WW XIV

Writers week was truly a great experience for me, not just because I actually participated in it, but also because the writers instilled a new passion in me. The first day, we started out with Bill Kelly. I enjoyed him a lot, even though he didn't give much presence while speaking, because I really enjoyed the movies he wrote, especially Enchanted. I loved how he told us to follow our passion, no matter who people think you are. He said something like, "It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from. Try your hardest to be what you can." This really reached out to me because for my entire life, I've always had a doubt about myself. Hearing someone who successfully followed his dream say this inspired me to keep trying my best to become what I want to be.

After Kelly, we saw Billy Lombardo. Although he was a great writer, his pieces scared me a little. They were really dark and violent, two characteristics I'm not very fond of.
I really loved Scott Woldman and Co. not just because they were hilarious, but also because they're so good at singing and the plot is so well thought out. It was such an interesting plot and really unique. However, their jokes were repetitive and very scandelous. It felt uncomfortable hearing those crude remarks because I don't support them, but also because there were so many teachers around. Daphne Willis was also a great group to listen to because she showed us that writing's not all about the essays and research papers, but it can inspire people in other forms. She had an amazing voice, and I was so jealous she could sing like that.

This year, I was so glad we got to wrap up Writer's Week with the legendary Marc Smith. Although I saw him last year, his poems still leave me in awe and inspiration. He is such an amazing poet, and it always amazes me how a man of that age can climb a railing and memorize over 200 poems. I always hated writing because I felt it was just an obligation; just another essay for just another English class. However, after this week, everything my friends said would be a brainstorm for a story or a poem in my head. For example, I was in gym class, and we were "supposed" to be running laps on the shelf, but the narrow lanes were congested so my friends and I opted to go behind the bleachers and go around to the other side. My friend simply commented on how quiet it was, and I thought about what she said; how just that single wall of bleachers could separate the loud from the soft, the noisy from the quiet, the vigorous from the still.

My writing experience was also so amazing. I wasn't nervous at all until I woke up Thursday morning and remembered that I was speaking first period. I thought I was prepared, but as I sat on the couches on the stage, I couldn't remember any motions I was supposed to do, or whether or not my accents would turn out to be funny. I started to get nervous about whether or not the students would really like what I wrote, but after being so generously supported by the other writers on stage as well as the audience, my fears dissipated and now all I remember is a good experience. Thank you Writers Week!

WW RESPONSES

Ah, Writers Week. Take a few moments to blog about your experience. Who did you love? What What did you learn? What will you write? Did you see your classmates --Jill, Rosey, Gina, Jennifer, Lauren-- read?




Don't forget: Reading notes due Monday
WW assignment(s) due Wednesday

"Luke, I am your FATHER!"

The role of Pap can (and should) be broken down into two separate categories: as a character and as Twain's commentary on the society of his time. As a character he is purely antagonistic; Pap pulls Huck away from good living conditions, causes physical and mental harm to our young hero, and sets a bad example for Huck to follow. He's just not a good guy. Thankfully, our protagonist is rather independent. Instead of listening to his father, Huck does all he can to do just the opposite just to spite Pap. While most of us "rebel" for the same reason, Huck actually stands to gain a lot from this little display of teen angst and the decisions he bases on it. This is where we begin to see more of what Pap represents than what he actually is. The most memorable Pap "scene" would have to be in chapter five, where he rants about the government, the man of mixed race, and doing some terrible things all while getting more drunk and almost attacking his son. In Pap we can see Twain's criticism of the society he had to live in that mistreated blacks, Twain's criticism of the lack of action on the government's part (although presented from the opposite side), and most importantly, the catalyst for the beginnings of Huck's moral development. As stated before, Huck chooses to do things in spite of his father, but he ends up learning valuable life lessons; to be able to make your own decisions, to see with eyes unclouded, and to give a chance to those that are most deserving. While Huck could never appreciate (nor understand if we're to take it that far) what Pap has unknowingly done for him, we as readers can say that Pap, he wasn't that bad after all.

Ch 6: Pap's Rant

By this point in the novel Twain has already depicted Pap as a negative character. He is unrefined, stubborn, and ignorant. Having the prior notion that Pap is no good and can't be trusted helps bring out what Twain was really trying to convey during the drunken rant that Pap goes on about a rich black man he ran into which turns into a rant about the flaws in government in regards to racial issues. "Here's a government that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock-still for six months before it can take a-hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, shite-shirted free "n"'(Twain 26). Pap becomes infuriated as he goes on about this black man that cannot be touched because he had not been in the state for six months. While this expresses the views of the people of the time, Twain uses to desciption of Pap's movements to help add to the display of the stupidity and ignorance of society. Pap gets so hotheaded that he starts stumbling around and hurts his leg, and while he is spastically acting out injures his toe in the process. The way that Twain depicts these scene is somewhat humorous to the reader. Shedding this light on humor and such an ignorant speech adds to the view that society and its views together are down right stupid and inhumane, for we see Pap jumping around like an animal. All the while Twain is creating irony because as Pap compares black people to animals and lower than dirt, he himself is acting like a foos, and displaying a dispicable sight.

3 Important Things that Happen in Chapter 15 :D

One of the most important events we see in this chapter occurs when Huck apologizes to Jim for lying to him, "It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger; but I done it, and I warn't ever sorry for it afterward, neither" (Twain 86). Prior to Huck's apology, Huck had pulled a prank on Jim by blatantly lying to a worried Jim. When Jim realizes Huck's elaborate story is a lie, Huck feels guilty for his actions. This passage first demonstrates a precipitation of Huck's compassion for Jim, as well as a turning point in Huck's struggle between his heart and his social conscience, due to the fact that Huck is willing to apologize to a runaway slave for his misbehavior even though this would be deemed as "socially inappropriate."
Another important detail occurred on page 83 when Jim called Huck "boss." Although we know that Huck is a person of no account, Jim still refers to Huck as his boss. This is important to the story so that audiences are reminded of the social relationship between Huck and Jim: white boy and runaway slave, respectively. Although Twain makes efforts to humanize Jim, audiences must remember that Jim is still a slave and thus still inferior to Huck, however "worthless" he may be. Moreover, by clearly establishing this relationship, we, as the readers, are more aware of the times when Huck is following his heart and/or growing in maturity.
Finally, the third detail take us back to the beginning of the chapter when Jim and Huck have been separated on the river. They send each other "whoops" in hopes of finding the other. However, they fail to find the other until the morning after. But the result is irrelevant when considering the why of the actions and behaviors of Jim and Huck. Throughout the night, Jim and Huck are persistent in their whooping until they can not hear each other any longer. This determination demonstrates and foreshadows signs of a growing relationship between the two characters. Instead of showing repugnance or disgust, they share a compassion and care enough about each other to arduously try to locate the other's whoops.

What aspects of Huck Finn could be considered offensive?

Twain uses satire and questionable diction that may appear offensive to his audience throughout Huck Finn.  Through the voices and actions of different characters, Twain portrays his views to the reader. Religion and hypocrisy are satirized often, but the church scene between the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons appears most significant, " The men took their guns along with them, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them handy at the wall (Twain 109). The sermon delivered that day consisted of the importance of brotherly love, therefore criticizing the apparently "pious" nature of these families. Religion was taken more seriously at the time this novel was published and those who were strongly religious could take great offense.

Romanticism became very popular in Twain's era and even before. Tom represents a boy with a romantic spirit whom thrives for adventure. Tom desires to expand each simple idea to parallel with a romantic based novel.  Twain continues to satirize romanticism through the providing Tom's "innovative" ideas as a hinderance to the mission rather than a benefit. Crazed romantics would find the portrayal and representation of Tom as an offensive piece of Twain's message. 

Twain continues to view slavery negatively, but more importantly the slave owners. The Solomon chapter provides a closer view of how each race sees the value of freedom and justice. American citizens may take offense to the apathy Twain adds to the white man's character in their view of a slave, "We blowed out a cylinder head. 'Good gracious! Anybody hurt?' 'No just a slave' 'well it's lucky because sometimes people do get hurt'" (Twain 221). Twain portrays the white man to lack compassion and justice in many parts of his book, therefore potentially making his intended audience angry with his choices.

Twain satirizes different topics to not only make his audience think but to strengthen the lovableness and credibility of Huck that blossoms throughout Huck Finn.

Do Huck's purpose for lying change?

