I think the most interesting character was Beaty. He was also the most bewildering. He changed his attitude so drastically moment to moment. You never could understand him. Most characters have a clear surface characteristics and other layers under that if you look hard enough, but Beaty has no clear attitude or characteristics. Montag has worked with him for a long time but no information is given about him. One moment Beaty is sypathetic and the nexthe is the devil.
Just the things Beaty talks about contradicts himself. He seems to believe book are stupid and wrong and yet knows all about them. He quotes millions of books carelessly in front of anybody as if he has nothing to be guilty about. He must of read so many books and several times to no words by heart and yet the only way to have done this was illegally possess books yet he flaunts his knowledge.
His conversation with Montag when Montag pretended to be sick and then at the firestation after and in front of Montag's house was too contradictive to me. I did not understand the point of pretending to try to help one minute and then burn down Montag's house the next. Why did he try to get Montag to give up the books if he was going to burn does his house anyway? What Beaty did never seemed to add up and yet he never appeared to be incapable of thought and off the wall crazy.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Bradbury Interviews
Bradbury wrote Farenheit to express his views of what technology will become and how we might use it to help with self limitation. I believe that Farenheit 451 is about censorship. Not from the government but from ourselves. We self-limit ourselves and perhaps bradbury believed he could stop people from closing their minds. That is what everybody was doing, staying with what was known and normal. In the future everybody kept acting and thinking as was acceptable and usual than, so blocked out the old ideals and stretched thoughts meant to astound that are written in books. As most kept trying to be more conservative to fit in, the boundaries for what was considered sane thought kept shrinking. But hasn't keeping with the values of the time always been around. How many of the great painters, writters, and philosophers of different times been shun then. They were brilliant because they expressed things not yet accepted bringing in new extreme thoughts. And yet most were considered nuts or merely unrecognized until years and decades later when people had slowly gotten use to them.
I do not believe we have become so unimaginative that we are all followers. We still make original jokes, think new thoughts, and have little or nothing in common with some people. Also books and television limit imagination about the same. I mean television tells a story just like a book. Reading books doesn't make you imagine anything as it is all written out, just like television. So portraying technology as if destroys all original thought and imagination, and books give you new thoughts and imagination is inaccurate and leaping to conclusions.
I do not believe we have become so unimaginative that we are all followers. We still make original jokes, think new thoughts, and have little or nothing in common with some people. Also books and television limit imagination about the same. I mean television tells a story just like a book. Reading books doesn't make you imagine anything as it is all written out, just like television. So portraying technology as if destroys all original thought and imagination, and books give you new thoughts and imagination is inaccurate and leaping to conclusions.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
To Kill A Mockingbird Part I
To Kill a Mockingbird is an interesting read. The characters are very developed and life-like, and you continue to learn more about them. This is like the kids finding out that Atticus is an awesome shot. The young children grow up and change. Jem gets wiser and no longer thinks it is fun to tease Boo Radley. Scout is slowly growing up. Their main motivator is pleasing their father. Scout keeps growing out of prejudices and racism, while gaining wisdom. Everyone around her is stuck in their ignorance and prejudice.
The book makes you infer most everything for yourself. It never seems to state a person's description and attitude. Everything we get is from conversations and actions. The book didn't even tell us Scout was a girl until in a conversation. They also didn't give us a name to call her let alone her real name until 10 pages in. The book is confusing because of this. You have to fit names together like Boo being Arthur, and slowly draw a picture of the characters. It is also hard to complete the sections of self descriptions and appearances on the chart since the book doesn't say these things.
Boo Radley is an extremelyinteresting character. Although we never have met him, he captures our attention as well as the neighborhoods. He is kept in the house after disgracing his family. I believe he has remained childish and immature, never growing up. For one thing, he remains caged by Nathan Radley when he could rebel and walk out of the house. The other thing is he reaches out to Scout and Jem, two children. They are more accepting and he makes the connection by giving them Indian-Heads, gum, and a carving of them. I suppose he chose them because he watched them and saw they had so much life to his lack of. Whenever they mention him, I think of a child until I remember his age.
