buck is resentful of not killing a Sheperdson, saying “Well, I bet I did” when asked if he wanted to shoot Harry Sheperdson. And he didn’t even know why. Only because his family had been trying to kill the Sheperdsons for generations.
I feel that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons represents the "feud" between whites and blacks in the past. As Buck says on pg 111, "...but they don't know now what the row was about in the first place." The reason for the pointless feud has been forgotten, much like the racial hatred in the South. Everyone was racist because that was the tradition, not because they had an actual reason. Also, Huck thinks that this feud is wrong. On page 117, Huck says, "I wished I hadn't ever come ashore that night to see such things. I ain't ever going to get shut of them-lots of times I dream about them." The feud between the two families symbolizes the feud between blacks and whites, which Twain satirizes by showing how pointless and harmful the fight is. While this feud could represent something like Huck's inner fight, I think that it represents a larger issue, like racism. Therefore, the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons represents racism because of the long and pointless fight between two parties that do not remember the cause.
I believe that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Sheperdsons represents the legendary feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. The feud started in the late 1870s, and because Huckleberry Finn was first published in the year 1884, the feud would have been going on for a little more than 14 years by the time this book was published. Another way that the Grangerford-Sheperdson feud resembles the Hatfield-McCoy feud is that Roseanna McCoy ran away from her family while having an affair with Johnse Hatfield, just as Sophia Grangerford ran off with Harney Sheperdson. The feud escalated out of control when the families became so outraged that they resorted to mutilation, brutal murder, and setting each other’s houses aflame, and it all started from a little land dispute. I believe that Huck’s reaction of not understanding why they continue to kill each other, and thinking that the feud is stupid. The Hatfields and the McCoys could not come to an agreement about ending the feud until 1891 because they both wanted honor. They sought the honor of winning the fight and being the stronger of the families. Mark Twain provided a metaphorical resolution to the problem, one that was not very great. His resolution was that both families would kill each other off and everyone would be dead. I think Mark Twain is satirizing how many families in this time period wanted honor more than anything, and would do whatever it took to get it.
Changing the subject a bit, I chose Huck’s interactions with the characters the “Duke” and the “Dauphin”.
I think that the "Duke" and the "Dauphin"'s desperate want to be waited-on extensively, reflects satirically on southern societies lack of ability to do their own work and the need for slaves. "All through dinner Jim stood around and waited on him, and says, 'Will yo' Grace have some o' dis or some o' dat' and so on, and a body could see it was mighty pleasing to [the "Duke"]," it's written on page 158. The intended reader would is probably supposed to find this extravagant interaction unneeded and comical. The two men got along before they found someone to wait on them, but now that there is someone with the ability to wait on them, they take advantage of them. The reader is supposed to feel pity and/or contempt at their actions.
I think that Huck's reactions to the "Duke" and the "Dauphin" make fun of the proud distinction in class in southern society at the time. The two swindlers, recently run out of town and thrown on Huck's mercy, claim status by blood so that they can get notoriety and superiority. Although, the total lack of ability to be persuasive as nobility is comical. (For example, on page 172 it says, "I found Jim had been trying to get [The "Dauphin"] to talk French, so he could hear what it was like; but [The "Dauphin"] said he had been in this country so long, and had so much trouble, he'd forgot it.") Huck’s reaction is clear at the end of chapter 19, when he says, "It didn't take me long to make up my mind that these liars warn't no kings nor dukes at all, but just low-down humbugs and frauds. But I never said nothing, never let on...If they wanted us to call them kings and dukes, I hadn't no objections, 'long as it would keep peace in the family [.]" Huck's actions regarding the two men are patronizing. In the larger picture it would show that the southern society was to be pitied and patronized because it could not help itself except through exploiting others and based its structure on claims of bloodline.
Absolutely great responses so far! Alex and Bridget, nice textual support. Jewel and Kristina - was there a racial "feud" at this time? Seems like just plain oppression to me.
I would also say that the Duke and the Dauphin relates to the Southern ideal of slaves being beneath other folks, especially their owners. I think there are two characteristics of this ideal beyond what Bridget said. One is that slaveowners are "superior" simply because they claim they are, not because of any real reason. On page 127, Huck says, "It didn't take me long to make up my find that these liars weren't no kings or dukes at all..." However, it earlier says, on page 125, that Huck and Jim waited on the Duke hand and foot. Clearly, in this case, just as in all cases of slavery, the Duke is supposedly superior, as you can tell because he is being waited on. However, in this case, just like slavery, there was no real reason that the Duke should be superior. The reason that Huck treated the Duke as his master is a second characteristic of slavery: many slaves thought it was easier to serve their masters than to try and escape. Huck clearly shows he subscribes to this same theory when, on page 127, he says, "If I never..., I learnt the best way to get along with his kind of people is to let them have their own way." The Duke and the Dauphin are just like slaveowners when they demand to be treated as superior for no significant reason, while Huck is just like a slave for treating them as superior to "keep the peace".
In response to Mr. Fuller's comment, I think that the feud between the Shepherdsons and the Grangerfords is not as much representative of slavery as a whole, but as Britton said, more of the ideas and feelings behind it. At that time, whites were oppressing the blacks, and the blacks were unable to retaliate, as the Shepherdsons and Grangerfords do. I think the feud represents the feelings many people had about the issue of slavery and the people of the opposite race. While many whites had no specific issue with other particular blacks, they continued to fight them. On page 111, Huck asks Buck, "What did he do to you?" and Buck says that the Shepherdsons never did anything to him, but he wanted to kill him because of the feud. I think this clearly represents the feelings of many people at that time, and the feuds shows how many people felt hatred towards each other, solely based on past otehr past issues.
I have to disagree with almost everybody so far. Although the characters that Huck encounters may symbolize some elements of southern culture, I believe that Twain includes these instead as obstacles for Huck (and sometimes Jim). The characters are meant to reveal something about Huck, and the reader should focus more on Huck's reaction than the actual event.
For example, Huck's continual internal conflict over what is morally correct relating to Jim and slavery is a recurring theme that is only reinforced by the negative traits in the white characters.
In addition, especially with the incident involving the 'duke' and 'king', Huck's intelligence (in recognizing their falsehood) and resourcefulness (in keeping their assets by going along with their game) is displayed.
Some technical questions: Is this blog only for period 4 (because so far, only one period 6er has commented)? In addition, how long should our comments be (on average)? Thanks!
I think that the duke and the dauphin represent the South’s immense desire to become wealthier than the northern states by the use of slavery. During 1840, the northern states refused to rely on slavery as their main tool for wealth while the southern states were know as “slave states”. The two sides were always in competition in each other, which sparked the civil war. The south claims that their side is better than the other, likewise with the north. Even though the duke and the dauphine are on friendly terms with each other, they both too are in competition. After the young man claims he is a duke, the older man “got pretty silent, by and by didn’t have much to say, and didn’t look pretty comfortable”(Twain 164). He then exclaims that he is the late Dauphin to get the same respect from Huck and Jim as the duke did. That made the duke unhappy and caused him the same jealousy as his lie caused the Dauphin. This continues as both parties give more details about their “royalty”. Even though they were both frauds, they both made up stories to hide their own insecurities. The two royalties mirrors the tension and competition of the north and south prior to the American civil war.
I forgot to include in the last post that this is Melissa T.
The feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons is supposed to represent the stupidity of fighting and the successfulness of peace and love. The two love birds, Sophia Grangerford and Harney Shepherdson, ignored the murdering tradition of their families and fell in love. This love for each other was obviously unacceptable to both families because of the hatred between them so the couple ran away. While the two were successfully escaping, their families were slaughtering each other (page 153). Buck was crying over how his father and two brothers were killed and swore how he would, "...make up this day yet..." by killing more Shepherdsons (page 152). This represents that success comes from making peace and death and sorrow comes from violence.