Throughout the book, Huck experiences emotional change and maturity, and along with it, his bad habit of lying for pleasure changes for the better. In chapter 11, Huck becomes bored with staying on the raft all the time and wants to go into town. He thus dresses up as a girl and attempts to fool Judith Loftus. Huck said, "Next morning I said it was getting slow and dull, and I wanted to get a stirring-up some way... he [Jim] studied it over and said... dress up like a girl... that was a good notion, too" (Twain 54). In this early scene, Huck's sole purpose for lying and dressing up as a girl was for entertainment. Not much later on, Huck and Jim get stuck in the middle of a thunderstorm and become separated. After the river calmed, Huck finds Jim asleep on the raft and Huck quietly slips onto the raft; when Jim wakes up to find Huck next to him, Huck tricks him into thinking that Jim was dreaming everything. "[Jim] Didn't you tote out de line in de canoe fer to make fas' to de towhead? [Huck] No, I didn't. What towhead? I hain't seen no towhead... [Jim] Dad fetch it, how is I gwyne to dream all dat in ten minutes? [Huck] Well, hang it all, you did dream it, because there didn't any of it happen" (Twain 84). Huck's early purpose for lying also represents his emotional immaturity. He didn't care how his lies affected the people he told them to, but instead, he just enjoyed the pleasure he received from telling the lies.

As the adventure progresses and as he matures emotionally, his purpose for his lies also change. They are not for his own enjoyment anymore, but instead only a necessary precaution that is used when he thought he absolutely needed it. Although not too far towards the end of the book, Huck can be seen to responding to his emotional growth when he lies to the slave-hunters in chapter 16. Huck decides that he can't take the social pressure that's going through his mind between what his heart believes as right and what he's been grown up with in his society - Jim. "I was paddling off, all in a sweat to tell on him; but when he says this, it seemed to kind of take the tuck all out of me... Do you belong on it [raft]?... I reckon we'll go adn see for ourselves. [Huck] 'I wish you would,' says I, 'because it's pap that's there... he's sick'" (Twain 89). As he feels the constant guilt about helping Jim run away, he finds slave-hunters and is about to turn Jim in, but at the last minute, decides not to because Jim has been so kind to him and left an impact on Huck. He lies in order to save Jim's life, a sure sign of his emotional maturity.

In the end, Huck resorts to lying when he needed it. Instead, Huck began to tell the truth because he knew that it was right, even though it was harder and riskier. "Well, I says to myself at last, I'm a-going to chance it; I'll up and tell the truth this time, though it does seem most like setting down on a kag of powder and touching it off just to see where you'll go to" (Twain 186). When Huck told the truth to Mary Jane, it was an important turning point in his life because he constantly leaned closer towards his heart in the battle between his heart and his social conscience. He knew it wouldn't be easy, but because Huck knew that what the Duke and the King were doing was wrong, he told the truth since it was right. Although at first Huck starts off as an immature boy that lied because it provided excitement and laughter inside, he grows and changes into a more mature person, and all this is shown through his developing use of lies.

Pap's Role in Huck's Life

Pap represents an inferiority complex for Huck Finn. Unlike Tom Sawyer, Huck was never complimented and convinced of his own worth while he was growing up. Instead, his father abused him and dragged him to the lowest tiers of society. Huck was not allowed to be educated, nor was he loved and cared for by his father. He grew up in an environment in which it was impossible for him to be proud of himself. This negative self-image is evident from the very beginning of the book, when Huck says, "... seeing as I was so ignorant, and so kind of low-down and ornery," (Twain 11). Pap has ruined religion and manners for Huck, so that he believes he cannot fit into higher levels of society.

This poor opinion Huck holds of himself leads to his idolization of Tom Sawyer. He always comments that Tom does things with more "style," and that Tom is more adventurous and intelligent that he is. Pap has instilled this submissive attitude in his son by years of abuse and neglect. Since Huck does not believe his opinion has worth, he is willing to follow Tom's foolish plans and ignore his own good judgment.

Huck is finally freed from his father's clutches when Jim informs him Pap was the dead man in the house they saw floating on the river. Without a tangible object to fear, Huck can begin to come into his own person and realize his own self-worth. Pap symbolized Huck's insecurities, and his death becomes Huck's release from his self-imposed inferiority to Tom and other members of high society.

What is Pap's role in Huck's journey?

In providing motivation for Huck to fake his own death and escape from society, Pap is indispensible as a plot device who drives Huck onto the river. However, Twain's characterization of Pap makes him much more than just a one dimensional alcoholic used only as a plot device. Because of the complex motives behind his abusive but sometimes clever actions, Pap is a fringe character in society that represents the negative rebelliousness existing in America and the ideas and lessons from Pap continue to drive Huck throughout the book.
Twain introduces Pap at the beginning of chapter 5, painting an already grisly picture of a character whose morals match his appearance. "His hair was long and tangled and greasy, and hung down, and you could see his eyes shining though as if he were behind vines" (Twain, 19). This description is meant to show that Pap has little regard for what society thinks of him and acts based on that. Later, Twain insinuates that Pap is motivated mainly by two things: his desire for alcohol and his warped southern sense of honor. This "honor" comes into play almost right after Huck is reunited with his father, manifesting itself in the form of Pap's rage over Huck having learned to read and therefore feeling "inferior" to his son. A caring father would typically be overjoyed to see his son rise up in society, but Pap has other, more restricting plans for Huck.
Pap's big rant comes in chapter 6. He begins by complaining about his belief that the government has robbed him of his rightful spot as one of the richest men in town and forced him to live out in the woods. The truth is that the government actually tried to act in the best interest of Huck, but Pap fails to see that and this part of his speech shows that even white people often fail in getting along, and suffer delusions and prejudice about the government and each other. The next part of the rant is somewhat paradoxical. Pap states that he would never vote again due to the fact that there were places where black people could vote. He also presents a great example of a very intelligent black man who can obviously contribute a lot to society, but nonetheless opposes him. Here Twain not only satirizes the foolishness of Pap but also the foolishness of every American that maintains a racist viewpoint despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
As Huck travels down the river, the racist values that Pap and society have ingrained in his mind slowly begin to peel away. Despite the similarities in outdoor and practical capabilities and, in the beginning, ideology, Huck drifts further and further away from his father as he comes to know Jim better. However, Huck's attitide towards his father resurfaces in how he sees the duke and king, showing that experience with Pap has also given Huck some important abilities.
Despite being a highly illogical person, Pap shows his capability in dealing wih people when he tricks the judge into letting him escape. This ability is shared not only by Huck but also by Tom Sawyer, who in the end of the book hinders Jim's bid for freedom with his imagination and influence over Huck. The ability to make people believe a lie is shown in this book by the many evil characters that hinder the plot. From Huck's perspective, people who hindered him in happiness include not only Pap and the duke and king who directly put Huck into danger, but also the Widow who tried to civilize him,Tom who polluted his mind with outlandish ideas, and his own conscience that tried to make him do the "correct thing". Seen in this light, Pap is an extreme example of the many forces in the story that hold Huck back from his self realization in religion, morals, and freedom that even he is forced to pursue.

Is Jim Intelligent?

Before someone can answer the question, “Is Jim Intelligent?” one needs to determine what their definition of intelligence is. Recently, in psychology class, we had a unit on the different theories behind intelligence and what most individuals believe being “smart,” is defined as. Most psychologists believe in different facets to intellect. According to Robert Sternberg, the three forms of intelligence are analytic, creative, and practical.

Analytic intelligence is defined as “problem-solving” intelligence. Jim demonstrates analytic intelligence when, as Reena pointed out, reasoning his escape from Miss Watson’s house. Jim is presented with a problem of when and how to escape, and he successfully solves his problem by analyzing his situation (“I knowed ole missus en de widder wuz goin' to start to de camp-meet'n' right arter breakfas' en be gone all day.”) and coming up with a winning solution (Well, when it come dark I tuck out up de river road, en went 'bout two mile er more…”) (Twain 44).

Creative intelligence is defined as the ability to deal with new situations by drawing on old knowledge. Jim uses creative intelligence when persuading the Grangerford servants not to steal his raft. Jim says, “En I ast ‘m if dey gwyne to grab a young white genlman’s propaty” (Twain 112). Jim knows about the fear black slaves have of punishment by white men and of their power of them, and Jim uses this to his advantage.

Practical intelligence is better known as “street smarts,” and the way you are able to adapt to your environment. Jim demonstrates this best when quickly learning how to cover his tracks, travel safely during night, catch (or steal) food, live on the river, and disguise himself when necessary. Although Jim may not possess obvious intelligence in educational areas and “book smarts,” Jim’s instinctual knowledge proves his high aptitude.

Pap's Role in Huck's Journey

The character Pap in Huck Finn servers several roles in creating, foreshadowing, and representing various struggles in Huck's life. First and foremost, Pap's role was as a way to facilitate a journey in the first place. As a rampaging abusive drunk, Pap has already set Huck up to be in a downtrodden position, outcast from society by birth. This is arguable what allows Huck to relate with Jim, and the reason he is friends with Tom Sawer, in addition to posessing and/or inheriting his street smarts. Pap's character does more than just facilitate the possibility for Huck to make this adventure as he does, but facilitates the need for this adventure by returning from his absence, demanding Huck's money, and abusing Huck, forcing him to run away, setting everything into motion.
More than just a plot device, however, Pap is our first representation of opposition, specifically, actively harmful behavior stemming from society. Pap is a greedy, unfeeling, immoral, outcast, displaying a pertinent fact that needed to be said before the adventure could begin - that not everyone who lives outside the boundaries of social norms is good or even capable.
This brief encounter with Pap sets us up for Jim shortly thereafter, as Jim seems to have all of the important characteristics that Pap does not. Pap is abusive while Jim is kind and even afraid for himself; Pap wants Huck for his money while Jim wants Huck for companionship; Pap abuses and belittles Huck while Jim encourages Huck and does what he can to help him (taking his shift watching the raft, etc.)

