Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome!
Welcome to the Ivy Tech Bloomington Library Blog. This blog is for all students, faculty, and staff of Ivy Tech Bloomington. Feel free to read about and comment on topics of interest to our library.
Visit the Library at http://wwwcc.ivytech.edu/library/bloomington
Visit the Library at http://wwwcc.ivytech.edu/library/bloomington
7 comments:
Pudd’nhead Wilson (also known as The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson) is a challenged book because of its most prominent theme: racism. At the time of it’s original publishing, I am sure that not many Twain readers even batted an eye at the liberal use of the “N-Word” within it’s pages, but today, in 2013, one can be assured that this is the part of the book that is offensive to most readers. I know that I certainly had a moment or two where it felt excessive, even if it is simply because it is such a taboo word in the 21st century. However, its use is justified in that the characters of the book existed in a time when slavery was not only practiced by some but also widely accepted by many. With that in mind, the use of a word, however offensive we find it today, doesn’t actually seem like that big of a deal. I could find very little information on specific challenges or bans of the book, which is upsetting because I would really like to know of any individual reasons for objecting to this lovely book.
On a personal note, I enjoyed reading it very much. Twain was a masterful storyteller and though he is better known for his Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer stories, this did not fall short in regards to his usual wit, charm, and humor. Though the racist aspects of the book received all of the controversy, I found the most interesting parts were the ones dealing with plain old human identity. White, black, slave, free, man, woman, good, bad, stupid, smart. One could go on, and on. Nobody was seen for what they really were throughout the length of the novel and were only shown in their true “colors” (for lack of a better word) near the end. I enjoyed this, since it acted as an engine for the plot that would have otherwise been a fairly standard “whodunit” type story. The characters were extremely well developed, though not exhaustively explained. This was a good thing, from my perspective, as I like to draw my own conclusions about people and situations. The book didn’t surprise me, per se, but I was certainly grabbed by its mastery of language (regardless of the inclusion of that dreaded “N-Word”). It read smoothly, and even the phonetically written dialog used for some of the characters was easy enough once you gave yourself over to it.
I wholeheartedly believe that this book should be available for reading by whoever wants to read it, including in high schools and libraries. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it should be highly recommended by school boards for it’s strong examination of identity (a common issue amongst teenagers. Who am I?). It is an excellent book, and it is the job of parents and teachers to place works such as this into the right context within the minds and understanding of the students reading it. I say this, because, of course, someone will always take these sorts of things the wrong way and become offended.
Over all, I believe this book to be harmless when placed in the proper context. Books, like any life-giving thing, can be dangerous if used improperly. And Pudd’nhead Wilson is no different.
Matthew, I love when you say, “Though the racist aspects of the book received all of the controversy, I found the most interesting parts were the ones dealing with plain old human identity. White, black, slave, free, man, woman, good, bad, stupid, smart. One could go on, and on. Nobody was seen for what they really were throughout the length of the novel and were only shown in their true “colors” (for lack of a better word) near the end.”
I think this portion of the post is so great, because it is something that a reader might not perceive right away when reading Puddn’head Wilson . So many people cannot get past the issues of race and see some of the deeper, more relevant issues that Twain is trying to get at by writing about identity. People are so much more than just the color of their skin. I agree with what you said and I absolutely think that Puddn’head Wilson should be encouraged in high schools rather than banned. I had never thought about the book as being helpful to a person struggling with identity, but it definitely could. There are so many situations in the book where people struggle with figuring out who they are or trying to fit into society. For example, Tom is born a slave, but grows up thinking he is white. He later finds out that his mother is a black woman and that he is the opposite of who he thought he was. This causes him to question who he really is and if his race is what defines him. With the questions of identity that are presented, it surprises me that educators would not want students to read it. Especially when the students are going through such a crucial time of their lives, when discovering who they are is all that consumes them.
Here is my question for the class and the community:
In class, we discussed the fact that the main character, David Wilson (a.k.a. "Pudd'nhead") doesn't explicitly discuss his own attitudes towards slavery. His famous "Calendar" contains rather dark, ironic remarks about many aspects of the human condition--but slavery is not mentioned. He is an East Coast lawyer who comes to Dawson's Landing, Missouri, to try to set up his practice--so he has moved from a free state to a slave state (but we don't know why he has chosen Dawson's Landing in particular, or why he stays after the fatal first day when he is branded a "pudd'nhead"). Although this is not super explicit, we have reason to believe that Jasper might be his slave (because of some descriptions of Jasper chopping wood for him).
So here's my question: What do you think Pudd'nhead's attitude towards slavery is? Is the character of David Wilson a racist? Is Pudd'nhead Wilson a racist book?
This is in response to Professor Starr's questions...
I don't think that Wilson is pro-slavery, but I don't think that he is going to be on the front lines of the abolition movement either. He, like many Americans at the time(and perhaps even Twain himself), was a bit on the apathetic side. He just accepted things as they were. Slavery was a thing that happened.