Although I see and recognize Eli’s point, as I was reading, I had been thinking about the characters more as symbolizing the culture. Going back to the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, and I say this at the risk of sounding redundant, I feel that the feud represents the racial hostility between whites and blacks at the time. In response to Mr. Fuller’s comment earlier, although it was not quite a “feud,” there was racial hostility in both directions, making it more then just oppression. Also, as countless people have pointed out, Buck and his siblings did not actually know the men who participated in the original fight; they are angry because they were born into that family and were brought up to act and feel that way. A similarity that has not been pointed out is the hereditary aspect of the fight. It is more than just “tradition.” Whites hated black people because they were born into that race, and there parents taught them that their position was the only correct one. They were taught that blacks were inferior to whites the same way we are taught two plus two is four, this is not tradition, it is just what they saw as the truth. I see a great similarity between this hostility and the feud between the families.
I agree with Eli in that the events are supposed to be obstacles for Huck, but I disagree with him on the account that the reader should focus more on Huck's reaction than the actual event. It is true that Huck's reaction should be noticed, but if the events are purely about what Huck reveals about himself, then why not could Mark Twain have set up a fight between an alligator and Huck in lieu of the feud? The feud is obviously supposed to represent something about the culture, hence why it is there. I believe that it not only represent the racial hostility between the whites and blacks, but between any two groups of people. Since both the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons are white families, it doesn't have to be necessarily the feud between blacks and whites, although that is the most obvious and relevant to the time period/book.
I think that the feud between the Grangerfords and the shepherdsons might be a satire on the civil war. I know this is a little bit of a stretch, but the book was first published about 20 years after the civil war, meaning it was written within 20 years of the civil war. MArk Twain might of had a strong opinion of the civil war so having this in the book with Huck feeling really bad about it might be him trying to send a message. Huck when he covers Buck's face, says he feels sick about the feud, and that might be exactly what MARK Twain thought about the civil war with so many people dying. Mark Twain might have thought that the civil war war was stupid becuase it was killing each other and that is what he made HUck think about the feud. Though it is a little of a stretch, i think that the feud is a satire of the civil war
I agree with Alden that Duke and Dauphin symbolize the “superiority” of slave owners over their slaves. However, I think the pair also symbolizes the unjustified superiority of the upper classes over all other citizens in the South, not just slaves. On pages 164 and 165, Huck and Jim were both expected to wait on Duke and Dauphin. Although Huck is not a slave, he and Jim alike were practically mandated to serve Duke and Dauphin, because the two were of a “higher class.” The upper class was often not the most qualified for the authority, though. According to Jim on page 178, out of the two men who were supposedly better than him and Huck, one was “powerful drunk” and the other “ain’ much better.” Duke and Dauphin show how the power of the South was often given to those who would exploit it or were the least capable of the responsibility.
I agree with what Kristina said about Buck representing the influence of family and tradition that was prominent in southern society. I also think that Tom Sawyer represents the way orphan children were raised in those times. Tom was very mischeivous. He got into trouble constantly. Many other books about southern society portray children the same way. So I think Ton Sawyer represents somewhat how orphan children lived.
I agree with both Kristina and Daniela. Buck Grangerford seems very family-oriented. Family was highly valued in the south during this book's time period, and still is very highly valued there. Buck isn't sure why his family is fighting with the Shepherdsons, but when he first explained to Huck about the fight, on page 144, he syas that "a man has a quarrel with another man, and kills him; then that other man's brother kills him". I think this, and the entire Grangerford/Shepherdsonfeud is supposed to represent family, honor (like Divya mentioned), and also loyalty. Loyalty to one's family, as can be seen from the quote on page 144, but also loyalty to the cause you are fighting for, seeing as no one knows why the fight started and the only answer for why it continues is because it has for so long.
I agree with Melissa T. that the Duke and the Dauphin represents the South and their idea of being better than the slaves and maybe even the North. The younger man starts acting sorry for himself on page 162, and eventually comes out saying, "By rights I am a Duke." on page 163. He told the others on the raft that they should have to serve him and treat him like royalty. Huck and Jim go ahead and play along. Having Jim serve him and say things like, "Will yo' grace have some o' dis or some o' dat?" represents the South acting like they are more important and "higher up" than the slaves. Next the elderly man claims that he is the disappeared Dauphin, King of France. Once again Huck and Jim felt like they should treat him like royalty too. When Huck says, "If they wanted us to call them kings and Dukes, I hadn't no objections, 'long as it would keep peace in the family; and it wern't no use to tell Jim so I didn't tell him." on page 166, this represents how the North just went along with what the South wanted as long as it kept the peace. Its like in the Missouri Compromise, the state was allowed to pass its Constitution to keep the peace. People were not sure how long the peace would last, but for the time being it was a good way to keep the peace.
I think that the Duke and the Dauphin represent that you needed a good reputation to make it in the South. Also, I think that these two characters represent the difficulty in finding jobs to do and places to live when you had no money, experience, or did not have a good past. Finally, the way that the two men continued to show up each other proves that if you were not as qualified as another person, or did not have as good of a reputation, you would be immediately overlooked or fired.
I agree with jessica because this Graangerford and Sheperdson rivalry is almost childish. the two families dont know what started this feud or even why this still goes on. They are just fighting to see who is "better", kind of like kids do un kindergarden
To add on to my previous comment, I think that Huck's adoration of the Duke and the Dauphin definately shows how easily people in the South would accept and help others with astounding reputations or high places in society. Before the two men revealed their high statuses, Huck was a bit reluctant to help them (page 122). However, Huck even went south with the two men to help them with their plans. This shows how much reputation and status had to do with your success in the South in the 1840's.
Although I agree with the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons feud being about family loyalty, I also think that a factor to the madness is the arrogant struggle to prove onself. Buck, for example, looks forward to the opportunity to prove himself to his family as a worthy fighting member. On page 143, Twain even says that Colonel Grangerford's eyes blazed with pleasure as Buck told his story about shooting Harney Shepherdson's hat off his head. The praise that Buck got from his father was exactly what he was looking for in the quest to showcase his own nobility. In the eagerness that Buck has to show off his skills, we can understand that the Grangerford/Shepherdson feud is not only for family loyalty but as a mark of self-righteousness.
To go in a diferent direction, I think Mark Twain included the long passage of Emmemline to poke fun at families like the Grangerfords, and represent another value of Romanticism (and also similar "Victorian" ideas). Sorry for involving a completely different literature in my response, but Romantic and Victorian writing can be linked for a few reasons. The one the Grangerfords and Emmemline represent is ridicul of social norms. I know Victorian fiction includes alot of satire of the type of lifestyle the Grangerfords live (which i think was the common for families of Mark Twain's time), and I think is the same for Romantic writing. Even Emmemline's writing/drawing reflected it. I think Huck's reaction to the poems was genuine, but the readers should see past that and look at the poetry for what it is. I think Twain wanted us to view the poems in a comedic sense, and not think of them as very good, but as satire for mainstream literature (and how people viewed them). Twain made the Grangerfords the ideal family for the time: close relationships, a large family, church going, good manners (with childish exceptions), etc. Huck was even envious of the Grangerfords. To coincide everything about them and their representation of society, the Grangerfords were holding a fued. As I read above, many people agree that the fued could represent the racial views of discriminating America, just adding to Twain's satire of common America. After I dug into this some, I realized Twain put alot more into the Grangerfords than it seemed at first, and is hard for people to look past his strategic satire at first glance.