PS: Stretchy Cat, gogogo!

Do Huck's purposes for lying change throughout the story?

I think that, throughout, the story, Huck's purposes to lie to others change from enjoyment to only when absolutely needed, like when he lies to the Phelps' to save Jim's life and freedom. Towards the beginning of the novel, Huck states, "Next morning I said it was getting slow and dull, and I wanted to get a stirring-up some way. I said I reckoned I would slip over the river and find out what was going on." (Twain 54). Here, Huck lies to a women in St. Petersburg by pretending to be a girl so he can get some gossip about the town and their thoughts about the murder that he faked. This lie has no other purpose rather than to bring some interest to Jim and his life, which has become monotonous on the island. By sheer luck, he finds out some information that saves Jim's life, but which was not the maint intent of Huck travelling to a strangers house. This also shows Huck's immaturity and close attachment to society in the beginning. By lying without thinking of the consequences(like him almost getting caught because he wanted a little adventure) and trying to remain a part of society and it's beliefs, he demonstrates that he has not yet learned his lesson about society's corruption.

I think the major turning point for Huck away from society and his lying habits is after the duke and the king lie to the town about being dead Peter's brothers to steal money from orphan girls, whom he feels badly about. Says Huck, "...and the king, he told it all over again on his hands to the duke, and both of them took on about that dead tanner like they'd lost twelve disciples. Well, if ever I struck anything like it, I'm a n-word. It was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race." (Twain 162). Before this time, Huck went along with anything anyone told him to, even for the enjoyment and stealing reasons that the duke and the king displayed. Up until this point, Huck has gradually been growing farther away from society, no longer needing to know the going-ons like he did previously and was perfectly content living on the river with Jim. After the duke and king try to destroy an innocent family for their money, Huck becomes ashamed of what society(represented by the king and duke) and ultimately, what he has become. The next time Mary Jane questions him about something, he decides to tell her the truth, an important step for Huck, demonstrating his maturity growth and his complete break from society's ways. "...though I can't say for certain; but it looks so to me, anyway; and yet here's a case where I'm blest if it don't look to me like the truth is better and actuly safer than a lie." (Twain 186). By telling Mary Jane the truth, he shows a realization of lying and it's effects, also showing is want to change and become a better person, away from the rest of the "human race". He eventually uses lying only when trying to save Jim's life, like lying to the Phelp's to get Jim back, and tries to tell the truth more often than habitually lying to everyone, which usually gets him into trouble. Huck's use of lying shows Huck's growth throughout the story as he changes the purposes in which he uses it.

Circus/Mob scene

Something I’d like to touch on more, that we didn’t in class is Twain’s use of contrast. The one example we started to talk about was the mob/circus scene. My initial response to reading this was that he’s satirizing romanticism. Things can go from bad to good and we all live happily ever after. Huck is talking about the lynching when he says, “I could’a’ stayed if I wanted to, but I didn’t want to. I went to the circus and loafed around the back side…” (Twain 146). The fact that Huck went from watching a man almost get killed to a carnival was intentional, but why? Twain didn’t like the romantic age or people. This whole transition scene was meant to mock both of those things. First, Twain made the small towns people look gullible after hearing a short speech by Sherburn, they all ran and ‘followed the crowd”. “The crowd washed back sudden, and then broke all apart, and went tearing off every which way” (Twain 146). This part ended with no one getting and lynched and everyone lives on, which is a Romanized ending and following into a circus in the same town.
Another example of how Twain uses contrast is between Huck and Tom which we did talk about in class. The idea of America vs. Europe is the same as Huck vs. Tom. Another way I looked at it was that the carnival represented America and the lynching scene, Europe. Twain wanted to make the transition immediate so we could get just how different these two are. Can we talk about this more in class, I want to explore the idea more and build off others imput.

What is Pap's role in Huck's journey?

Although Huck grew up a majority of the time without Pap, Pap's views on society, the government, and what he thinks is right and wrong have been instilled in Huck, even if Huck is unaware of it. For example, when Pap goes on that rant in chapter six, he severely criticizes the government, yelling about the elections and voting. In the midst of this, he also criticizes and seriously degrades slaves and African Americans, along with criticizing the rest of society as well. Obviously, Huck heard these opinions and is going to either agree or disagree.
However, I believe Pap's lack of morals that influenced Huck is also what caused Huck to not only have inter battles with himself about what the "right" thing to do is, what his heart wants, and what is socially accepted, but also to help Huck create his own opinions and help him decide what it is his own heart wants. Huck says at different point in the book that "pap says" this and "pap always said" that, so obviously Huck was influenced by him. But further, I believe that Pap was used as a figure to help Huck make his own decisions and take that step further to decide what he thinks is right, despite the moral corruption his father inflicted upon him.
Furthermore, I believe that because Pap was such a failure as a father, along with Huck's lack of family, this also helped Huck feel more closely connected with Jim because they were so close and Jim was constantly helping and looking out for Huck, calling him "honey" and always being happy to see him. Because of this, I believe that Huck felt a stronger connection to Jim because it was like Jim was filling this empty spot that Huck had, where family, and a father figure were supposed to be.
Despite Pap not being in the novel very long, Pap did have an influence on Huck's journey and his overall growth of a person as well. Pap's negative influence on Huck also helped Huck take a step towards making HIS own decisions and deciding what it is Huck thinks is right and wrong (what his heart says verse what his conscience says; what society says verse what he wants). Also, Pap's failure as a father helped make Huck and Jim's relationship stronger because Jim was seen as like family to Huck. Overall, it was Pap's negativity that helped Huck grow and learn more, along with feel a stronger connection to Jim.

What is Pap's Role in Huck's Journey?/Relationship With Huck

Although the character of Huck's father Pap only appears briefly in the story, I think that he plays an important role. First off I think that Twain included Pap to show the disconnect from "Sivilized" life to freedom/life on the river. For the first part of the novel Huck experiences life on the river with Pap and tell the audience that he would rather live with his drunk Pap than go back to being"sivilized" by Miss Watson. This new life of Huck I think is our first look into Twain's "if only" world, the ideal way to live. Also I think that Pap's role in the beginning was to show the greedy nature of mankind when Pap continues to try to get Huck's money so he can go get more whiskey. I think that Paps other purpose was to show the difference between himself and Jim. As the story progresses it seems to me that Jim becomes more of a fatherly figure towards Huck than Huck's father ever was. Jim is always concerned that something bad might have happened to Huck or that he got killed or something but my point is that Jim was always so happy to see Huck again and it was a heartfelt emotion. I think that Twain through Pap in the story to show the greedy ways of society and people and to establish Jim as a person and move his character away from just Miss Watson's slave. This question of what role did Pap play in Huck's journey also plays into the question of the relationship differences between Pap and Jim. I find that Jim's fatherly qualities become most apparent when he and Huck find the dead person and Jim provides so excuse so that Huck will think nothing of it and turn away. We find out later in the book that Jim was actually protecting Huck from seeing the body of his dead father. This I think especially provides ground for the opinion that Jim is the real fatherly/ protecting/guardian figure to Huck in this book. Overall, Pap is a bum and nobody really cares that he is dead, and Jim is cool, so there.

How does Huck's Relationship with Pap compare/connect to Huck's relationship with Jim?

Huck Finn's relationship with his very own father Pap and the runaway slave Jim have extreme differences in my opinion. Twain inclues both Pap and Jim as major characters throughout the story, that Huck encounters during his quest for adventure and evasion from the grasps of conforming society.

Pap is the father of Huckleberry Finn, in the novel . Huck's father is a middle-aged man who although briefly appears in the novel, greatly affects Huck, and how the entire novel is played out. Twain describes him as a snake-like character. "He was most fifty, and he looked it. His hair was long and tangled and greast, and hung down, and you could see his eyes shining through like he was behind vines...ther werent no color in his face...it was whie...a white to make a body sick." Pap is a very conservative southern man who imposes his beliefs strongly on his son Huck. We learn of his several political stances throughout his appearance and how they affect the way Huck lives out his life. He admires his father, although his father is a cruel drunkard. Huck shows a sign of pity and remorse to Pap, and he always seems to forgive him, even under the worst circumstances. This portrays Huck's compassion to another human. In the novel, Pap represents the freedom that Huck lacks in his life, as Huck is restrained by society. However, the major aspect of their relationship lies within the fact that Pap does not represent a father character in which children should look up to, and later on Jim's relationship with Huck makes Pap's sad attempts at fatherhood complete in a just manner.