However, the idea that he accepted it as good and right and just is preposterous. I really think that he just didn't tink about it all that much. Yes, he was apart of the "free thinkers" society with the judge, but would a truly free thinking, smart man stay in a place that thought so little of him when there was so many other places to go and start a law practice? Would a truly smart man tolerate inhumane abuse in his fellow people? I, for one, don't think so. Yes, he liked to collect finger prints(which had the feel of intelligence), and yes, he wrote some idioms for his "calendar"(which had the feel of cleverness), and yes, he knew the rules of law(which had the feel of reason and logic) but I think the title of the book, Puddn'head Wilson, is actually more fitting than we might first perceive(but not for the reasons we are lead to believe by the townspeople of Dawson's Landing). Possessing intelligence, cleverness, and reason do not necessarily make a person smart. History has shown us that time and time again. Slavery is a good example of that. Can we really believe that every person that agreed with Slavery was dumb? I don't think so. Intelligent, reasonable, and clever people do dumb, Puddn'headed things on a regular basis. David Wilson, in my opinion, was no exception.
Matthew, I am posting a comment in response to your answer to my question about Pudd'nhead Wilson and slavery. I appreciated your take here that clever ol' Pudd'nhead may not be as smart as he seems. I had not thought of it quite this way before, and it got me thinking about Wilson and some of the other "heroes" in the books we've been reading this semester. To my surprise, I find he seems to be a lot more like Billy Pilgrim from Slaughterhouse-Five than like Montag from Fahrenheit 451.
All of these characters are in some ways sort of marginal in their societies, following their routines, not really calling attention to themselves. But Montag at least goes through a transformation, sparked by his encounters with Clarisse and Faber, in which he comes to question the totalitarian status quo. He eventually becomes a subversive who steals and reads books, plants books on other firemen, and joins the book people. Pudd'nhead might have had an opportunity to speak out against slavery--after all, he was the East Coaster and "the smartest man in town"--but in the end, he is as morally horrified as everyone else in slave-holding Dawson's Landing by a slave trying to pass for white. He even acts as the prime mover in exposing the pretender and ensuring he gets his just desserts (sold down the river). That would be similar to Montag deciding to accept a promotion to become the new fire chief.
So Pudd'nhead ends up reminding me much more of Billy--someone who sees injustice (as Billy did at Dresden) but takes no action against it. (He leaves he heavy lifting here to Mr. Vonnegut.)
Thanks for your thought-provoking post!
This is my response to Professor Starr’s question.
David Wilson, I believe, doesn’t agree with slavery. I think he holds the idea of it to be morally wrong. However, that belief is rare in the time of this story. That being said, he’s already known to be too much of a Pudd’nhead, so being the one in a hundred who thinks the general population is wrong would not be good for his social standing. I think that because of this and his desire to achieve respect in the world are what cause him to have Jasper as a slave. Yes, I believe Jasper is David’s slave. However, I would argue that their relationship is very unlike the typical slave-master relationship. I refer to the scene where David is leaving his house after just watching Jasper slacking off in the yard. He walks out, and Jasper sees him leaving and goes back to his work. Nowhere in the scene is Jasper punished for not working and even more so, David is never displeased in how Jasper goes about his job. See, I think David needed a slave to avoid being ridiculed more, and Jasper needed a relatively nice place to stay and work, and they probably looked at each other and went, “Hey, you look like a guy I want to talk to,” simultaneously. I wouldn’t really call them friends, though. I think they just might be too different of people to be good friends. Their friendly with each other, sure, but they aren’t friends. One speculation I had been about David’s house. One half of the house is completely empty and unfurnished. I would guess that this is Jasper’s portion of the house. As a slave, it wouldn’t make sense of him to own his own furnishings. Shoot, I bet he’s just happy that he doesn’t have to worry about his master selling him down the river. So overall I think that David Wilson is against slavery, but his desire of social standing and the ways of the time allowed him to put aside his disagreement with slavery and live on with his life in peace.
This comment refers to John’s post above. John, I believe you may be right about Wilson’s reason for having Jasper as a slave. You make a good argument that Jasper may, in fact, “belong” to Wilson and that Pudd’nhead didn’t want to be even more of an oddball than what the townspeople already thought. I didn’t get any indication that Wilson moved from a free state to a slave state simply because he could own a slave – it just seemed to be that that’s where he landed, and that was the norm in Dawson’s Landing. But deep down, perhaps it just didn’t feel right to him to own another human being. That may be why he and Jasper had a “unique” relationship.
If you are interested in Mark Twain’s views on slavery, I recommend the Ken Burns/PBS documentary on Mark Twain which is available in your Library. You’ll learn about Samuel Clemons, his life, his many careers, & his family, as well as an interesting little tidbit on where the name “Mark Twain” came from.
I had read other Mark Twain novels before, but I had never read Pudd’nhead Wilson until this semester. I thought it was one of the saddest books I’d ever read. I was just left with a sick feeling about lives that had been destroyed.
This was not the only time Twain used a theme of switching places. In The Prince and the Pauper, two boys switch places but do so knowingly, unlike in Pudd’nhead where the characters were unaware of the switch, at least in the beginning. Interestingly, “Tom” was the name of one of the main characters in each story. The concept of switching places must make for good entertainment because the theme has been used in several movies, everything from Mickey Mouse to Barbie to the Dan Aykroyd/Eddie Murphy film Trading Places. So, why is it that we find the concept so entertaining? Is it just funny? Is it possible to change your lot in life? Is it wrong to try? Does destiny trump all?
Post a Comment