I agree with Sarah. I think the Duke and the Dauphin represent the Southern aristocracy and the idea that landholders were superior to all others. For example, on page 164, the Duke and the Dauphin force Huck and Jim to wait on them simply because they were "royalty" and therefore better. Also, the idea of landowners being superior is reflected in our early government. For example, when our country was first founded, only landholding men were allowed to vote, a practice based on the idea that if a man was wealthy enough to own land, he was superior. Twain satirizes this aristocracy. Even though the Duke and the Dauphin were not royalty, they claimed they were. Claiming to be royal and claiming that you should be treated better than the "common" man does not make you better. Twain uses the Duke and the Dauphin to satirize this idea.
I think the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons represents war or conflict in general. When Buck was asked why exactly the two families were fighting, he responded that he didn't know. I think Twain was trying to show that the people involved in conflicts that have been around for a long time (slavery for example) don't really remember what exactly started the conflict, why they have continued to fight each other even though so much time has passed. I agree with Jewel in that the feud represents racial hatred in the South, but I also feel that this feud that be expanded to represent human conflict in general.
I think that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shephersons represents fighting for no reason. No one knows who started the feud or why it was started. In the South, this mindless fighting was mostly racial discrimination, but throughout all times and places there has been fighting for tradition or following others without thinking. The way Huck joins in could show how few can esccape some sort of mindless arguing. Huck was mostly seperated from people for days, yet managed to get in the middle of a terrible feud that had no reason. Though this feud could represent mindless racial discrimination, I think fighting with no reason is a more likely meaning.
I think that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons is making fun of common ideology and customs of the Southern people in the time period. Some believe that this is symbolic of the racial descrimination in the south and others think it is commenting on the unreasonable, primitive, and unsensable violence that took place in the South during the time period. I think that all of these are applicable to the symbol but I think the most apparent connection would be the one connecting senseless violence to the feud between the two families. I believe this to be true because although the enmity between African Americans and Whites can be associated with this satire i think that the issue of slavery is more an issue of oppression than battle. The violence that happened in the time period makes much more sense because it is a much more direct connection and is also a battling issue and not one of slavery or oppression.
I have different page numbers than everybody else because I have a different copy of Huckleberry Finn, so, I will use chapter numbers instead of page citations. I have to disagree with some of the people who have posted here already. I do not think that the feud symbolizes racial hatred in the South. While it can be argued that blacks hated whites, but on the other hand, they still held respect for whites, because they were their "betters." The racism in the South, to me, at least, seems to be far more one-sided than the Grangerford-Shepherdson feud. In chapter 18, Buck tell various stories about the feud, and how both families are involved. Therefore, this is not one-sided like slavery was in the 1840s. Instead, I think that this feud symbolizes the growing conflict between the North and the South. In early America, there were many disagreements between the two regions, slavery among them. The feud seems to me to be like the snowball effect, growing more and more disastrous. Mark Twain might have been hinting that the disagreements between the north and the south would become larger and larger, and result in the Civil War.
I agree with many people when they discuss what the fighting between the Grangerfords and the Shephardsons represents. It represents the racial hatred in the South. But contrary to what many said, it didn't represent a feud, because the slaves couldn't really fight. But rather, the feud between the two families is a symbol of the feelings shared between the two races. Buck Grangerford tells Huck that nobody really remembers the issue that started the feud, or why it's still going on. This tells me that the two families kept it going because of their honor, because of their pride, and possibly because of their arrogance. And I think it's safe to say that the slaves would have liked to fight for their rights and honor, had that been an option for them. On another completely different note, I agree with Eli in that many of the things in this book are placed their to challenge Huck and to show who he really is, so we as readers know more about him. This helps us understand the whole point of the book.
I agree with Mayhah that the Feud can represent conflict and violence in general. Doing so, it also represents the eye for an eye thing. If you have been hurt, naturally you will want a bit of revenge. The Feud started because of some obscure reason, which escalated and eventually ran its course, eliminating one side of the conflict completely and almost the other. Towards the end, most everyone involved had forgotten about why it started, it was just mindless killing and revenge. Kind of like kids in kindergarten, as Drew pointed out.
Kristina's beliefs are closely intertwined with my own. An element of southern society in the 1840's is their conforming ways and ideals. For an example,numerous soldiers serving for the south joined the American Civil War because of what their fammily thought and supported for many years. This is clearly depicted in Buck Grangerford. In the book, Buck shows conformity with the Grangerford-Shepardson feud. He is not aware of the reason behind the starting of the feud. However, he realizes that his family members are being killed and that his other family members participate in the feud. As a result, so does Buck, regardless of his young age. Huck is similar in age with Buck and views him as a good friend. Huck even cries for him when Buck is slain in a violent gun-fight with the Shepardsons. Twain satirizes conformity with Huck's reaction to Buck's death. Buck conforms to fighting against the Shepardsons alongside his family and he pays with his life. With Huck's reaction of crying, Twain shows that conformity to an action or belief could be a very tragic thing.
I agree with Sarah's idea that the Dauphin and the Duke represent the dominance that the slave owners had over their slaves. The Dauphin and the Duke also represent the differences in social classes as well as the separation of the two. On pages 165-166, the jealousy that the Duke expressed towards the confession that the King made, shows that there was a big variation of powers between both classes. The separation of powers between both the Duke and the Dauphin can be translated into the difference between rich and poor Whites,Blacks and Whites, and free Blacks compared to slaves.
I also agree with Calvin and Melissa T., that the Dauphin and the Duke are used to represent how the South used slavery to further their economic growth. Although, the Dauphin and the Duke used trickery to make most of their money, and the South used slavery as more of a business, they both used some form of classes and "superiors" to increase their earnings.
I agree that the feud represents the battle between the North and the South. In addition to the other reasons that people have posted, this may also be shown when Sophia Grangerford runs off with Harney Sheperdson. They might have represented the people especially in the South who disagreed with slavery and helped many slaves go free. These people were called traitors for helping the "enemy" or people of the opposite race. Sophia and Harney were also like traitors because they helped each other when they were supposed to be enemies, and wanted peace between the families. Huck seems to agree with Sophia and Harney because after getting back on the raft he says, "I was powerful glad to get away from the feuds..." on page 119. Twain satirizes the point that there will always be traitors no matter how strong the ties in certain groups or sides, and does it by using the common example of love.
The feud between the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons represents a common sight in the 1840s. But there are other elements that can be noticed. The 19th century was known as the romantic era, and was a time when there was a lot of passion for ideals such as love, beauty, and nature that could be seen in the works of classic musicians of the time such as Brahms, Chopin, and others as well as in art, which a lot of people took interest in. Emmeline is just another one of the romantics of this era who appreciated art, and told stories of love and beauty through her works and the messages beneath them had themes of love like on page 136, "and Art Thou Gone Yes Thou Art Gone Alas!" and on page 135, "Shall "I never See Thee More Alas?" and "I Shall Never Hear Thy Sweet Chirrup More Alas!". These messages show that Emmeline Grangerford was a romantic, and a representation of the several romantics of the era. And Huck's interest in Emmeline's art and poetry,like on page 136 when he says,"It was very good poetry" ,shows how the common people had, with the turn of the century, become more interested as a whole in romantic art. And so, Mark Twain book reflects the Romantic period, which is also why he includes the long passage on Emmeline (a previous question from chapters 16-18)
I think that Emmeline Grangerford represents Mark Twain's daughter who died. Because in the story Emmeline is a girl who was sweet, but after a time became disconnected with the living alwmost, and only really communicated with the dying. In Twain's life he had a daughter who died from an epeleptic seizure, and this could represent Emmeline. Which is what she represented to him, but she could also represent that all human beings, no matter what they look like, have problems throughout their life.