To Kill a Mockingbird held my interest and I am interested in how it will end.
The book makes you infer most everything for yourself. It never seems to state a person's description and attitude. Everything we get is from conversations and actions. The book didn't even tell us Scout was a girl until in a conversation. They also didn't give us a name to call her let alone her real name until 10 pages in. The book is confusing because of this. You have to fit names together like Boo being Arthur, and slowly draw a picture of the characters. It is also hard to complete the sections of self descriptions and appearances on the chart since the book doesn't say these things.
Boo Radley is an extremelyinteresting character. Although we never have met him, he captures our attention as well as the neighborhoods. He is kept in the house after disgracing his family. I believe he has remained childish and immature, never growing up. For one thing, he remains caged by Nathan Radley when he could rebel and walk out of the house. The other thing is he reaches out to Scout and Jem, two children. They are more accepting and he makes the connection by giving them Indian-Heads, gum, and a carving of them. I suppose he chose them because he watched them and saw they had so much life to his lack of. Whenever they mention him, I think of a child until I remember his age.
To Kill a Mockingbird held my interest and I am interested in how it will end.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
A Separate Peace
A Separate Peace ties in well with its setting. It is set in an American School in the middle of WWII. The students were always aware of the war but it was distant and hard to imagine fighting. The country was at war but Gene and Finny were at peace in the sheltered school. While reading the book I was always aware of the war, but I did not really think on it. I did not imagine the horrors of the war, but instead the peace at Devon. The Great War took second to the personal lives of some of the boys.
A Separate Peace reminds me of Lord of the Flies. It had similar concepts to Lord of the Flies, but much milder. In the latter, the children were out of control since their was no authority. In Separate Peace, they were wild during the summer session which had only one authoritive figure, Prud'homme. The boys became savages on the island, and Gene had a lot of savagery in him, which Leper recognized, that came out sometimes like at the tree. However, Lord of the Flies ended when authority came back. A Separate Peace continued and the characters had to deal with the consequences.
I was surprised by how little guilt Gene felt. I mean when it first happened, he was racked with guilt and during break until he confessed. When Finny returned to school, Gene was fine even though he had rescinded the confession. He continued to be Finny's best friend and joke and look him in the eye and didn't seem to be thinking of the pain Gene had caused Finny. Since he injured his best friend and didn't admit it, I thought it would be like Dimmesdale's guilt, eating him up but to scared to tell anyone. Instead he repressed it until the trial brought it up. Once Finny forgived him he was fine even though he had caused his friend's newest wound, too.
A Separate Peace reminds me of Lord of the Flies. It had similar concepts to Lord of the Flies, but much milder. In the latter, the children were out of control since their was no authority. In Separate Peace, they were wild during the summer session which had only one authoritive figure, Prud'homme. The boys became savages on the island, and Gene had a lot of savagery in him, which Leper recognized, that came out sometimes like at the tree. However, Lord of the Flies ended when authority came back. A Separate Peace continued and the characters had to deal with the consequences.
I was surprised by how little guilt Gene felt. I mean when it first happened, he was racked with guilt and during break until he confessed. When Finny returned to school, Gene was fine even though he had rescinded the confession. He continued to be Finny's best friend and joke and look him in the eye and didn't seem to be thinking of the pain Gene had caused Finny. Since he injured his best friend and didn't admit it, I thought it would be like Dimmesdale's guilt, eating him up but to scared to tell anyone. Instead he repressed it until the trial brought it up. Once Finny forgived him he was fine even though he had caused his friend's newest wound, too.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Crucible
It was good to have a new type in our summer reading books. A play was a good break from all the novels. It was a lot easier to read than I thought a play would be. It was very descriptive with a page every now and then in novel style. It probably would have been boring if there were only continuous dialogue. The Crucible was engaging and easy to read. I could clearly picture the situations and the emotions the characters felt.
