9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise
Of Jane Austen
Messages c.
February 18-PM, 2002
9-11
Dear Ashton and Linda,
The problem with your view Ashton is that you don't understand that neither "Tom" nor Roxy has to be noble or self educated or heroic or anything else to be sympathetic. (And I have read that Frederick Douglas was an arrogant, insufferable, but well-educated twit.) They do have to be something less than evil though. Roxy doesn't just hate slave owners, she hates everyone. She doesn't hate slavery in general, just slavery as it is exercised again her personally. She doesn't give a damn about any slaves except herself and her boy. And she only cares about him out of pride. She sees no problems with her son being sold, so long as she doesn't have to endure the shame of him being sold down the river. Roxy's cunning is never constructive, only destructive. Why? What's Twain's purpose? To say that Roxy's feelings and behavior are "only natural" doesn't answer the question I'm asking. There are plenty of other "natural" things Roxy might have done. Moved north and "passed." Purchased "Tom's" freedom out of her own earnings, making his identity (if discovered) of no importance. And what about her unnatural behavior. Or do you consider it normal for a woman to blackmail her own child or help him commit armed robbery?
The most vital thing to remember is that Roxy's decision never to let her son be sold down the river sets the action into motion and that the novel ends with the words "... and the creditors sold him down the river." All of Roxy's plotting and scheming, and even her sacrifices come to absolutely nothing in the end. Again why? I think Twain is trying for a more universal message. Unfortunately that message is that God will screw you no matter what; if that's what God has in mind, and enjoy it to boot. Again, not a message to make the novel very popular. You will note, that Roxy's conversion to the church has no effect on her moral behavior.
And Ashton, you can't really mean that a baby less than a year old deserved to be a slave because his father was a slave owner, can you? What's the difference between your justification of slavery and that of the slave owners? And do we execute a murderer's child because of what his parent did?
I think in Twain's time upperclass men were traditionally uninvolved with the child rearing until boys (and only boys) were old enough to begin learning vital men-type stuff. (Spitting, whoring, drinking, cheating at cards, beating women.*) And of course as exposure to air, sunshine, soap and water, and other "yankee" inventions were well known to kill children, or at least turn them into northern sympathizers, it's doubtful that anyone except Roxy ever saw got more than an occasional glimpse of the babies under all those layers of clothes. At best, side by side Tom's real father might be able to tell the two boys apart, but probably not otherwise.
I don't think Roxy's idea of cowardice is particularly "white." Young African American men of today shoot each other over far less than what the duel in PW is about. If Twain's "Roughing It" is anything to go by, the outlaw culture hasn't changed at all over the last 140 years; only the weapons have evolved. And dueling, machismo, and blood feuds aren't confined to white european society.
And last but not least, please note that no matter how hard everyone tries to
make Mary Chestnut a sympathetic character, the "monstrous system" she's
talking about isn't slavery.
Cheryl
* Don't want to disappoint Ashton by letting a chance to male-bash go by.
Dear Cheryl,
I bet we can agree on one thing, it would not have made any sense to make "Tom" a sympathetic character if Twain's intent was to show that a cruel slave owner was raised - was conditioned to be that way.
I think I am sympathetic to Roxy. I will repeat something I said before and which you so badly mauled. Given the choice of her own baby or the master's baby being raised in slavery, Roxy made the choice I would have made. This does not mean that Roxy or I think that anybody should be punished by that kind of life. In fact, the intensity and the extreme nature of the act implies just the opposite. Roxy does not, as you suggest otherwise, hate everybody. Her relationships with her co-workers on the river boat are nearly ideal.
My contention has been that Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson was a blow in the "nature vs. nuture" argument. I am currently reading Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court. There Twain is quite explicit about nature vs, nurture: this excerpt is from Chapter 18: In the Queen's Dungeons.
"Oh it was no use to waste sense on [the Queen]. Training—training is everything; training is all there is to a person. We speak of nature; it is a folly; there is no such thing as nature; what we call by that misleading name is merely heredity and training. We have no thoughts of our own, no opinions of our own; they are transmitted to us, trained into us. All that is original in us, and therefore fairly creditable or discreditable to us, can be covered up and hidden by the point of a cambric needle, ... And as for me, all I can think about in this plodding sad pilgrimage, this pathetic drift between eternities, is to look out and humbly live a pure and high and blameless life, and save that one microscopic atom in me that is truly me: the rest may land in Shoel and welcome for all I care."