I agree with Jewel that the Grangerford/Shepherdson feud represents the conflicts of racism that was in the South. To those not involved, the whole thing would seem rather pointless, just as anyone who looked at racism from a nonpartial standpoint would find it. On page 186(keep in mind the numbering in my book is a little different, sorry), when Huck asked the reason for the hostility between the families, Buck just answered, "I don't know." Their family feud mirrors the absurdity of racial hate in the old South; no one had a valid reason for why it should have continued. Huck's confused reaction shows how ridiculous the whole ordeal was.
I agree with what Niki said about what Twain might have wanted the audience to think of the poetry Emmeline wrote. As said, Huck was so impressed with the poetry Emmeline wrote. However, the audience shouldn't be impressed by it, because it is clear to the audience that Huck is uneducated, and has probably never even read poetry before. Another incident, when the Duke and the Dauphin were attempting to recite Shakespeare, Huck again was very impressed, but the audience knows that the Duke and Dauphin are doing a horrible job.
I agree with Jewel's idea of Buck symbolizing the racial discrimination of the South, where not many were aware of why Blacks were inferior to Whites, but lived by that reasoning because that's the way it was. On the bottom of page 143 to the beginning of page 144, Huck and Buck discuss the fued. Huck asked Buck if he had wanted to kill the man, and Buck replies by saying that he "bet he did". Huck then asks why he would want to kill him, if the man had never done anything to Buck. Buck said, "'Why, nothing - only on account of the fued.'" This conversation between Huck and Buck shows the ignorance that Buck, the Grangerford family and the Sheperdsons had towards the fued; which parallels to racial discrimination in the 1840s.
I think that the Duke and the Dauphine represent an acceptance of lying in southern society. It is clear that to Huck that the refugees he and Jim take aboard their raft are lying about their identities. However, Huck pretends that he believes them, saying, "It didn't take me long to realize that these liars warn't no kings or dukes at all...[but I] kept it to myself". After acknowledging that the "Duke and Dauphine were frauds, Huck continues to wait on them and give them his bed. This outright acceptance of falsehoods satirizes the widespread acceptance of lying in 1840 southern society.
I dissagree with Tej when he says that Huck's interest in Emmeline's art shows that common people were interested in Romantic ideas. In my opinion, Huck's admiration of Emmeline's poetry illustrated his lack of education. Mark Twain intends the audience to percieve Emmeline's poems as mediocre. Huck appreciated Emmeline's art only because he had nothing else to compare it to. Because her family and a few townspeople consider her poetry to be very accomplished, Twain satirizes the south's "interest" in art. He sends the message that Southerners did not posess or appreciate romantic ideals/art.
In a way, I suppose, I am building on what Kristina said. But, while I agree with her perception as to what Buck symbolizes, I think that there is something more that is yet to be said; Buck symbolizes, in a way, innocence-- he is simply put a nice guy with a simple view on life. But more importantly, he is a symbol of innocence's tendancy to get caught up with and even sucked into the ideals of others. As Kristina (and just about everyone else) says, he freely admits that nobody knows the true cause of the Grangerford-Sheperdson feud, not only that, but he has acknowledged that the feud will continue until one or both families are annihilated. But even still he continues to fight with a passion for this feud that he apparently doesn't see any wisdom in. He is innocent as well as wise, but the truth is that he wants to fight. The innocence is pulled into the conflict without so much as resisting its tug.
I disagree with Jewel’s point that the feud between the Grangerfords and Shepherdons represents the racial discriminations in the south. It is true that the feud between the two parties existed without reason, but there is explanation for the African Americans southerners discontent towards their Caucasians landlords. The Caucasians back in 1840, “owned” the lives of their slaves. They did not see the African Americans as people but as people they could manipulate and control. We could see this through the way Huck thinks of Jim, even though the two boys rely on each other for survival, Huck still doesn’t see Jim as his equal since he constantly referr to him as “nigger” (Twain 105). Also, Huck himself also did not receive much education, but believes himself to be more intellectual than Jim. When Huck quickly discovers that the Duke and the Dauphin are frauds, he doesn’t bother explaining to Jim since he thinks Jim would not understand, “ It didn’t take me long to make up my mind that these liars warn’t no kings nor dukes at all, but just low-down humbugs and frauds. But I never said nothing… it warn’t no use to tell Jim” (Twain 166). Even in the best-case scenario where there is respect between the two races, their thoughts are still influenced by the stereotypes of their day, which is a reason for hatred and discrimination.
I disagree with Jewel’s point that the feud between the Grangerfords and Shepherdons represents the racial discriminations in the south. It is true that the feud between the two parties existed without reason, but there is explanation for the African Americans southerners discontent towards their Caucasians landlords. The Caucasians back in 1840, “owned” the lives of their slaves. They did not see the African Americans as people but as people they could manipulate and control. We could see this through the way Huck thinks of Jim, even though the two boys rely on each other for survival, Huck still doesn’t see Jim as his equal since he constantly referr to him as “nigger” (Twain 105). Also, Huck himself also did not receive much education, but believes himself to be more intellectual than Jim. When Huck quickly discovers that the Duke and the Dauphin are frauds, he doesn’t bother explaining to Jim since he thinks Jim would not understand, “ It didn’t take me long to make up my mind that these liars warn’t no kings nor dukes at all, but just low-down humbugs and frauds. But I never said nothing… it warn’t no use to tell Jim” (Twain 166). Even in the best-case scenario where there is respect between the two races, their thoughts are still influenced by the stereotypes of their day, which is a reason for hatred and discrimination.
Switching topics a bit, I think that Tom symbolizes romanticist ideals in the way that he makes death very natural. For example, when Tom forms the gang, he brings up the idea of killing people and definitely talks about it quite easily, thus emphasizing the point that it might be considered natural (found on Page 17 in the Period 4 Book). Furthermore, Tom even goes on to talk about killing each other and their families if they tell the secrets of the band (also on page 17), further proving the point that ; Tom presents death as a perfectly natural occurrence therefore establishing the romanticist ideal that death is natural.
Going along with what Bridget and Melissa T. said a while back about the Duke and the Dauphin, I think that their schemes and their ability to fool their various victims satirizes the gullibility of the 1840s. In the first town that Huck, the Duke, and the King came to, they found a preacher preaching to the citizens. The citizens of the town became so involved in the sermon that they blindly believe the king's story about being a pirate that reformed. Also, the Nonesuch incident illustrated the gullible nature of the citizens. Finally, the con at the end of chapter 25, where the king and the duke pretend to be the uncles, prove the trusting nature of the Southern citizens. All of the citizens that blindly follow the duke and the dauphin satirize the uneducated, trusting nature of citizens. The people are so naive that they will believe anything that is told to them, to the extent of being exploited. Therefore, Twain is satirizing the blindly trusting nature of the citizens through the cons that the duke and the king pull.
The feud between the Grangerfords and the Shephardsons represents feuds that happened in that time period. Pretty much, a feud back then was killing each other. Huck thinks that the feud is wrong. He watched some of the killing take place and saw one of the friends that he made die. People in the south of that time were kind of thought of as violent and tempermental people. This event takes it to a whole new level with a feud that started generations ago and nobody knows why. They just keep at it because it started and it just hasn't ended yet. It puts a whole new perspective on what you might think of the southern people of that time.