The second scene of act 2 changed a lot if included. It always appeared as though Abigail was selfish and vindictive. Her being mad changes her motives. She is still despicable for hanging others, but you can pity her for not being in her right mind. She goes from evil to nuts which is probably a step up. Everywhere else she is accused of lying and hurting others for power and self-gain; her being mad enough to believe she is doing God's work shows she believes she is telling the truth and really thinks she is helping. She becomes less of a cruel villain and more like a child who knows not what she does. It actually makes the people who follow her word even more foolish for not being able to tell insanity from reason. A well-rehearsed lie should be more convincing then crazy babble.
The Crucible shows how fear can get out of control. Fear causes people to not see the truth right in front of them. The puritans had great fear for Satan and thengs unknown, it caused a witch hunt that only a few objected to. Fear caused mayhem and opportunities people exploited and so tried to keep the fear alive and growing until no one could control it. The people were so frightened of what witches might do or that they may be accused of witchcraft that they went along with it. When truth was presented in front of them or the insanity questioned, they were still so afraid of evil and their hands already dirty, they could not accept reason.
The second scene of act 2 changed a lot if included. It always appeared as though Abigail was selfish and vindictive. Her being mad changes her motives. She is still despicable for hanging others, but you can pity her for not being in her right mind. She goes from evil to nuts which is probably a step up. Everywhere else she is accused of lying and hurting others for power and self-gain; her being mad enough to believe she is doing God's work shows she believes she is telling the truth and really thinks she is helping. She becomes less of a cruel villain and more like a child who knows not what she does. It actually makes the people who follow her word even more foolish for not being able to tell insanity from reason. A well-rehearsed lie should be more convincing then crazy babble.
The Crucible shows how fear can get out of control. Fear causes people to not see the truth right in front of them. The puritans had great fear for Satan and thengs unknown, it caused a witch hunt that only a few objected to. Fear caused mayhem and opportunities people exploited and so tried to keep the fear alive and growing until no one could control it. The people were so frightened of what witches might do or that they may be accused of witchcraft that they went along with it. When truth was presented in front of them or the insanity questioned, they were still so afraid of evil and their hands already dirty, they could not accept reason.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Scarlet Letter
The Scarlet Letter is a confusing book. It is long-winded.
What was interested was the fanciness of the scarlet letter. At first I thought that she made the letter like that to defy the people's will trying to press shame on her. However, she obviously has guilt and shame for the sin. Although I get that she wanted everyone to notice the A, I do not understand why she would make something beautiful to represent something so ugly.
The setting had a big impact on the story. The puritan era is none for its harsh, religious-base crimes and punishments. It also gave Puritans a more rounded view. It told a story that was based on the well-known society without the commonly used angle of witchcraft. The first thing you think of with puritan towns is witches. That period is known for its false witch trials. Because of this hunt that killed many innocent women, it pushes aside the extreme punishments given for crimes which a lot of times were religious sins. You could be put to death for the slightest misbehavior. In the book, some of the women resented that Hester was not executed.
Although she is considered a sinful person, Hester is the best person in the book. She made one mistake and paid for it the rest of her life. She accepted ridicule and banishing yet still had good in her heart. No matter how she was treated she always helped others and did not complain. Others hid their sins, like Dimsdale, or commited and ordered sins in the name of law, like flogging and executions. Most were spiteful or cruel, like the women who thought Hester deserved death. Hester kept values and other's secrets even when they did not deserve her trust or it hurt her. Dimsdale and Chillingworth only hurt her and led sinful lives, she did not betray them. Although in time, people saw her goodness and treated her more kindly, they never forgave her sin, even though they sinned too.
What was interested was the fanciness of the scarlet letter. At first I thought that she made the letter like that to defy the people's will trying to press shame on her. However, she obviously has guilt and shame for the sin. Although I get that she wanted everyone to notice the A, I do not understand why she would make something beautiful to represent something so ugly.
