[H] Michael: Chapters 26-28

Huck’s actions in these chapters represent his first direct acts of kindness. He decides to reveal the true identities of the Duke and King, and by doing so potentially puts himself in harm’s way by risking the repercussions of his confessed lie. Did Huck confess to Mary Jane because it was the right thing to do, or simply to unburden his own guilt? If he truly was doing what was right, then why did he wait until now when he had many opportunities beforehand to save the Wilk sisters a lot of grief? What needs to be considered is this case is the difference between ideological dedication to a cause, and voicing your opinion for something only when it’s convenient for you. It is likely that Huck falls into second category, and only tells Mary Jane because he feels guilty about seeing her cry. In uncharacteristic form, he suddenly blurts out the secret in a moment of weakness instead of thinking it through in detail the way he usually does.

Unfortunately, it seems that every situation that Huck finds himself in is dealt with on a case by case basis. He doesn’t have any firmly rooted morals or beliefs, as demonstrated by his constant lying, adoption and re-adoption of various identities, and lack of any long term affiliation to anyone or anything. In truth, Huck’s whole life has been a series of temporary experiences and affiliations molded together into what is his “childhood”. He doesn’t take any real action until he is forced into it, or pinned against the wall by a consequence he doesn’t want to face. It’s definitely possible that he told Mary Jane about the fraud because he harbors a romantic interest in her, but it is also possible that Huck is slowly beginning to become a morally righteous person. His lack of roots predicates his capricious existence—he does not have a background or any guidance to define him or to live by. This aspect is at once what we respect most about him, but also what makes his life extremely complicated, and what prevents us from putting a finger on his true identity.

Huck is a perfect role model for society’s confusion about itself and its own identity. What does it mean to be good or bad in Twain’s society? Is there room for a gray area, and does Huck represent that middle ground? Huck’s persistent lying and belief in faulty explanations disputes the validity of what society considers “good” and “bad”. For example, the “good people” who Twain identifies in the book such as Mrs. Watson and Mary Jane are still hypocrites due to their ownership of slaves, yet they are portrayed as kind as a result of their cordial interactions with white people. If a solid definition existed for either term, perhaps Huck would not always need to create his own histories and explanations for situations. It could be argued that the Duke and Dauphin are in some way more respectable than characters like Mrs. Watson since they are open about their cruelty and fully own up to it. At the end of the day, Huck is really just a metaphor for how lost society is, and how society should be more accepting of a comprise between extreme political views, or a gray area. Unfortunately, during this period in the nation, many things remained distinctly segregated—you either a northerner or a southerner, white or black, an abolitionist or an anti-abolitionist.

Twain’s mixture of satire, social commentary, and moral seriousness are an appropriate for his purpose of making his readers listen to his criticism without feeling judged by it. First, comedy is often the best way to subtly discuss serious issues. The polar opposite, perhaps a lecture or ‘fire and brimstone’ type sermon, would be written off as extremist propaganda. Secondly, Twain’s protagonist is one of the best conceivable narrators for his message because Huck is an unimposing, non-condescending, young white boy who at once elicits sympathy as an orphan, and earns respect for his independent decision to run away from an abusive father. Simply put, Twain’s message would not have been as well received if it was conveyed by a rich white lawyer, or anyone who readers felt was immediately established as a ‘higher’ person in society.

Questions:

1. What is the difference between an ideological dedication to a belief vs. Huck’s circumstantial, well-rationalized approach to forming opinions? The latter involves the aspect of personal motive, while the ideological one has a clear motive—pure faith in the issue.
2. If Huck has grown so attached to Jim and views him so highly, then why is he not moved by the plight of the slaves that are being forced apart as Jim was with his family?
3. Do you think its hypocritical that Huck does not directly oppose slavery, but instead makes an exception for Jim? Do you think he realizes this hypocrisy?
4. When Huck tells Mary Jane that the slaves will be back in less than two weeks, is he doing it just to make her feel better, or does he recognize their plight as a reason for his confession?
5. Is it part of human nature to need to feel good about oneself, even if it requires lying or believing in a lie? Are people constantly trying to relieve themselves from moral responsibility by rationalizing their actions and creating special exceptions? If the slaves were only going to be gone for one whole year, do you think Mary Jane would have changed her decision? Or, is she just happy to blindly believe that the slaves are coming back in two weeks, even though it is just a young white boy with limited credibility telling her?
6. Is there a lack of introspection and self contemplation in society? Huck contemplates every decision in great detail, but no other characters function on his level. He is concerned with whether or not his actions would displease others, lead to future troubles, or hurt his overall situation. Without questioning his motivations, were people of that time too readily accepting of being put in a category? Did anyone truly look inside themselves to discover individuality, instead of passively siding with the north or south as a whole as a result of mob mentality?