As Mr. Fuller mentioned, one of the key concepts of southern society at time was this image of a romantic ideal. This is principle that I think Emmeline Grangerford conforms to. I agree with Nicki that Emmiline’s poetry is not intended to phenomenal, but what is so amazing about it is that most of it seems to in some way link to death, and the way not only does her character conform to the romantic ideal of “death is natural,” but her writings do as well. Emmeline conforms to this idea, too, with her death at a mere forteen years of age. This character of Emmeline that Mark Twain has illustrated, was also used to ridicule the 19th century pre-occupation with mourning and death. Literature concerned with and bereavement, became popular in the 1840s. This type of writing was called consolation literature. Also during the 1840s, quite a few people believed in spiritualism, which is the belief that the spirits, of the departed live on, and have the power to communicate with the living. There was also a mourning fashion criteria aimed primarily at women. These girls that had lost someone that they greatly loved, were supposed to spend, an entire year and one full day that was drab black and without ornaments.
sorry natalie P. made the cmment above, forgot to add my initial
I disagree with others about the Duke and Dauphin. I think that they represent the way politicians act and lie. They hve some similar characteristics and almost compared in the book. The first thing they did was appeal to the people. On page 150, the Duke changed the flyer to attract more of the people living in Arkansaw. This could be compared to a politician changes his views on certain issues to get more votes. Next, the Duke and Dauphingive the audience less than they expected, "selling" them. They give the people just enough to keep them from danger. (pg 152) In comparison it is said that many politicians promise more than they actually do, perhaps only doing one of the things that they committed to. The Duke also ran off before that could be ridiculed for the terrible thing that they had done. (pg 153) This is similar to how when a politician gets into trouble, they often leave before they can be impeached. There seems to be many similarities between the the Duke and Dauphin's trick and the popular idea of politicians. Also, on page 153, Huck compares the Duke and Dauphin to kings such as King Henry VIII, who cared little about their subjects, not even their wives. I think this compares the fake king and Duke to the modern politician who tried to get what they wanted, giving as little to the people as possible.
I agree with Amy and Jewel and all the others who think that the Grangerford/Shepherdson feud could represent racial hatred. When Buck says on p. 144 that he really has no clue why the fight continues, it really did remind me of how there was really no answer to why slavery continued for so long. The Grangerford/Sherpherdson feud has gone on for so many years, just like slavery, with no one remembering why it started, but all the same, no one making any real strides to end it (even though in slavery there were some abolitionists, there weren't always very many).
I agree with Zach M. in the fact that the feud going on between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons is making fun of the ideas and practices of people who were living in the south. I think that another thing that proves this idea, as was stated before the “connecting [of] senseless violence to the feud between the two families”. I can add onto this idea because as we stated in class on Wednesday there was a famous feud between two families going on at this time. By adding this side story into the book he is almost making fun of this family, and of his time periods justification for violence.
I would like to respond/add on to what Bea said about needing a good reputation to make it in the South, and kind of what Melissa T. said about being above the North/above slaves. When these points are made, the Duke and the Dauphin are refered to, but this argument also refers to the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons. The conversation about the families working to defend their honor fits this point becuase a familie's honor is also their reputation. If one family loses a feud, they will lose their honor with it. Without their honor, they will be disgraced, having lost their reputation. Also, defending their honor shows how they want to be above the slaves and the north becuase if the South is more honorable than the North, its better. So, both families might be defencing their honor for their families is also, in a way, defending the South's honor/reputation.
I believe that the duke and the daughin are meant by Twain to satirize society and humanity as a whole. He does this effectively by portraying the two 'lowly' imposters, which would be regarded usually as unworthy bums, as intelligent, clever individuals that are able to con their way through every situation, leaping to great risks to win grand amounts of money. In addition, the towns that the duke and king trick would normally be presented as common America, representing the average of our 'bright' nation. Twain turns this whole concept on its head when he switches the roles and makes the con men the true protagonists.
I would also like to respond to Clara, who struck down my opinion that the characters are meant to show who Huck is. I actually did acknowledge in my first comment that these characters do "symbolize some elements of southern culture". However, I still attest to the belief that Huck's encounters are meant to reflect off him and deepen the reader's understanding of Huck.
I disagree with Josie’s view that Mark Twain was making fun of the “ideas and practices of the people who were living in the south” by using the Shepherdsons and the Grangerfords. I believe that Twain is merely explaining common behaviors of the time period without casting judgment. On page 145, Buck strongly argues that the people in both sides of the feud are courageous: “There ain’t a coward amongst them Shepherdsons - not a one. And there ain’t no cowards amongst the Grangerfords, either.” By pointing out the courage of both parties, Twain is validating the feud and all that it stands for.
I think that Eli's viewpoint on what the Duke and the Dauphin are supposed to represent is both right and wrong. Eli is right when he says that the Duke and the Dauphin are meant to ridicule. Their blatant greed and dishonesty are clearly unfavorable traits. However, I think that Eli is wrong about the many chapters involving the Duke and the Dauphin all being a satire of humanity. The interactions that Huck and Jim have with the Duke and the Dauphin in chapters 18-21 are clearly related to the interactions that slavemasters and slaves have: the Duke and the Dauphin asked to be treated as superior for no particular reason, but Huck and Jim served them anyway. However, in the later chapters, this interaction takes a backburner to tales of the royalty's increasing clever, if repulsive, get-rich quick schemes. These events seem to point out the sly, cheating and stealing way that was prevalent throughout the south. Combine this with the ideal from earlier chapters, and I believe the Duke and the Dauphin are supposed to mock the way that slaveowners ruthlessly tried to gain fame and fortune, no matter what the moral cost.
I think that what Britain said about the feud being about what HUck is feeling inside is a very interesting comment. I agree with him that this is a possibility because Huck has had many problems in his life and has a troubled mind. He thinks about his pap alot and how he left his friends including Tom Sawyer. Also, being raised in this racist lifestyle and taught that helping free a black slave is the wrong thing to do, he has a struggle in his mind about what is right: what he had been taught by his elders all his life, or what he feels inside about JIm and their friendship. It is an intense struggle- in the book it talks about him thinking into the night about it and even going off in a canoe to tell before he catches himself- as the feud is, and Mark Twain might be trying to say that this feud that is bad is like the thoughts that were put into young kids minds like HUck's at this time.
I agree with Niki about Twain using Emmeline Grangerford as satire for mainstream literature at that time. However, I would like to expand on that and say that the satire addresses mainstream art as a whole and the view of it in this time period. An example of this is with the Duke and the Dauphin. As Sharon mentioned, Huck is impressed with their acting of Shakespeare in Chapter 21 (I have different page numbers). The appreication of this art of acting is influenced, as Sharon said, by education. However, the appreiciation of the art was also influenced by another thing. In the town where the Duke and the Dauphin performed Shakespeare, the audience themselves were not impressed by the performance. However, they faked appreciation to seem smart to the rest of the town (Chapter 23). I beleive that this is a satire of how art was appreiciated in the South at that time. The appreciation in this case was not based solely on the piece. It was also based on the views and opinions of others, and on the influence of external factors. This shows that Twain viewed the appreciation of art at the time as weak, false, and dependant on external influences.
I disagree with Sarah and partly with Josie. Though Sarah has valid points, I do not believe that the families were actually courageous and noble, even though Buck did say they were. After all, Buck is part of the feud that is taking place. And though they may not be courageous, Twain’s sole purpose in including the feud between the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons was not to make fun of the foolish behaviors of the families in the south. I believe that teasing the feud was to lead into a comparison between blacks and whites in the southern society.
In this feud, the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons are portrayed as senseless killers, who are murdering the opposing family simply because it is typical in their family to do so. A quote from Buck Grangerford on page 111 informs Huck, and the reader, that he doesn’t know how the feud started ("...but they don't know now what the row was about in the first place."). This quote shows that he, at least, has no reason to be fighting. This idiocy is almost directly followed by a scene in which a slave of the Grangerfords helps the two runaways by leading Huck to Jim. This act shows the consideration put forth by a slave, compared to the senseless violence contributed by white people in the south. Jim and Huck also portray the slave, Jack, as intelligent when Jim says Jim is “ pooty smart”, and Huck responds by adding, “Yes, he is. He ain’t ever told me you was here; told me to come, and he’s show me a lot of water moccasins. If anything happens he ain’t mixed up in it. He can say he never seen us together, and it’ll be the truth” (Twain 115). Though Huck has complimented the family of the Grangerfords, the only intelligence directly shown by white people in this section is when Buck spells George G-O-R-G-E (Mr. Fuller – he spelled it that way in my mom’s version but not mine. Why is that?), and how the family acts in society, which is shooting people who are named Sheperdson through bushes. As a slave was portrayed as more considerate and intelligent than the white Grangerfords and the white Sheperdsons, I believe that Twain’s teasing of the “feud families” was to represent the idiocy of racism in the south.
