[F] Lindzay: Chapters 23-25

On pages 168-169 (of my edition), Huck tells Jim “you don’t know kings, Jim, I do.” He proceeds to give him a muddled lecture on these “rapscallions” which attributes just about every story about a king to Louis VII. Huck’s vague perception of history and general knowledge of the world is at times hilarious. Though, why do you think, now a free man by his own definition, Jim accepts often being treated as a child by Huck? Their naïve discourse presents Jim as willingly agreeing with whatever jumbled myth Huck puts in front of him.

In some ways I think Huck’s “ignorance” which has previously been discussed may be a strange, backwards sort of enlightenment. When Huck discusses the difference between a duke and a king, which to a normally educated adult would simply be their status, he comments that when a duke gets drunk he acts almost as badly as a king. Though I agree that deeply entrenched racism has made it hard for Huck to get past what he has been taught to believe thus far in the novel, it seems that his ability to see things in a unique light will be what allows him to accept Jim’s humanity, and feel true empathy for him, rather than perceiving him as an oblivious child.

Currently, Huck seems to refer to Jim as almost a separate species. Of Jim’s guilt for abandoning his family, Huck says, “I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks did for theirn. It don’t seem natural, but I reckon it’s so.” When Huck uses the word natural, at first it seems as though he is referring to literal human nature. However, is Huck truly using “natural” to mean what he was taught to believe by society? Huck’s silence during Jim’s admission of guilt at what he did to his daughter is an ominous reminder that though these two have developed a comradery, Huck still is not able to feel empathy for Jim.

The fact that Huck so far refuses to recognize the inhumanity of the king and the duke, who’s behavior is immoral even by Huck’s slightly criminal moral compass is not encouraging. By virtue of their supposed “cleverness” and their whiteness, they somehow exist on a higher plane that Jim, even though Jim is Huck’s friend. This brings us to the question of Huck’s morality, especially when he remains silent as the king and the duke describe their new scheme to act “deef and dumb.”

Though Huck is silent, his thoughts betray his morality as he realizes the duke and the king’s actions make him “ashamed of the human race.”

Does Huck ultimately represent a blank slate, where the abandonment of intrinsic racism can give way to a wider understanding of the world, or, in typical satire, is Huck simply a victim of several points of view coming at him at various moments? In other words, is Huck Finn a purely satirical, archetypal character, or do his emotions represent a shift towards a new understanding? Is Huck Finn an anti-hero, or merely a pawn used to express a larger point about ignorance?