Jim on the other hand, seems to make up for Pap's mistakes and ultimate departure from the world (floating house), as he comes into the story to represent a more-than-friend figure, and possible even a fatherly one. Throughout their journey, all the two grow fond of each other, and grow to depend and look after each other. In various life on the river scenarios, we see Jim looking after Huck by taking up his shifts in watching the raft while the other sleeps. Also, throughout various times that the two become seperated and reunited, the two break down into tears and hug each other. We do not see Huck missing his father in such a way. In the beginning of the novel, Jim is depicted as simple and trusting, to the point of gullibility. These qualities are not altered during the course of the novel; instead, they are fleshed out and prove to be positives instead of negatives. Jim’s simple nature becomes common sense, and he constantly chooses the right path for him and Huck to follow. For example, when Huck and Jim are on Jackson’s Island, Jim observes the nervous actions of birds and predicts that it will rain. Jim’s prediction comes true as a huge storm comes upon the island. The moment is an important one, for it establishes Jim as an authority figure and readers recognize his experience and intelligence. Jim’s insight is also revealed when he recognizes the duke and the king to be frauds. Like Huck, Jim realizes he cannot stop the con men from controlling the raft, but he tells Huck that “I doan’ hanker for no mo’ un um, Huck. Dese is all I kin stan’.” As we compare Jim and Pap, Jim definitely comes out on top as the relationship with the most positive results.

Is Jim intelligent?

I do consider Jim to be intelligent. While he does not have a formal education, he does demonstrate his intelligence through his conversations with Huck. When Jim ran away from Ms. Watson’s house. He planned his escape with caution and thought ahead to the result of his actions. “I knowed ole missus en de widder wuz goin' to start to de camp-meet'n' right arter breakfas' en be gone all day, en dey knows I goes off wid de cattle 'bout daylight, so dey wouldn' 'spec to see me roun' de place, en so dey wouldn' miss me tell arter dark in de evenin'. De yuther servants wouldn' miss me, kase dey'd shin out en take holiday soon as de ole folks 'uz out'n de way. Well, when it come dark I tuck out up de river road, en went 'bout two mile er more to whah dey warn't no houses. I'd made up my mine 'bout what I's agwyne to do. You see, ef I kep' on tryin' to git away afoot, de dogs 'ud track me; ef I stole a skift to cross over, dey'd miss dat skift, you see, en dey'd know 'bout whah I'd lan' on de yuther side, en whah to pick up my track. So I says, a raff is what I's arter; it doan' make no track” (Twain 44). Jim thought out his plan carefully, making sure there wasn’t anyone or anything that could track him down. Unlike any other slave, he didn’t just run, but thought out a plan to make sure he wasn’t caught. Jim also showed intelligence when he tricked Huck into believing that he could tell the future with a hairball and got Huck to give him money for the false service. Jim demonstrates his intelligence through his conversation with Huck on the raft. Unlike Huck, Jim is able to understand the point of the King Solomon biblical piece. He can relate to it and sees an allegory behind it. Also, when Jim and Huck come across the cave while adventuring the island, it was Jim’s ideas to hide in the cave, rather than out in the open. Even Jim’s crazy superstitions came true. Jim may not have an education, but he is able to adapt to nature and use his intelligence and skills to stay alive. Even Huck began to recognize Jim’s intelligence and humanity. Throughout the novel, Jim demonstrates his intelligence through his actions and conversations.

Life is made of Kings and Pawns

Karen Sloan's piece deals with Jim's somewhat unconventional view of King Solomon's ability to make a correct decision thus revealing Twain's parable and a strong objection to the then current state of black civil rights (during Twain's time, but set and portrayed years beforehand, anachronism style!). Sloan states, "Twain's parable represents the immeasurably more complex moral dilemma that arises when the civil laws of a society and the moral code of a substantial number of its citizens contradict one another," (Sloan 4). Now let me take you through a completely ridiculous interpretation built upon nothing more than reading too much into things and too much Mountain Dew. If we take King Solomon as a representation of the US government, the mother who 'saves' the child as the white population, the mother who does not mind the literal splitting of the child as the black population, and the child itself as the manifestation of laws, we see that this is more than a simple complaint. As Jim states, "What does I do? Dies I shin arou' mongs' de neighbors en fine out which un you de bill do b'long to, en han' it over to de right one, all safe en soun', de way dat anybody dat had any gumption would? No - I take en whack de bill in two..." (Twain 66), he clearly questions the King's common sense and could be seen as Twain's post-bellum challenge of government, or even just higher authority, set back in antebellum times. Now if we examine the Bible story in the context of Adventure of Huckleberry Finn neither Jim (opponent) nor Huck (proponent) present any evidence that the woman who gets the child in the end is the biological mother, she may have been a bleeding heart type or if viewed as the white population of the time, someone who would do anything (in this case deception) to stop blacks from receiving or taking advantage of the "God given rights" America was built upon. The woman who loses (what could have been her child, thanks to Solomon's "logic") are the blacks who have had something that is fundamentally their's taken from them because of the politicians too scared to do anything but play the game and a government that forgets to act. Taken much more simply, this is Jim telling Huck that he will always get screwed by the system and Huck failing to understand because he is unknowingly protected by it and is completely unaware of its existence.

Due to the late nature of this assignment, I am aware that a penalty will be administered, but how about we waive that for the contribution of Stretchy Cat (click to view)?

King Solomon

I think the most important part of the interpretation is the part that Jim cannot understand the concept of Solomon as a bringer of justice because he has never experienced that. Jim's interpretation of Solomon is caused largely by the fact that society has never treated him in a way that would allow for him to be treated fairly. This prevented Jim from seeing Solomon as a wise man and caused him to look at the biblical hero as a fool. The fact that Huck has experienced justice and has been helped by the law allows him to understand the complete story, so in the end the two characters’ interpretations of the same story shows the difference in how society treats them and shows the difference in the risks that they have taken, even if the last several weeks have seemed to create a lot of similarities between them. The fact that Jim is much more reluctant than Huck to have anything to do with the ship shows that the underlying conditions of his escape are much more dangerous than Huck’s due to his status as a runaway slave. I agree with the idea that Huck is the one that missed Twain’s point, even if he is the one that understands the true biblical message. As stated in the passage from Sloan, Twain is trying to create a message relating to his society.

Twain's Adventures

First off - I didn't Mrs. Gerber's instructions until now; I thought the post would be like the others, when we could respond until 6 a.m. the next morning. I didn't get home until 9:45, so I'm sorry!

Karen Sloan's criticism of the anti-racist nature of Huck Finn as it is exemplified in the King Sollermun scene opened my eyes to a fresh view on the underlying themes of the novel. While I agree with many of my classmates on the specific role each King Sollermun character plays in the allegorical scene, I think this passage is intended more as a catalyst for Twain's personal beliefs about slavery and racism. Many of you stated that the King represented the government; the baby, slavery or rights; the mothers, whites and blacks. However, what I found to be a more profound interpretation of this scene was Sloan's statement, "Twain's parable represents the immeasurably more complex moral dilemma that arises when the civil laws of a society and the moral code of a substantial number of its citizens contradict one another," (Sloan 4). This line demonstrates what I believe to be Sloan's most interesting idea, that the government and the people are often at odds with other. In the parable, King S. attempts to commit a horrible act, but the mother's moral judgment overrides his decision. However, in Twain's postbellum society, the opposite is true - the government gives the blacks equality, but the people do not wish to comply with new, anti-racist laws.

What I believe to be a profound part of Jim's understanding of the King Sollermun parable is the line, "I's Sollermun; en dish yer dollar bill's de chile," (Twain 77). A seemingly insignificant quote, this sentence meant far more to me than just a setup of Jim's reenactment of the fable. Jim chooses himself to be Sollermun because he wants to control the equality he so desperately seeks. Additionally, he wanted the dollar bill to represent the child because, as Sloan puts it, Jim was, "trapped in a system whose civil and moral codes fail to distinguish between a human life and a piece of property," (Sloan 3). Twain's moral purpose of this scene is to decry the notion that a child would be under the same B.C. laws that dictate property disputes. I agree with Evan's notions that Jim cannot even conceive of a fair federal government, and that he sees King S. as an extension of the injustices he has endured as a slave.

Twain's motive for writing Huck Finn is to show equality between a black and a white, during a time in which racism was rampant. He does this especially during the King Sollermun scene because he inserts his own view on inequality into the book. By showing the reader the famed parable through Jim's eyes, he makes his point that equality between races can only be achieved if it is full and complete - half justice is seldom better that no justice at all.