I agree with Laura M. that the portrayal of the Duke and the Dauphin satirizes the gullibility of the people in the South. I also think that Twain was satirizing the dellusion and poor education of some Southerners, and how they could so thoroughly believe that they could come off as "royalty." I think that the fact that Huck and Jim didn't realize immediately that "these liars warn't no kings nor dukes at all" demonstrates that the y were easily tricked, as the supposed Duke and Dauphin spoke in casual Southern dialects just like Huck. But, the fact that the Duke and Dauphin believed that their butchered Shakespeare was passable as the real thing says that they either put a lot of trust into the gullibility of other Southerners, or had not been exposed to Shakespeare or other "royal" things themselves.
I agree with both Britton, not Britain, and Josh in that the feud does represent conflict in the mind of young Huck. However, about Josh's idea of Twain actually intending to show that the teachings of the time were unjust, I will have to disagree. Huck is definitely at a disagreement mentally because he can not decide whether or not escaping with Jim is correct. As Jim is on the look out for Cairo, Huck feels, as he says on page 117, “all over trembly and feverish…because [he] begun to get it through [his] head that [Jim] was most free,” and that he was to blame for it. Up till now, we have seen Huck to be rowdy, but now we see that in that time period, what Huck did is a real crime. It was no longer taking a smoke behind the widow’s back, or joining a pretend gang of robbers- this was the real thing. And Huck “couldn’t get that out of [his] conscience, no how nor no way.” (Twain 117). Huck felt “so mean and so miserable” that he wished he was dead. (Twain 118). Huck did not think he was doing something for the better of humaity when he escaped with Jim. He only escaped with Jim because he had no friends to talk to. Huck decides to join/help Jim because Huck was lonely. As Huck exclaims on page 55, “it was Ms. Watson’s Jim! I bet I was glad to see him.” This is out of pure excitement at the sight of company. Huck is quick to tell Jim of all his plans so far. Later, Huck shows his excitement further from the bottom of page 55 to the top of page 56 when he says, “I was ever so glad to see Jim. I warn’t lonesome, now. I told him I warn’t afraid of him telling the people where I was. I talked along, but he only set there and looked at me never said nothing.” Obviously, Huck joins Jim because he was lonely before. Other than that, Huck feels that he is not to praise for escaping with Jim, but to be blamed for it. He asks himself what the widow had did to him for him to treat her so badly. Escaping with a slave was what to Huck may have seemed morally right, but actually was against the law of state, religion, and the people. Huck was moreover very weighed down over this central debate in his mind. However, Huck is never seen to really lean to one side instead of another. Twain is not trying to show the "right path", but rather is trying to create a realistic representation of the time period, and the values of people during the time period, which we can all see in Huck.
I disagree with those who make comparisons between slavery/racial relations and the feud or the duke/daughin. Although parallels can certainly be drawn between these events, they have absolutely nothing to do with slavery. There is no concrete evidence to support this theory. During these few chapters, Jim is certainly a lesser presence, and the reader should focus on the characters and what they might represent instead of the far-fetched notion of connecting them to slavery.
I agree with Lea that the Duke and the Dauphin represent the seperation between classes in the South but also the South has a whole. Lea said that the Duke and the Dauphin use trickery to make most of their money, which i agree with, but they also encorperate each other as well as Huck and Jim in their plans. In my mind this is similar to using slaves. On page 156 when they meet up with the traveler, the King refers to Huck as his servant saying, "Hold on a minute, my servant 'll help you with them bags." Though it seems like just a small line in the story it shows how the King thought of Huck, even if they were just trying to fool the man. It is also apparent when the King and the Duke pretend to be the brothers or the late Mr. Wilks. They used each other to get what they wanted, money. In fact they got about six thousand dollars. In using each other as well as Huck and Jim in their scemes, the Duke and the Dauphin are a representation of the South. Using other people for personal gain like Lea said.
Many people have said that the the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons represents the Southern value of honor. I agree. I think that Col. Sherburn also represents the Southern value of honor and courage. For example, Boggs provokes the Colonel and the Colonel kills Boggs. On page 187, a man tells Huck that Boggs is "the best-naturedest old fool in Arkansas- never hurt nobody, drunk nor sober." Boggs was not a violent man, but he insulted the Colonel. In order to keep his honor, the Col. had to kill Boggs. Then, on page 194, the Colonel says, "But if only half a man. . . shouts 'Lynch him, lynch him!' you're afraid to back down- afraid you'll be found out to be what you are-cowards. . ." This shows that in the South, the men constantly had to prove their courage in order to maintain their honor. Twain uses both the feud and Col. Sherburn to prove the importance that was placed on honor.
I saw Calvin's comment and I have to disagree. Just as I said earlier, these chapters have nothing to do with slavery. Huck and Jim can't be at all compared to slaves. The harshness of actual slavery was so much more severe than having to carry around a couple items. In addition, Huck is included as an accomplice in the king and duke's schemes, and the duke thoughtfully devises a way to make Jim more comfortable. A slave owner would never have done such a thing.
I agree with Eli's last comment in a few different ways. I agree because i do not believe the past reading has been related to slavery. I believe this because when Calvin quoted the book he connected it to slavery, but i think he is reading too far into the quote. I think that this line was strictly to trick the man and not a line symbolic of slavery. The only part of Eli's comment that i disagree with is when he said " a slave owner would never have done such a thing" when he was talking about the duke incorporating Huck into his plans. I disagree with this statement because i think we have learned that not all slave owners were terrible to their slaves. I do however, think that he is making a fair assumption about slave owners as a whole.
I disagree with Calvin's last comment. I feel that the Duke and the Dauphin do not represent slavery, but instead the trickery that people used to up their reputation. These comments are used because the two men want to have "the good life" for once, and want to take advantage of Huck and Jim so that they can get farther and make more money. Also, since Jim is still technically a slave, these two men using Jim would not represent slavery, it would be slavery.
I agree completely with Dani’s ideas posted on February 28 (at 6:42), but I feel that in addition Twain is satirizing another element of southern society. I think that Emmeline's art is supposed to represent southern society's obsession with itself and how it lingers in self pity. For example, every one of Emmeline's titles for her poetry ends in "Alas". Alas is an interjection used to express (usually) pity, grief, and/or sorrow. In this case, "alas" seems to be an expression of pity. Emmeline dwelled in death and sadness without trying to get out. On page 107 (in the pd. 4 books) it says, "[Emmeline] could write about anything you choose to give her to write about just so it was sadful." Everything Emmeline wrote about didn't even try to be happy. It seems she was just wallowing in the pity, probably for herself, possibly for a loved one, etc. (It is never really clear.)
I think that Twain's idea is that southern society cares only about its own difficulties and that it is self-indulgent, an attitude that often accompanies self-pity. Twain is poking fun at southern culture and its self-indulgent rituals, such as slavery (Twain’s big theme).
Changing gears a bit, one quote from Huck that really stuck out to me was on pg. 155 when Huck was talking to Jim about the Duke and the Dauphin. He said "Sometimes I wish we could hear of a country thats out of kings," and he lives in a country wiith no kings! To me, Twain uses this quote to show how little the politics of the country affected the outreaches of society, and to show the disillusion the poor and the rural farmers had towards their own country. Even though Huck isn't the smartest character in the book, shouldn't he have at least had some education on the basic politics of his country?