The setting had a big impact on the story. The puritan era is none for its harsh, religious-base crimes and punishments. It also gave Puritans a more rounded view. It told a story that was based on the well-known society without the commonly used angle of witchcraft. The first thing you think of with puritan towns is witches. That period is known for its false witch trials. Because of this hunt that killed many innocent women, it pushes aside the extreme punishments given for crimes which a lot of times were religious sins. You could be put to death for the slightest misbehavior. In the book, some of the women resented that Hester was not executed.
Although she is considered a sinful person, Hester is the best person in the book. She made one mistake and paid for it the rest of her life. She accepted ridicule and banishing yet still had good in her heart. No matter how she was treated she always helped others and did not complain. Others hid their sins, like Dimsdale, or commited and ordered sins in the name of law, like flogging and executions. Most were spiteful or cruel, like the women who thought Hester deserved death. Hester kept values and other's secrets even when they did not deserve her trust or it hurt her. Dimsdale and Chillingworth only hurt her and led sinful lives, she did not betray them. Although in time, people saw her goodness and treated her more kindly, they never forgave her sin, even though they sinned too.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby is revealing book about the roaring 20s. It portrays the secrets behind the parties and wealth. It also depicts the boredom of the children of millionaires, who are restless because they never had to work hard to get anything. The members of this group remain like children, too oblivious to what they do, so they can live with the excitement they create to amuse themselves without really realizing the damage they leave in their wake.
Nick is both awed and disgusted by the life of the rich. Everyone wants to be rich and live the privileged life, but scorns their shallowness and scandals. This is still present today with get rich quick reality tv shows and gossip magazines. Rich people are expected to live a wild, extravagent life, but are showed contempt when they do so. It is a way of dealing with lower social classes when you fail to reach the top.
Nick Carraway is an interesting narrator. In the beginning he was unbiased, only intrigued by the extravagent life of the rich. He states facts and does not have a voice. Later on he gets a voice, and everything he writes about is tainted by his distaste for the people. It is unusual for a narrator to change unless he is the main character. Most narrators are unbiased or has one voice which does not evolve. Nick was impassive but developed a strong opinion on that type of life.
A major thing in the novel is social class. More accurately, the difference in class. People some times try to reach much higher than their place. In this book it has them all come crashing down. Both Myrtle and Gatsby overreached their place society had given them. Myrtle tried to act like she was sophistacated and gain class by a man. Gatsby tried to rise above his low beginnings through money. Both of them were crushed because of it and it led to their deaths. However, the people born to high society are kept high and mighty, above the problems of regular mortals. They coasted through life using people to forget their problems and not caring about the chaos they left behind. Both Daisy and Tom were like this; they used Gatsby and Mytle and then dumped them, merely moving on without looking back. People are often striving to go higher up, but if they try to go to far, they and society cannot handle it, and they fall brutally. High Society, like Tom and Daisy, have nothing to strive for as they are on top. I believe this is why they are bored and restless, because they have nothing to obsess them. Tom and Daisy had everything, and so tried to fill their time and get satisfaction from parties, gossip, and travel. It is only temporary relief.
The Great Gatsby brings forth thoughts and opinions on people that one usually does not think of.
Nick is both awed and disgusted by the life of the rich. Everyone wants to be rich and live the privileged life, but scorns their shallowness and scandals. This is still present today with get rich quick reality tv shows and gossip magazines. Rich people are expected to live a wild, extravagent life, but are showed contempt when they do so. It is a way of dealing with lower social classes when you fail to reach the top.
Nick Carraway is an interesting narrator. In the beginning he was unbiased, only intrigued by the extravagent life of the rich. He states facts and does not have a voice. Later on he gets a voice, and everything he writes about is tainted by his distaste for the people. It is unusual for a narrator to change unless he is the main character. Most narrators are unbiased or has one voice which does not evolve. Nick was impassive but developed a strong opinion on that type of life.