Solomon Allegory Criticism

Sloan's criticism of Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" centers around the King Solomon scene, in which Jim recounts a biblical passage, placing himself in King Solomon's place and using modern logic. Sloan asserts that "Only the author possesses this foreknowledge and can anachronistically employ it." (Sloan 4) as Jim's account of this parable is less important than why he understands it as he does. In reality, Jim's inability to understand the value of half a child represents the failure of halfway solutions to the problem of slavery versus freedom. More than that, Sloan believes that "Central to understanding the passage is the reoccurring motif of incongrous halver - half a story, half a child, half a dollar bill - all metaphors for the impossibility of praceling out justice and freedom." (Sloan 2)

As such, it is not simply Jim's interpretation of the Solomon story which carries such dark subtext, but the fact that Jim, as a slave, cannot see freedom in a federal court. It is the fact that even after the civil war, Jim would continue to face these incomplete solutions, no longer being sold, but being kept in debt economically and socially. It is the story if Jim's life which shines light upon the true meaning of the passage, and reveals why Jim seems so incapable of "getting the point." In reality, Jim knows his point, and is living in Twain's point, making Huck's point moot enough for him to explain "Doan' talk to me 'bout uo' pints, I reck'n I knows sense when I sees it" (Twain 95)

The scene isn't at all about Solomon's story, but rather the fact that "The pint, the real pint, is down furder it's down deeper. It lies in the way Sollermun was raised" (Twain 96) just as the real point of this passage lies in the way that Jim was raised.

Solomon Criticism

Power failure, sorry I couldn't get to posting this earlier.


Karen Sloan's Solomon criticism brought up an interesting point: the Solomon parable was not merely a humorous scene, but an allegorical passage made to represent the conflicts and desires in an antebellum society told from a postbellum point of view. Sloan states that "white opression, not Jim's foolishnes, prevents the runaway slave from imagining that anything approximating justice might prevail in a court of law (Sloan 3). This accounts for Jim's arguement that the Solomon story is one of idiocy and that the king was not insightful or just. It through this general point of view from Jim and through Huck's conviction that Jim is missing the point of the story that Twain is able to illustrate his real meaning behind this section of the story. I believe that Solomon represents American society, with the real biological mother representing the white population and the fake mother illustrating the downtrodden black population of the country. The baby is made to represent the values of democracy and social freedom. But, like Rosey has mentioned, Twain leaves out the part where the real mother saves the infant's life, bringing this question to light: does Twain mean to have either of the mothers represent anything? Since he leaves them out of the parable, it's hard to decide whether either of the mothers have a significance in Twain's representation of postbellum society through the parable. While Colleen Froehlich states that the baby is property and the "fake" mother is white society, I think the opposite. Like I stated before, I think the real mother is white society and the fake mother is represented by black society. The baby (democratic values and social freedom) is caught in a dispute between two racial groups, one of which has the upper hand. Both want it equally, but one is more ruthless in trying to obtain it. The fake mother (black society) has no care of conscience for what may befall the baby (freedom) as long as it becomes theirs. The real mother treasures it for the way it is, thus keeping posession of it and leaving the baby unharmed, (or leaving the democratic values and social freedom unchanged.) Sloan states that "Neither Jim nor Huck really understands the King Solomon passage, which seems to be Twain's intention beacuse the episode is not a defining moment for either character" (Sloan 4). I agree with this statement, and I view this passage as more of a defining moment for the reader. This is the point in the novel where Twain makes most subtle but powerful arguements, that social freedom didn't and doesn't belong to the blacks, just as the baby didn't and will not belong to the fake mother. By having the characters disagree with this verdict by Solomon, in essence, he has them disagree with the functions of society and the views upon blacks. My view upon this passage has changed considerably, after reading the criticism and reading other classmate's posts, and to make my final point- I must agree with Alex Paul in saying that this passage was Twain's way of making his point known to his current society. The passage was written humoriously but it illustrated a very deep psychological and social illue in the current time frame, which Jim points out, but fails to recognize in the right sense: "En mine you, de real pint is down furder- it's down deeper" (Twain 81). Jim clearly points out Twain's underlying view that the scene is made to illustrate a much larger issue. I agree with Sloan that Twain meant to point out the flaws in postbellum society and the issues with social freedom.

After reading Sloan's analysis of the Solomon scene, I find my self identifying with multiple perspectives which have been brought to attention by many of my peers. When Sloan states that "the biblical account is viewed as an allegory about the relationship of justice (what is morally right) and the law (what is legally sanctioned), King Solomon becomes the wise intercessor," (Sloan 3) and has one mother be "a diseased conscience potentially abetted by civil law,"(Sloan 3) and another "a sound heart governed by moral rectitude," (Sloan 3) she strikes an interesting point which in many ways I feel serves as an interesting social commentary about the difference between the true values of virtue, as seen from both a governmental, and a human perspective. Solomon seems to become the will and heart of the people, who must choose the right way, the good mother, the one who sees the flaws in slavery. In this way Twain criticizes the law of the time, and backs it up by having Jim be vehemently against the idea as well. This relates to the fact that while many people gave into things such as slavery as tradition and law, in truth it is against the very moral idea of humanity, and in that way is the bad mother. From the idea of the book as an antislavery book, this story fits well in reinforcing it. In the same way you can see the differences in the reactions of Huck and Jim to Solomon's story. The baby in this way seems to become rights, freedoms, and equality. An idea brought up by many of us in our class discussions. Obviously Jim sees the wrong in splitting the child, as he has a want for all the things the baby represents, yet Huck being white thinks Jim has "clean missed the point," as he has been instilled with false justifications for slavery. Along with this thesis, I also agree with Sloan's belief that the point of Solomon's story is also "understanding the difference between a human life and a piece of property." (Sloan 4) Jim underscores his point by relating the splitting of a literal child with the splitting of a dollar bill calling both worthless. I agree with Sloan's idea that Jim feels "Trapped in a system whose civil and moral codes fail to distinguish between a human life and a piece of property." (Sloan 4) I feel that the Solomon reference in Huck is a up for interpretation and is meant to stand for a number of things, foremost the ills of slavery.

I agree alot with Jill's idea of the baby as civil rights, and respect. I think however, that the biological mother, or at least the one that got to keep the whole baby might have been the whites, as the respect and civil liberties enjoyed by whites were still beyond the blacks at that time, and so it seems representative of the blacks, Jim's anger toward King Solomon's folly. I also agree with Roxanne's thesis that "The unfair conditions of the Israelites can be compared to that of the slaves because “real justice” has not been served due to government’s lack of “judicious social conscience.”"

Solomon Criticism

While reading "Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Karen Sloan, I found myself agreeing with her multiple times. Also, it seemed that many of her points agreed with my own personal thesis. For instance, Sloan says, "Twain uses Jim's parody of biblical justice as an interpretive key to a modern-day parable of his own about the social and psychological enslavement of blacks twenty years after the Civil War" (Sloan 2). I completely support this statement, in that Twain uses this parody of King Solomon to show his own views on slavery and the mistreatment of African Americans. Also, Sloan says that, "The wellspring for Jim's parody and Twain's parable is the novel's half-told biblical account of King Solomon and a dispute in which the contested property is a human being" (Sloan 3). This statement also agrees with my thesis in that Jim does not like how Solomon treats the baby like it is property, which is the way slaves were treated; as property. I also believe that "..it is Huck, not Jim, who has missed Twain's point" (Sloan 2). I agree with this because it is obvious Twain is anti-racist and Huck represents the white society that has engraved all these corrupt morals and it is Jim who sees this in the story, that the baby is seen as property rather than a child. Jim only understands it the way his experience allows him to, which agrees with Justin's idea that Jim was raised in an environment who doesn't consider him a whole person. ; just like Huck-whose interpretation is based off the widows, along with the rest of society. I also think that Twain tries to speak to the audience needs to listen to Jim when he has Jim say, "En mine you, de real point is down furder-it's down deeper"(Twain 78). Sloan also agrees with this idea when she says, "Twain's larger purpose is to encrypt Huck's story with a parable that his audience most likely does not wish to hear" (Sloan 4). I agree with Jill that the real mom represents African Americans and the deceitful mom represents white society. However, I am not sure that I agree with Reena and Roxanne about Solomon representing the government. According to this thesis, I think that the real mom thinks that cutting the baby and treating it like property is morally wrong and the other mom is white society, who does not see the corruptness of treating the baby like property at all. Overall, I believe that my classmates along with Sloan bring up very interesting points. After reading the criticism, Sloan presents many points that agree with my own thesis.