In my perspective, all those who have claimed that the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepardsons satirize racial hatred or discrimination are not entirely correct. Racial hatred is not the element of southern society that Mark Twain was trying to convey using the feud. Besides the fact that the Grangerfords did own slaves, there was no other evidence in the book that even hinted that the feud was specifically just a symbol of racial tensions. Instead, I believe that Twain was satirizing "the antebellum years", or the pre-Civil War years from 1820-1860. thought. During the antebellum years, two groups of Americans, the North and the South, rivaled and oppsosed each other because of differences in their economic, political, and even cultural views. Soon, the feud became so ferocious in war that it almost overshadowed why they were fighting in the first place. Similarities can be found with the Grangerfords and Shepardsons. These families were invloved in a feud lasting many years and neither are aware of why it started at all. However, they continue to fight because their family members are constantly being killed by the other family. The chaos and brutality of the feud may easily have helped cause the families to forget the reason(s) that actually led to the feud. For the reason that Colonel Grangerford owned numerous slaves on his plantations, the Grangerfords could be interpreted as the South. In the end, I believe the Grangerford-Shepardson feud is not a representation of racial tension, but rather of the more general antebellum years.
I agree with Madeleine's previous comment that the conflict between the Shepherdsons and Grangerfords is meant to satirize the stupid funding. Back in the days this book is set, there isn't really a legal punishment for crime in general. From what I already know, there were many of these types of fights existing in America (mostly slave states) and Twain satirizes the pointlessness of it through Buck. Buck is rather uninformed and doesn't get a good education, as Huck does. Buck mentions that the feud is just one of those things that needs to work itself out. It is people like Buck who keep the fights alive, and this was fairly commonplace back when Huck Finn was written.To summarize, I think Twain expresses the mindless fighting going on through Buck, and the lack of legal action taken back then, leads to the mockery of the whole ordeal
Adding on to what Alec said, the quote, "Sometimes I wish we could hear of a country thats out of kings", was a somewhat subtle way of Mark Twain portraying the South as a relatively uneducated and uninformed people, for there were no kings. Also, when the duke and the dauphin go and rip the people out of their money, the crowd becomes angry, but then realizes that just to get even, they should tell everyone else in the town to come and spend their money on the show. I think that this was also a subtle way of Mark Twain conveying the message that the Southerners were ignorant and somewhat clueless.
Going back to Jenny's comment about Boggs, I think that the issue between Boggs and Colonel Sherburn is representative of the entire South culture. In many instance throughout the book, we have read about fighting, cursing, and drinking, which were pretty common activities at that time. When Huck encounters Boggs for the first time, he was intimidated by him but learned that everyone else in the town liked him, as he explains on page 142. I think everybody in the town liked Boggs because he was just like them, but just more of an exaggerated character. His relationship with Colonel Sherburn is very similar to that of many other people when they are forced to do things they don't want to. I think Boggs is a very good representation of the common southern culture, and he teaches Huck how people can be intimidating but yet likeable in the real world.
I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with Jewel's point. Although she brings up the point that there is no reason for the feud, and that the feud is mindless, she forgets that in the book both parties are about equal in power, whereas slave-owners were obviously given the upper hand in the South. In real life, the whites commanded the blacks, and thought of the blacks as simple-minded tools. Also, most slaves thought their owners to be cruel and sometimes cowards for taking advantage of them like they did. If we assign the Grangerfords either role, the Whites or the Blacks, the stories simply do not mesh. This is especially true because on page 145 Buck Grangerford shows respect in a way towards the Sheperdsons which neither party had towards the other. Buck shows this respect by saying "There ain't a coward among them Sheperdsons -- not a one. And there ain't no cowards amongst [us] either". In this quote Buck acknowledges the Sheperdson's strengths and establishes a similarity in power between the two families. No black slave or white slave-owner would do this if they were being honest with him/herself. Therefore, although I do acknowledge SOME similarities, I have to disagree with Jewel's comment.
I disagree with Denis for a few reasons. Although I am unsure which posistion I take on the Grangerford's fued currently, I found the antebellem years to be very different. If Mark Twain was satirizing the antebelleum years, then he would have included more about how the fued started, or in a sense "pre-fued". Instead, he wrote about the fued after it had progressed (and may have be coming to an end), which would be just war or post-war, not pre-. You could argue Twain was including the entire civil war in the fued, but the civil war did not turn into a child-like fight, where both sides fought for the sake of fighting, forgetting the real reason it began. Instead, as Denis mentioned, it was for numerous important reasons that affected people's lives, cultures, etc. Otherwise, there is no real evidence for Twain to have been satirizing the antebelleum years. A final reason I disagree with this is that the Grangerfords lived in the South, meaning the Shepardsons most likely owned slaves too, not offering a clear division of Northern and Southern sides.
I disagree with Alec and Andrew's comment about how little the people in the South know about the politics of their own country, because I think that Jim's quote: "Sometimes I wish we could hear of a country thats out of kings," means that Jim wishes that there were no people who were "above" one another. I think this because of a lot of reasons, primarily because the Duke and the Dauphin seem to slightly resemble slavery in a way, altohugh there are some differences. However, in chapter 19, Huck and Jim act as if the Duke and the Dauphin are their masters when they "waited on him... at meals" and when they "set to majestying him [the Dauphin]." Slaves, while treated far more horribly, had to serve their masters, like Huck and Jim did. Jim seems to resent this when he says Huck in chapter 20 that he say sometihng to the effect of being relieved that there were no more kings that they would meet. The original comment,t hen, leads me to believe that Jim is expressing his wish that people were not forced to liv eunder another person because of other implicationa throughout the book.
I believe that the feud between the Grangerfords and Shepardsons may have some relation to the racial tension that was going on in the South. However I mostly agree with Eli that there are other symbols that make more sense, such as the satirization of Southern culture.
Referring to Hadyn's comment, it was Huck who wished for no kings, not Jim. Also, I don't think that the Dauphin and the Duke represent slavholders, at least not by having Jim and Huck act as their masters. On pg. 125, Huck says that Jim "stood around and waited on him,..., and a body could see it was mighty pleasing to him." JIm has been raised to serve those higher than him, so it would be natural that Jim feels happy towards serving the Duke and Daupphin. Twain uses this to show how corrupt the Southeren slave society was, in that it trained people to feel happy to be low, and the Duke and Dauphin just help strengthen how broken in some slaves became.
I disagree with the statement Britton made on February 26th. I definitely see how you might think that the quarrel between the two families is intended to parallel the dispute between Huck and his own feelings about Jim. But, I also feel he was lead to believe this because Huck’s battle between his own conscience, was simply another feud in the narrative between two things. I do not see any direct evidence to support this concept. Also, I know quite a few people have been responding to Jewel’s first response to the question, (including Britton’s response that I just mentioned) but I must concur that her logic is quit reasonable, although I do not agree with it. I would think that if the 1840s feud were to parallel the one in Huck Finn were about slavery, then, Jim would always be around when these family disputes are mentioned; to better cue the reader that Mark Twain is making a parallel between slavery and these family affairs. Also, during the time that Twain wrote this American novel the fight for civil rights had not yet been publicized as a significant issue the way it was post civil war from the early 1860s. Therefore, if Twain were to have the feud symbolize an occurrence of the 1840s, it would not be the fight for the rights of black slaves. Additionally, Mark Twain was raised in Missouri, the only slave state above the Ohio River, as well as a mass producer of cotton, therefore, the people of Missouri were dependant on slavery to farm and run their economy. Based on where he grew up, slavery would not matter. In conclusion he would not have compared slavery to a major dispute that that there was no apparent cause for. I also see where Niki and Dennis are coming from with their most recent entries in regards to this issue. Especially, after reading Niki’s I am beginning to wonder if we are all trying to compare this quarrel to the wrong event of the time period, because, I do not see any clear evidence in the text to relate the family feud to the Civil war, or the Antebellum. I believe that one of the broader messages, in this book might perhaps be slavery, seeing as through ought this book the reader feels empathy for Jim this runaway slave, but I do not believe that this one specific clash, is a symbol of the struggles that slaves were going through for equality
I agree with bridget. I definitely think the Duke and Dauphin are supposed to be satirical of Southeren society at that time. The "Duke and Dauphin" refused to do things for themselves, and they were "high class". I think Twain used these two characters to show the flaws of the upper class in Southern society.