A major thing in the novel is social class. More accurately, the difference in class. People some times try to reach much higher than their place. In this book it has them all come crashing down. Both Myrtle and Gatsby overreached their place society had given them. Myrtle tried to act like she was sophistacated and gain class by a man. Gatsby tried to rise above his low beginnings through money. Both of them were crushed because of it and it led to their deaths. However, the people born to high society are kept high and mighty, above the problems of regular mortals. They coasted through life using people to forget their problems and not caring about the chaos they left behind. Both Daisy and Tom were like this; they used Gatsby and Mytle and then dumped them, merely moving on without looking back. People are often striving to go higher up, but if they try to go to far, they and society cannot handle it, and they fall brutally. High Society, like Tom and Daisy, have nothing to strive for as they are on top. I believe this is why they are bored and restless, because they have nothing to obsess them. Tom and Daisy had everything, and so tried to fill their time and get satisfaction from parties, gossip, and travel. It is only temporary relief.
The Great Gatsby brings forth thoughts and opinions on people that one usually does not think of.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Grapes of Wrath
The Grapes of Wrath is to be admired because it was a widely read book that exposed what was happening in California at the time. It revealed the atrocities shown by Californians to the immigrants. Although it was a great topic to write about and written for the right purposes, I did not like the book. The author is trying to show that the "Okies" are as smart and human as everyone else, yets he creates the stupidest characters. They repeat the same thing over and over and will not listen to reason. Although they show humanity they do not show common sense.
I dislike the Ma because she is so aggravating. She acts like without her, the family would sit around doing nothing, because she makes them have family meetings about things they all know and saying it out loud changes nothing. She constantly repeats herself like saying I knew Pretty boy Floyd over and over, even though Tom shows no anger management issues. Also, she constantly says they have to keep in the future and adjust, and claims she changes easily, but all she does is look at the past and whine that others are, too. Ma tries not to let the family change at all, not even letting them marry and start their own family in their own house like they did in Oklahoma. It seems she doesn't want anyone to grow up or evolve in the slightest. It is annoying how Ma refuses to tell Rose of Sharen that Connie is a jerk who left her and no-good, but whenever Rose of Sharen complains about Connie being gone Ma yells, but doesn't say anything to stop the whining and threatens to hit her, and then she is exasperated when Rose of Sharen continues whining even though she was given no reason to stop. Ma scolds everybody if they are regrettful of somethings they have done, but Ma constantly complains of becoming mean when the children speak and act worse than her.
I like how Steinbeck has a chapter about the family, and then a shorter chapter about all the migrants in a related scenario to the Joad chapter. It helps show other possible outcomes, including the worst scenario, without making the actual story gloomy and depressing. General information given in the short chapter helps to understand some of the things people say. Unfortunately, because the book was written in 1939, I don't always get the particulars people back then would have found obvious. Money is an example. Because prices are so different now, I can't tell just how poor 30 cents in hour is, or how big a change 30 cents to 20 is back then. Although I get it is enough of a difference for one to be able to scrape by and the other not, I cannot figure how much food the money can buy. Also when businessmen are selling stuff, I do not know how badly they are ripping the person off.
Grapes of Wrath have two contradicting ideas. One is that we have to change to live and be human, and so change is a good thing. This is shown in numerous conversations that state the family needs to move on from the past to the present in order to survive. The other is that the Industrial Revolution should never of happened. The author shows this with his narrative saying that the growing machine industry causes the problems and makes people cruel and cold. Also it describe machines as dead and destroying the farmer's understanding of the land, making the land unappreciated. This suggests that the changing, evolving world is a bad thing. The novel also states many a time that the changes are like a step forward and you never lose ground and go backwards. He makes this out as a good thing. This makes the ideas contradicting because the book says all change is a step forward which is a good thing, but also advancements in machines is not good.