colleen froehlich

Criticism

I think that before reading the criticism, I had a picture in my head of what the solomon scene meant, albeit not a thoroughly solid one. I thought that the two people in the solomon story were the north and south and the divisions between them over the issue of slavery. Solomon, who represented government to me, offered to resolve the issue by cutting the child (aka America)in half, making half of America "free" and the other half "slave". I didn't see that Twain really meant there to be a real mother and a fake mother because huck and jim's conversation didn't really focus on that at all. However, after reading the Sloan criticism (despite some of the issues I had with it), I think that it made me see some of the other minor things that I didn't totally solidify in my ideas. For example, the fact that Jim infers the inherent beliefs of the people and the apathy of government speaks to the purpose of mentioning this. "It lays in de way sollermun was raised. You take a man dat's only got one er two chillen; is that man gwyne to be wasteful o'chillen? No he ain't; he can't 'ford it. He know how to value ém. But you take a man dat's got 'bout five million chillen runnin'roun'the house, en it's diffunt" (Twain 66). This passage is detrimental to this section of the book because Twain speaks about his believes about government and people in general by saying that the government (solomon) doesn't know how to appreciate people because they have an obligation to so many people that they marginalize groups in society. Also, it says that Twain wants to see the cycle broken; that is the beliefs of superiority involved with race, passed down from generation from generation and still lingers in postbellum America. However, Sloan isn't totally thorough in her information. She mentions the Jim Crow Laws in her criticism despite those law being passed after Twain finished writing the book. I agree with her idea however, that "jim is not foolish; indeed, he is the wise fool who adjudicates based on only dispensation he knows and exposes its gross inconsistencies in the process"(Sloan 2). I just disagree with her idea that Twain was speaking to the wrongs in postbellum society somewhat, as I think Twain wrote it to include the wrong of the antibellum society and its effects on postbellum society. Based on my classmates ideas, I think that that the broad range of ideas is intriguing. However; I would like to agree with Gina's ideas on the solomon section of the book, with the exception of which mother is which because I don't believe that Twain meant that to be a focal point. I also would like to disagree with Reena on that the mothers are black and white people because I think that the issue is more in depth than that, but I would also like to agree with her envisionment of solomon as the government.

Sollermun Criticism

Upon first reading the King Sollermun section in the book I did not really understand the point that Twain was trying to make. After reading the criticism by Sloan I have a much different interpretation. I now agree with Sloan that "Huck, not Jim, who has missed the point" (Sloan 3). When Huck and Jim argue over the purpose of the parable the reader is not presented with Huck's point, only that he thinks he is right because the widow told him so. I agree with Roxanne that the Sollermun parable is an allegory to the effect that the slaves (or Jim) are the babies and the mothers are whites or the government. I am not really sure how to interpret this scene because it has so many important things playing into it. I also agree with Sloan that " Twain truncates the biblical story for a profoundly antiracist reason" (Sloan 3). After reviewing this piece multiple times I have come up with a slightly different interpretation of what Twain's purpose was in writing this part. I think that Twain is trying firstly to show his postbellum audience a person from the south that has overcome his prejudices in a antebellum setting. Furthermore I think that the rights of African Americans are represented by the baby that are being cut in half because they are met halfway. In postbellum society blacks had all of the same equalities and personal liberties of white people, but this was only on paper. In real life there were violent groups such as the K.K.K. and threat to keep black southerners away from the voting poles. I completely agree with Sloan that it is " White oppression, not Jim's foolishness, prevents the runaway slave from imagining that anything approximating justice might prevail in a court of law" (Sloan 3). This leads to Sloan's point that Huck cannot understand Jim's reasoning and says that "you've missed the point -blame it, you've missed it a thousand mile" (Twain 78) because Huck has grown up in white society, where people are protected by the laws of the land and people are civilized. Jim does not has the fortune of being raised in that kind of a society and this is why Jim interprets Sollermun in such a way. Jim even states that "It lays in de way Sollermun was raised" (Twain 78). Twain's point concerning the halfway attitude of the postbellum society comes up even earlier when Jim says to Huck, "Now I ast you: what's de use er dat half a bill?-can't buy noth'n wid it" (Twain 77). I think that here Twain is displaying his antiracist persona through Jim. Twain is stating that what use is freedom or right if you can't do anything with them. Blacks had citizenship and they had the right to vote, but they couldn't ever exercise those "Dollars" because of the racist whites in the south. Lastly I think that Sloan's ending paragraph sums up my interpretation of this criticism. " The Civil War,, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments may have legally declared the freedom of blacks, but increased lynchings, the crop-lien system, the convict-lease system, and the nascent Jim Crow laws had revealed a moral code deeply at odds with mandated justice" (Sloan 5). The half story, the half dollar and the half child all point to Twain's underlying purpose of presenting a story about a free slave to a postbellum society that does not want to hear about it.

King Sollermun Criticism

Upon reading and analyzing the King Solomon criticism by Karen Sloan, i noticed that a lot of very in depth viewpoints and opinions were being stated. I began to see things that I never wouldve really noticed or taken much time in analyzing had it not been for the criticism or for my classmates various responses to their opinions and readings. My original jurisdiction regarding the King Solomon allegory was that the disputed child represented Jim(on a larger scale the mistreated blacks as property), King Solomon represented the stubborn postbellum society(southern whites in general--where the law of equality seemed to hold minor changes in lifestyles), the true mother, supposedly also a "prostitute" as the criticism defined it represented a free society for the blacks, and the fraudulent mother represents a society unreformed regarding a free nation where "all men are created equal." When comparing my personal opinions to the criticism and classmates, I found that it was very similar in ideals to Sloan's viewpoints, as well as a broad range of my classmates. In the book, King Solomon treated the child as property, and not one as a human being as Jim argued for. Huck on the other hand, was unable to see this viewpoint, and completely missed Jim's argument. Jim and Huck argue, "But handit, Jim, you'veclean missed the point--blame it, you've missed it a thousand mile....Who? Me? Go 'long. Doan' talk to me 'bout yo' pints. I reck'n I knows sense when i sees it; en dey ain' no sense in sich doin's as dat. De'spute warn't 'bout half a chile, de 'spute was 'bout a whole chile wid a hald a chile oan' know enough to come in out'n de rain. Doan talk to me bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by de back."(Twain 78). Technically, both are arguing very strong but different viewpoints. In my opinions, Jim his interpreteting this story through the black's perspective in society, where they are being shown no true freedom, but merely the halves of the story. "In fact or ficiton, a black person can be 'freed' without really becoming 'free'" (Sloan 4). "King Sollermun episode reveals Twain's perception that two decades after the Civil War 'liberty and justice for all' were still ... 'a fiction of law and custom'" (Sloan 5). Huck is merely seeing the literal moral of the story, saying that Solomon was simply a genius in his decision making. Jim naturally defends his claim, as the Solomon story to him, affects him in a very personal manner while to Huck it is merely another story "Jim vigorously defends himself when Huck accuses him of failing to understand King Solomon's wisdom" (Sloan 4).

Twain is stating through the character Jim that the government has been inconsistent in their actions toward equality, as the bias leans in favor of white men who are getting their ways with their properties(blacks), while the black slaves, who were guaranteed a path to freedom postbellum, have seen no obvious change. I agree with Lauren when she states Twain's argument is hidden behind the literal text. "The deceptively humorous tone of the passage and Jim's deceptively simplistic reasoning conceal a serious message.In the brief King Sollermun passage, Twain uses Jim's parody of biblical justice as an interpretive key to a modern-day parable of his own about the social and pyschological enslavement of blacks twenty years after the Civil War" (Sloan 3). Another argument that I found very interesting was the halves argument. Jim argues, "You take a man dat's goy on'y on or two chillen;is dat man gwyne to be wasteful o' chillen? No, he can't ford it....but take a man dats got bout five million chillen runnin roun de house, en its diffunt. Has soon chop a chile in two as a cat...a chile er two werent no consekens to Solomon." I agree with Michelle and Gina that it is very hard to catch this, and easy to simply take it as part of the Biblical story, instead of another tool Twain uses to clearly establish his stance--implying the fact that half a freedom is useless, just as half a baby or even half a dollar bill is. "Central to understanding the passage is the recurring motif of onconruous halves-half a story, half a child, half a dollar bill- all metaphors for the impossibility of parceling out justice and freedom."(Sloan 2). The idea that Twain gets across is that giving slaves freedom is worthless if split in half. He attacks the segregation that shamingly continued during the Reconstruction Era. I also agree with Gina's argument regarding the halves application to slaves in that society. Jim is seen as a fraction of society as well. Every 3 slaves counted as 5 people to the government as stated in the 3/5 Compromise. This idea of halves and fractions, help to show Jim's feeling of inferiority and worthlessness to the reader, and somewhat to Huck during this part of the chapter. This story also shows Twain's view of a corrupted America. He states, "Jim understands that "the real pint"-the one Twain wishes to make-"is down furder-it's down deeper calls to mind the plight of millions of enslaved blacks and opens the door to speculation that Twain truncates the biblical story for a profoundly antiracist reason." (Sloan 3). Jim is hurt by the fact that Solomon would even think about cutting the child in half because he's always been raised in an environment where they don't consider him a whole person.
Furthermore, I find myself agreeing with both the criticism's viewpoint on the Solomon chapter, and i also find myself seeing the connection betweein its views and my own interpretations...that Jim was analyzing a very personal and true connection between Solomon's decision and Americas actions.