Concerning the quote Alec and Andrew discussed "Sometimes I wish we could hear of a country thats out of kings," I believe that this quote is merely pointing out the idea that it might be better if their weren't so many people who want to feel superior to others. However, I still think it intertwines the subtlety of Southern ignorance.
Also, to add to the discussion of the symbolism of the Duke and the Dauphin, I think they symbolize the bad in people. Other people have hinted their trickery and conning of the people, but even more it is the badness that they represent and bring out. This is exemplified with the Dauphin's "The Royal Nonesuch." When the people realize they have been conned they try and get even by creating a plan to gain a bigger uprising against the con-artists. The Duke and the Dauphin represent the evil in people not only by the trickery they possess but the evil that they bring out in other people such as the towns' people.
I agree with Hadyn's last comment about how the Duke and the Dauphin seem to slightly resemble slavery, and also agree with Alden's comment on how the Duke and the Dauphin were only trying to get rich and be famous. In addition to the Duke and the Dauphin making Huck and Jim serve them at meals, they also were not at all cautious about the fact that Jim was a runaway slave. In fact, they even use this to their advantage when they print a flyer advertizing a 200 dollar reward for his capture. Also, I disagree with Alec's comment on how southern slave society "trained people to be low." I think that although it may feel natural for Jim to be serving people, he was not used to being low. On page 155 when Jim is homesick and says, "...it's mighty hard; I spec' i ain't ever gwyne to see you no mo', no mo!" it clearly shows that Jim is not used to being a low slave because he knows that if he were not a slave he wouldn't have had to leave his family behind and run away.
No offense to Britton, but I think your point about the feud is a little corny (and incorrect). The feud may help to characterize Huck's inner conflict, but it is not a symbol of it in and of itself. I think that it symbolizes many conflicts of Twain's time, but it was more an impact on Huck's personality than a reflection of it.
I agree with Laura A's comment but would like to offer an alternative. In general, I believe that the relationship between Boggs and Colonel Sherburn is not only representative of Southern American life, but more specifically the relationship between slaves and their masters. I say this particulalry because of the cruel and uncaring way in which Sherburn kills Boggs and walks away without any semblance of a chip on his shoulder. On page 190, the Colonel is described at having simply "tossed his pistol on to the ground, and turned around on his heels and walked off," after shooting Boggs and chaos ensuing from all those crowded around. Also is the fact that Boggs' daughter was present at the time and actually watched her father get shot, to which Colonel Sherburn was most definitely aware. This carefree and sadistic numbness towards killing is strongest in its parallel to the cruel conditions that we read and hear about in slave stories. One example of that we've all read is when Frederick Douglass recollects the experience of seeing his aunt brutually beaten by their master, thus tasting the horrors of slavery for the first time. All in all, since Colonel Sherburn is unperturbed by the murder he committed and has no concern over Boggs or his family's state, their relationship has a strong resemblance to that experienced between many slaves and their owners.
I agree that the Duke and the Dauphin represent the "badness" in people because not only do they pretend to be a duke and a king, but they take advantage of people to fuel their greed. For example, they write up a fake advertisement about Jim, under the guise of wanting to be able to travel during the daytime, to add make money. The Royal Nonesuch incident also shows their avarice. Instead of actually performing the tragedies they advertise, the pair once again takes advantage of the audience and even benefits more when the audience decides to cheat the rest of the town as well.
Yes, I would like to correct myself on that point. I was rereading my comment, and I completely missed that. So, yes, I was mistaken. sorry about that! So my comment is invalid. However, I still think that the quote shuld be taken more seriously though. The way the quote is worded makes me think that we are suppsoed to tihnk that everybody is equal, and that people should not be above one another.Instead of taking the quote literally, I tihnkt hat it shold be examinded further because it seems to hold a lot of symbolism in that the "kings" in the story are depicted negatively when they trick peopel into giving them money, yet they are still served.
I agree with what has been previously said by Clara. The two men who pretend to be the Duke and Dauphin both represent the evil in people. This seems clear in the fact that the two men are con artists. They pretend to be royaltly just so Huck and Jim will treat them as such. Even the stories they tell make them seem this way. The Duke had a paste to remove tartar from teeth, but it also removed the enamal (sounds like today's whitening products), and it seems like he knew this would happen. Also, the Dauphin claims that he is going to return to the Indian Ocean as a missionary, and he receives lots of money for it. It seems like a "The Music Man" sort of thing, though I doubt the Dauphin will get cold feet
After reading some of the comments on the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, I am beginning to change my mind in thinking that it represented the racial hostility that took place in the south at this time. However, I do feel that the Duke and the Dauphin represent slavery, contrary to what Eli has said. I agree with Haydn’s previous comment in that I do not feel the Duke and the Dauphin are exactly like slaveholders, but I definitely see enough similarities to feel that this was the intended representation. Besides the similarities already pointed out, such as the way they made Huck and Jim wait on them, and insisted on being treated better then them, I would like to point out how on page 127, Huck explains that although he knows the Duke and the Dauphin are frauds, he learned that it was best to not cause trouble and to let them have their own way. This passage reminded me of the autobiography of Frederick Douglas when he wrote about how slaves had learned to praise their masters when asked about them, although this was obviously not how they actually felt, as to not cause trouble for themselves, and others.
I agree with what Dani said about lying and I think that she has an interesting point. Acceptance of lying in the South is a little absurd, such as where Huck treats Duke and Dauphin as royalty although he knows they are not. It makes me wonder about why lying is acepted. I think that In Huck's case, he just didn't want to bring up conflict among his friends by calling them liars.
I agree with Alex's post. It's very good and represents how a feud in real life is portrayed by unreal characters in a book. It's very realistic, especially since there was another feud going on at the time. I also agree with Alex's view on Mark Twain's satirizing family's so that honor is the most important thing. This whole thing about honor is what the feud is about. When one of each of the different families got into an affair, the family's honor was struck down, so they started killing each other in a mad rage because the h onor was hurt and brought down a peg or two.
Throughout the blog people have said that the Grangerford and Shepherdson feud demonstrates the ridiculous focus on honor in the south. I agree with this but another focus on honor Twain made was with the people who were “sold” by the duke and the Dauphin. After these people paid their half a dollar admission fee they watched the so-called tragedy played by the two con men. They were severely disappointed with the performance because it was so short. The cheated crowd then on page 201 described by Huck ‘…rose up mad, and was agoing for that stage and them tragedians but a big, fine looking man jumps onto the bench and shouts ‘hold on! …we are sold, mighty badly sold. But we don’t want to be laughing-stock of this whole town, I reckon, and never hear the last of this thing as long as we live. No. What we want, is to go out of your quiet and talk this show up and sell the rest of this town then we will all be in the same boat. Ain’t that sensible?’ The crowd agrees and they go out praising the play and trying to sell the rest of the town. Their ridiculous pride made the cheated crowd tell everyone in the town to go to the play and in turn waste their money, instead of warning everyone about how bad it was to make it seem like they were not the only ones suckered into wasting their money on it.
Post a Comment