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.)