I dislike the Ma because she is so aggravating. She acts like without her, the family would sit around doing nothing, because she makes them have family meetings about things they all know and saying it out loud changes nothing. She constantly repeats herself like saying I knew Pretty boy Floyd over and over, even though Tom shows no anger management issues. Also, she constantly says they have to keep in the future and adjust, and claims she changes easily, but all she does is look at the past and whine that others are, too. Ma tries not to let the family change at all, not even letting them marry and start their own family in their own house like they did in Oklahoma. It seems she doesn't want anyone to grow up or evolve in the slightest. It is annoying how Ma refuses to tell Rose of Sharen that Connie is a jerk who left her and no-good, but whenever Rose of Sharen complains about Connie being gone Ma yells, but doesn't say anything to stop the whining and threatens to hit her, and then she is exasperated when Rose of Sharen continues whining even though she was given no reason to stop. Ma scolds everybody if they are regrettful of somethings they have done, but Ma constantly complains of becoming mean when the children speak and act worse than her.
I like how Steinbeck has a chapter about the family, and then a shorter chapter about all the migrants in a related scenario to the Joad chapter. It helps show other possible outcomes, including the worst scenario, without making the actual story gloomy and depressing. General information given in the short chapter helps to understand some of the things people say. Unfortunately, because the book was written in 1939, I don't always get the particulars people back then would have found obvious. Money is an example. Because prices are so different now, I can't tell just how poor 30 cents in hour is, or how big a change 30 cents to 20 is back then. Although I get it is enough of a difference for one to be able to scrape by and the other not, I cannot figure how much food the money can buy. Also when businessmen are selling stuff, I do not know how badly they are ripping the person off.
Grapes of Wrath have two contradicting ideas. One is that we have to change to live and be human, and so change is a good thing. This is shown in numerous conversations that state the family needs to move on from the past to the present in order to survive. The other is that the Industrial Revolution should never of happened. The author shows this with his narrative saying that the growing machine industry causes the problems and makes people cruel and cold. Also it describe machines as dead and destroying the farmer's understanding of the land, making the land unappreciated. This suggests that the changing, evolving world is a bad thing. The novel also states many a time that the changes are like a step forward and you never lose ground and go backwards. He makes this out as a good thing. This makes the ideas contradicting because the book says all change is a step forward which is a good thing, but also advancements in machines is not good.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Huckleberry Finn
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a thrilling and complex novel. It seems to have it all: well-developed characters, original adventures, detailed settings, humor, and a deep theme. No wonder Mark Twain is called the "greatest American humorist of his age" and considered one of the best American authors ever.
The characters in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are interesting and well-developed. The Duke and the King are the most fascinating of them all. The Duke and the King are like Professor Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Besides their obvious similarity in all being con men, there are many more comparisons. In both books, the reader immediately knows they are fakes, as do the main characters, Huck and Harry. Although it is so obvious to us and to some characters, the majority of the people are fooled by their act. Also, although both Huck and Harry know about them being con men, they do not try to expose them. Huck does reveal the Duke and King's true nature, but most of the time he, like Harry, is just astounded by people's gullibility, not caring if people see the truth.
The scene at the Phelps's house is very unrealistic. Huck Finn is usually plausible and only fantastical in character's extreme actions. The scene with the Phelps does not follow that plot line. The fact that the family who imprisons Jim happens to be Tom Sawyer's family and he is about to visit is just too many coincidences. Other events in the story are spectacular, but they could happen to anyone if sought out. However, pretending to be the Phelps's relative, Tom Sawyer,whom Huck knows everything about,is just too much unbelievable luck.
I really do not like people's attitude to black people back then, especially Huck's. People in the pre-Civil War era treated blacks like dirt because of their bigotry and greed, and then had the audacity to teach them "Christian Ways." Huck disappointed me because I thought a boy in his situation would have more sympathy and understanding for Negros. He lived most of his life thought of as less than a person. In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer he was thought of as a cretin, a son of a drunk. Yet he rose above these circumstances and became a person that when thought dead many respected people searched for and mourned him. He of all people should understand that even if others did not think so, Jim was a human. Even though he noticed endless similarities between white and black men, he still did not see the truth because of generations of bigotry. He even called the slaves and his friends the offensive nigger. He constantly thought he would go to Hell because he helped a man or as he called it stealing Miss Watson's "property". I am frustrated that Huck in such a similar place could not empathize with a runaway slave.