Lauren P's Response

Lauren can't access the blog, so she's emailed her response, and I'm posting it here on her behalf.

My Literary Criticism
After reading and annotating the criticism, I went back and read though all the comments I wrote to myself. I realized that Sloan's analysis of Twains parable and my first impression of the parable were pretty different. At first I compared the Solomon story directly to Huck's life, Huck the baby and the two mothers the widow and Pap. I then went back and tried to get Jim's side,"En mine you, de real point is down furder-it's down deeper"(Twain 78),my thoughts ended more like Sloan's. The one thing I really agreed with is when Sloan said "The deceptively humorous tone of the passage and Jim's deceptively simplistic reasoning conceal a serious message" (Sloan 3). This is clearly a serious subject for Jim when interpreting it in comparison to slavery and freedom. In the text Huck doesn't understand Jim's interpretation, so naturally Jim gets defensive. "Doan talk to me 'bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by d e back"(Twain 78). In the story, I began to wonder if, in Jim's eyes, Huck represented society. Maybe that's why Jim got so defensive, not because he was angry with Huck or his knowledge (or lack there of), but that he was angry by society's willingness to continue slavery. In my opinion Jim's response to Huck telling him, "But I tell you you don't get the point"(Twain 78), can be 'blamed' on the widow and Pap because they never instilled the fact that slavery is wrong in Huck's mind. Here, Twain is really starting to distinguish between Huck's heart and mind. His caretakers have taught him practically all he knows in life and his mind goes with the general society. But, if Huck knows that black people are slaves and that it is wrong for them to run away, why does Huck associate himself with Jim? Huck's starting to make up his own mind about things, even though "...the two reach an impasse that is never resolved"(Sloan 3). After forming my opinion, in short, Jim is right and Huck is wrong, Sloan wrote,"Neither Jim nor Huck really understand the King Solomon passage, which seems to be Twain's intentions..."(Sloan 4). This short passage threw me for a loop. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Sloan, but because of this opposing idea his criticism is successful, in my eyes because it made me think.

Reena Patel's post - I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, but when applied to the story, it makes sense. It's cool to see what you got out of Sloan's piece compared to what I got. We focused on two different things and if we were having a discussion in class our responses could be connected and intertwined with each others.

Michele L.'s post- You hit on certain parts of the Sloan piece that I defiantly agree with. One example is the reoccurring theme of the halves. I didn't catch it the first time though either. Maybe your like me, Now that you've read this criticism are you keeping your eyes open for anything that has to do with fractions in the book? I'll try to remember to bring it up tomorrow in class so I can get more of your thoughts on the meaning behind that.

Thanks again! Lauren P

Sloan's Literary Exploration of Huck Finn.

The ideas posted prior to this have brought up excellent ideas and I agree completely. I think that this can be taken from many perspectives but each view heads in the same direction; The American government at the time of Twain's writing proved to be corrupt.  Throughout my reading I was really drawn to Jim's interpretation of the story and discovering the depth to his perspective. Jim views the child not as a human being with emotions, a mind, and a beating heart, but rather a piece of property.  Although this point is clear, I believe that the child stands for more than just property to Jim. 

The biological mother represents African Americans. The deceitful mother represents white society, while Solomon stands for the government. The child may be the most important allegorical figure of this parable. As well as being represented as property, I believe Jim also interprets the baby as respect and social rights. "Now I want to ast you: whats de use er dat half a bill? -cant buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldnt give a dern for a million un um" (77 Twain). He views confirm partial respect as worthless, and would rather hand it to the white men than to recieve rights and freedom that do not last. Half of a child immediately loses life the second it is cut. When looking at the representation of the child, I think it stands for the rights, justice, and respect concerning only the African Americans.  White society is willing to cut the rights the government considers giving the blacks in half because they are not ready to give it to them completely. 

Although later we see the government rewarding the African Americans with freedom and rights, society never gives them the respect that has been anticipated by the government.

Sloan brings up the point "In fact or ficiton, a black person can be 'freed' without really becoming 'free'" (2 Sloan). The government may declare blacks as free but society presents inequality to them.  Twain attempts to instill the reality of the situation into the heads of white people through Jim's interpretation of the Solomon parable. 

"King Sollermun"

Along with many other classmates, I too believe that Solomon represents the government. But instead of just an ordinary government, I want to make the point that Solomon represents a racist, white government that believes it holds the authority over people. Mom #1, or the "real" mother, represents the enslaved black people and Mom #2, or the "fake" mother, represents the racist white people in both the antebellum and postbellum societies of Huck's and Twain's days. Lastly, the baby represents the equality of all human beings and the representation of an individual. When the fake mom took the baby away, Jim saw that as the white racists taking his rights away without even taking a second glance. He, being a part of Mom #1, felt that his equality and the rights that he deserved were being stolen from him and being forcefully held in the authority of Mom #2, and that's how his life was all the time - controlled, bought, and sold by white slaveholders. He said, "Doan' talk to me 'bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by de back" (Twain 78). He says he knows Solomon because he deals with this situation everyday. What makes Jim upset is the fact that he doesn't get his rights and believes he never will. "The King Sollermun episode reveals Twain's perception that two decades after the Civil War 'liberty and justice for all' were still ... 'a fiction of law and custom'" (Sloan 5). Twain makes this point because as he writes in a postbellum era, he sees that even though the Civil War was fought and the black slaves were technically "free", the former slaves were still not considered as full humans to the white racists. Mom #2, or the white people, considered the baby as a worthless piece of junk that had no direct relevance to them. That's why they don't care whether it's divided in two pieces or a million pieces. This can be seen in the Constitution where it implies that slaves be considered 3/5 of a person when voting. Jim compares the child to half a dollar bill and he argues, "...what's de use er dat half a bill? - can't buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn' give a dern for a million un um" (Twain 77). He refers to himself that what's the point of not being given his full representation; society sees him and his people as worthless.

Sloan states, "Neither Jim nor Huck really understands the King Solomon passage..." (Sloan 4). I agree. Both Huck and Jim don't understand each other and it's clearly stated in the text; Huck says, "you've [Jim] clean missed the point - blame it, you've missed it a thousand mile" (Twain 78) and Jim says, "Who? Me? Go 'long. Doan' talk to me 'bout yo' pints. I reck'n I knows sense when I sees it" (Twain 78). I think that Huck and Jim only understand the part of the Solomon passage that they've been raised to understand. Huck grew up in a white community full of slaveholders who degraded the humanity of black people. Thus, he only understands the fact that Solomon was wise because he was brought up as a "whole" person and was never considered less than a full person, although considered on the lower half of the social class. Jim argues, "En mine you, de real pint is down furder - it's down deeper" (Twain 78). Jim is hurt by the fact that Solomon would even think about cutting the child in half because he's always been raised in an environment where they don't consider him a whole person. Sloan also states, "... Jim vigorously defends himself when Huck accuses him of failing to understand King Solomon's wisdom" (Sloan 4) which supports my claim. All in all, Twain's purpose was "an interpretive key to a modern key ... about the social and psychological enslavement of blacks twenty years after the Civil War" (Sloan 2). By including this parody of misunderstanding between Jim and Huck, Twain was able to show readers of his day that although the enslavement of blacks was technically abolished, the psychological imprisonment was still true, and it is wrong, also supporting the fact that this book is an anti-racist novel. :)

Solomon criticism

I agree with all of the previous bloggers that the Solomon piece, in some way, shape, or form, represents the corruption in Twain's society and/or government. Sloan supports this thesis when she says, "In the brief King Sollermun passage, Twain uses Jim's parody of biblical justice as an interpretive key to a modern-day parable of his own about the social and pyschological enslavement of blacks twenty years after the Civil War" (Sloan 1). This also supports my original interpretation of the Solomon dialog in which I had believed Twain included this passage to expose the corrupt civilization and satirize government. Although I initially didn't understand it, I now understand Roxanne's interpretation in which the child represents justice and social rights. However, going further with that argument and including my interpretation, I see the child as the slave fighting for equality and social justice. However, the more interesting aspect reveals itself when Sloan writes, "For Jim, as powerless before an American Judge as the infant is in Solomon's court, the import of the biblical story understandably ends with the king's decree" (Sloan 2). Although Jim denounces the idea of being treated like property and only half a person, which is supported by the text when he says, "Now I want to ast you: what's de use er dat half a bill?--can't buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn' give a dern for a million un um" (Twain 77), he is powerless to make his own decisions because his fate lies in the hands of the government. So in this respect, although slaves are fighting for equality, freedom, and justice, it is ultimately up to the government to decide this for black people and judge who the real mother is.
Before reading the Sloan criticism, I believed that both Huck and Jim represented different views in which Huck was influenced by society, and Jim was influenced by his received treatment as a slave. However, I did not see that "neither Jim nor Huck really understands the King Solomon passage" (Sloan 3). Because of this, Twain's "then" audience, which was likely to be deeply religious, would read the Solomon discussion not as another bible story but more as an allegory to slavery and the corrupt government. Since "Twain's larger purpose [was] to encrypt Huck's story with a parable that his audience most likely does not wish to hear" (Sloan 3), Twain needed to find a way to get his purpose across. By instilling it within a biblical story, readers would read the story, praising Twain for being religious, but later, after understanding the allegory, would begin to understand the corruption behind their government.

Criticism

I agree with both Reena and Roxanne how Solomon is the government, and the mothers represent blacks and whites, but I think the baby symbolizes how blacks are treated like property. After reading the criticism, Karen Sloan pointed out a rather obvious point that I seemed to have missed the first time I read the Solomon scene. Jim compares cutting a child in half to cutting a dollar bill in half. Like Michelle said, cutting either of these in half would make them worthless, and this directly compares black people to money, or property. Jim doesn’t finish the rest of the Solomon story because all he is thinking about is how Solomon wanted to cut the baby in half; according to Huck he has missed the whole point. But Jim, unlike Huck, sees how the government is treating black and whites, and he no longer wants to be treated like property and can be sold at $800. Jim dislikes Solomon because of this idea, and wants the world to finally treat him like a baby, or a human being, rather than money and cents.

Sloan Criticism

My original interpretation of the Solomon scene in Huck Finn is similar to Reena’s. As I said earlier in class, I saw the Solomon allegory as a potential reference to black rights. The ‘good’ mother represents black people, the ‘corrupt’ mother represents Southern white people, Solomon represents the government (or possibly God), and the baby represents justice and social rights. Just as the corrupt mother was willing to sacrifice the baby’s life, (racist) white people are willing to forcefully take the power in society from blacks. In the end, the blacks and non racists (the good mother) should be rewarded with the power (baby), but they are not. This may be why Jim dislikes Solomon and did not finish the story.

After reading Karen Sloan’s criticism, my interpretation has stayed similar to my original ideas, but has still been modified to become more plausible. Sloan writes that the original story is an allegory for, “the condition of the Israelites,” and the legend suggests that, “real justice can be served only when a judicial system is joined to a judicious social conscience” (2). The unfair conditions of the Israelites can be compared to that of the slaves because “real justice” has not been served due to government’s lack of “judicious social conscience.” Sloan also stresses Jim’s addition of a dollar bill, arguing that the bill implies, “the value of a human life in his political economy is reducible to dollars and cents” (3). I don’t think the characters of the Solomon story directly represent anything, but are instead used as a whole to convey Twain’s message. Solomon’s case only worked when there is, “a clear distinction between human beings and property,” and with, “an individual assumed to have a sound heart” (Sloan 4). Using the story of Solomon, Twain negatively comments on the way society portrays black men as dollar bills and how the civil laws and moral codes of America contradict one another.

I saw the Solomon piece more showing how society can effect the way that we interpret different circumstances. Sloan states that "white oppression, not Jim's foolishness, prevents the runaway slave from imagining that anything approximating justice might prevail in a court of law" (Sloan 2). It is impossible for Jim to conceive that Solomon's solution could actaully bring about justice because, as a black person, he has never experienced any type of justice or fairness. Huck on the other hand has always been saved by the law and given chance after chance. Huck's inability to see to reality blacks face from racism shows just how torn he between what society is telling him and what he feels his heart. If Huck truly believed that blacks were ment to be treated as property as Jim compares a baby (a human being) to a dollar bill, he wouldn't have the stuggle to see why Jim was so persistent in his arguement that you can't just go chopping things in two. While Huck thinks that Jim has missed the point of the parable, Jim says that "de real point is down furder-- it's down deeper" (Twain 78). Rather than seeing Jim as unintelligent for not being able to understand what the biblical message of the story is we see Jim as extrememly profound with the way he works his understanding of the workings of society to fit the story. Twain wanted the reader to be able to see the logic behind Jim's arguement which is why according to Sloan, Twain establishes Jim's humanity and sound judgement through numerous instances where he is right over Huck. Twain even has Huck admit that Jim has "an uncommon level head for a nigger" (Twain 93). So Huck gives up in trying to argue with Jim, which Sloan says has purposeful meaning. "Neither Jim nor Huck really understands the King Solomon passage, which seems to be Twain's intention, because the episode is not a defining ment for either character" (Sloan 4). We clearly see the Jim does not understand the original intended message of the story, but rather sees the story as a cry for equality. Huck on the other hand, with his lack of knowledge of religion, can not possibly really understand the true meaning, for he admits "Well, but he was the wisest man, anyway, because the widow she told me so, her own self" (Twain 77). Therefore the Huck's understanding (or rather lack of understanding) of the story is in contrast to Jim's stating of how society lacks justice and equility for men because Huck doesn't see that this is true. He sees justice as being served so in Huck's interpretation it can be seen that the real mother would be the people with sounds hearts (Huck) and the fraudulant mother would be society. The reason that Jim cannot see Huck's version is because he could never see a white person sacrafice "property" to safe a black.

Response

I think that the character of Solomon represents the government, controlling its people by making decisions and settling their disputes. The two mothers represent the white people and the black people fighting over the child, representing equality and rights from Jim’s perspective. Each mother believes that she should get the child because they deserve him and not the other mother and the both the blacks and the whites believe that freedom is theirs. Throughout the critiscm it is stressed that a black can be free without actual being freed. Blacks are legally free, yet they are under the Jim Crow Laws and are restricted from doing anything with the whites, who still see themselves as superior. “ Now I want to ast you what’s de use er dat half a bill?-can’t by noth’n wid it. And what use is half a chile? I wouldn’ give a dern for a million un um” (Twain 77). Like Jim states, a black man granted half the freedom and rights, would be useless and no one could do anything with half the freedom. I think that Jim is struggling with this idea of what rights belong to him and where he deserves to stand in society. He sees the Solomon story as a understanding of America and where people stand in society. I believe that as stated in the criticism, that Jim was right and Huck did not understand the meaning behind the passage. "It was in de way Sollermun was raised" (Twain 78). The government was raised to see white skin as superior to dark skin and judge that whites deserve the freedom. Huck on the other hand, did not understant the maning of the sotry and what it repreents. He just see it a a biblical story. Because the lady told him that Solomon was wise, he believes he was wise for figuring out a good solution to the dispute. I think the story of Solomon represents society of Post Civil War era and where people stood within it.

Literary Criticism

I thought that Sloan's analysis of the Solomon story to the book was very similar to my ideas. From class yesterday, my area thought that Solomon represented the government, and the two mothers represented slavery and freedom. Jim was the baby stuck in the middle of an ongoing issue in the government about slavery. This story stressed on how Solomon treated the child like property rather a human being, something that Jim can relate with, and not Huck. "De 'spute was 'bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a 'spute'bout a whole chile wid a half a chile doan' know enough to come in out'n de rain."(Twain 78). Here, Twain directly criticizes the governement after the war, saying that the government can never please everyone, and that currently the white people are the ones to get there way, while the slaves who were guaranteed freedom, were actually left with nothing and still treated unfairly by all. The part I liked, at the end of the first paragraph, shows the recurring idea of halves throughout the chapter. I didn't catch this while I was reading and now I see this motif throughout the book. "Central to understanding the passage is the recurring motif of onconruous halves-half a story, half a child, half a dollar bill- all metaphors for the impossibility of parceling out justice and freedom."(Sloan 2). The idea that Twain, postbellum, is trying to display is that giving slaves freedom must ultimately mean giving them justice and vice versa, and also is worthless if split in half. He attacks the segregation that went on during the Reconstruction years after the war. Before the Civil War, the time period of the book, Jim was seen as a fraction of society as well. Every 3 slaves counted as 5 people to the government. This idea of halves and fractions, help to show Jim's feeling of inferiority and worthlessness to the reader, and somewhat to Huck. This story also proves Twain's view of America in his day. "Jim understands that "the real pint"-the one Twain wishes to make-"is down furder-it's down deeper...calls to mind the plight of millions of enslaved blacks and opens the door to speculation that Twain truncates the biblical story for a profoundly antiracist reason." (Sloan 3). Contrary to belief that Twain attacks and denounces African-Americans throughout the book, this story relates to the years before and after the Civil War and subtly shows Twain siding with the slaves and their point of view, being against the government. This story at that time period probably meant to show people that he was standing up for his beliefs and going against society's segregational ways, the way Huck eventually starts to do in the book.

Finn

Since many of you expressed curiosity and surprise at Pap's character, I thought you might be interested in Jon Clinch's novel, Finn. According to reviews, the book does not take on Twain's satire or style; instead, Clinch is said to offer a new, dark picture of Pap and his life.

If you're interested -- and I'm guessing you are -- check out the reviews on Amazon. (The paperback version comes out March 11.)