The theme of the story is striving for a better life, as that is what all the characters pursued. Even if they went about it the wrong way, it is what drove them to keep fighting. This is human nature. The Duke and the King believed money is what made life better, so that is what they fought for. Pap believed power and booze were the keys to happiness, and thus drank and exerted his power over anyone he could. Since Huck was the only one that abided it, he received the worst of Pap's dominion. Pap still tried to control others like Judge Thatcher, who he tried to force to give up Huck's money. Jim improved his life by running away, because what quality of life could you possibly have if you are not free. Huck strove for the impossible, what would indeed be the perfect living; fun and complete freedom, yet still being cared for and looked after. He did not find it, but instead settled for being wanted and looked after. Huckleberry Finn is a layered book. The first layer is an exiciting adventure, second is the political and economic issues of the time, and third is an accurate and scathing portrayal of the nature of humans and what defines human nature.
The characters in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are interesting and well-developed. The Duke and the King are the most fascinating of them all. The Duke and the King are like Professor Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Besides their obvious similarity in all being con men, there are many more comparisons. In both books, the reader immediately knows they are fakes, as do the main characters, Huck and Harry. Although it is so obvious to us and to some characters, the majority of the people are fooled by their act. Also, although both Huck and Harry know about them being con men, they do not try to expose them. Huck does reveal the Duke and King's true nature, but most of the time he, like Harry, is just astounded by people's gullibility, not caring if people see the truth.
The scene at the Phelps's house is very unrealistic. Huck Finn is usually plausible and only fantastical in character's extreme actions. The scene with the Phelps does not follow that plot line. The fact that the family who imprisons Jim happens to be Tom Sawyer's family and he is about to visit is just too many coincidences. Other events in the story are spectacular, but they could happen to anyone if sought out. However, pretending to be the Phelps's relative, Tom Sawyer,whom Huck knows everything about,is just too much unbelievable luck.
I really do not like people's attitude to black people back then, especially Huck's. People in the pre-Civil War era treated blacks like dirt because of their bigotry and greed, and then had the audacity to teach them "Christian Ways." Huck disappointed me because I thought a boy in his situation would have more sympathy and understanding for Negros. He lived most of his life thought of as less than a person. In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer he was thought of as a cretin, a son of a drunk. Yet he rose above these circumstances and became a person that when thought dead many respected people searched for and mourned him. He of all people should understand that even if others did not think so, Jim was a human. Even though he noticed endless similarities between white and black men, he still did not see the truth because of generations of bigotry. He even called the slaves and his friends the offensive nigger. He constantly thought he would go to Hell because he helped a man or as he called it stealing Miss Watson's "property". I am frustrated that Huck in such a similar place could not empathize with a runaway slave.
The theme of the story is striving for a better life, as that is what all the characters pursued. Even if they went about it the wrong way, it is what drove them to keep fighting. This is human nature. The Duke and the King believed money is what made life better, so that is what they fought for. Pap believed power and booze were the keys to happiness, and thus drank and exerted his power over anyone he could. Since Huck was the only one that abided it, he received the worst of Pap's dominion. Pap still tried to control others like Judge Thatcher, who he tried to force to give up Huck's money. Jim improved his life by running away, because what quality of life could you possibly have if you are not free. Huck strove for the impossible, what would indeed be the perfect living; fun and complete freedom, yet still being cared for and looked after. He did not find it, but instead settled for being wanted and looked after. Huckleberry Finn is a layered book. The first layer is an exiciting adventure, second is the political and economic issues of the time, and third is an accurate and scathing portrayal of the nature of humans and what defines human nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