In this case, he was discussing a cruel and arbitrary Queen, in Pudd'nhead Wilson, an ironically cruel and arbitrary slave master.
In that passage, Twain explicitly sets down what I believe implicit in all his writings - his firm conviction that people are not born but are conditioned to become what they are. You may not agree, but that is not the point, the point is that we must keep his view in mind when interpreting Twain's intent. This view sets him apart in the clearest possible manner from racists, fascists, and feminists who require a biological determinism as a foundation for their theories, their interpretations of history, and their political programs.
In your original post on this subject, you say that Pudd'nhead was not about Nurture vs Nature, so now you might better understand my position. In that same place, you say, "Whatever Twain thought about the institution of slavery, ..." In case there is any doubt about that I found two other passages in A Connecticut Yankee that make Twain's thoughts on slavery quite explicit, and I will set them down here. The first excerpt is from Chapter 25: A Competitive Examination.
"... The blunting effects of slavery upon the slaveholder's moral perceptions are known and conceded, the world over; and a privileged class, an aristocracy, is but a band of slaveholders under another name. This has a harsh sound, and yet should not be offensive to any—even to the noble himself—unless the fact itself be an offense: for the statement simply formulates a fact. The repulsive nature of slavery is the thing, not its name. One needs but to hear an aristocrat speak of the classes that are below him to recognize ... the very air and tone of the actual slaveholder; and behind these are the slaveholder's spirit, the slaveholder's blunted feeling. They are the result of the same cause in both cases: the possessor's old and inbred custom of regarding himself as a superior being. ..."
My final excerpt is from Chapter 21: The Pilgrims. Brace yourself, this deals with slavery - actually, with slaves - at a more visceral level. Two things to keep in mind: first of all, this is 6th century England, so these slaves are not African. Secondly, Twain was born and raised in Missouri, a slave state, so he knew first hand of what he writes.
"Early in the afternoon we overtook another procession of pilgrims; but in this one was no merriment, no jokes, no laughter, no playful ways, nor any happy giddiness, whether of youth or age. ... Even the children were smileless; there was not a face among all these half a hundred but was cast down, and bore that set expression of hopelessness which is bred of long and old acquaintance with despair. They were slaves. ... and all except the children were also linked together in a file, six feet apart, by a single chain which led from collar to collar all down the line. They were on foot, and had tramped three hundred miles in eighteen days, upon the cheapest odds and ends of food, and stingy rations of that. ... Originally there had been a hundred of these unfortunates, but about half had been sold on the trip. The Trader in charge of them rode a horse and carried a whip with a short handle and a long heavy lash divided into several knotted tails at the end. With this whip he cut the shoulders of any that tottered from weariness and pain. ... The file moved in a cloud of its own making."
"All these faces were gray with a coating of dust. ... I was reminded of this when I noticed the faces of some of those young women, young mothers carrying babes that were near to death and to freedom, how a something in their hearts was written in the dust upon their faces, plain to see, and lord, how plain to read! for it was the track of tears. One of these young mothers was but a girl, and it hurt me to the heart to read that writing, and reflect that it was come up out of the breast of such a child, a breast that ought not to know trouble yet, but only the gladness of the morning of life; and no doubt. ..."
I'll stop there because things only get worse in that passage. Perhaps Twain was writing only from imagination - we can hope. But we can discern Twain's feelings about slavery. We might also have a new perspective on Roxy's actions - these were not Roxy's conditions, but they might have been part of her oral traditions.
Dear Ashton,
Please explain why a young man nurtured in the principles of FFV would
be unable to overcome his cowardly nature to fight a duel.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
I think you point to a question that might have given Twain himself an awkward moment. I am not a complete advocate of nurture over nature, which after all is a theory, and so I can answer without any awkwardness. In my last post, I think I established Twain's commitment to that theory. Do you agree? In any case, my answer to your question is that Tom overcame his nurturing simply because he was a coward or maybe because he was too wise for such foolishness. If Twain, the theorist, was right then no one would ever be a coward. Twain, the novelist, was not so silly.
Here is an extension of your interesting question that might have given even more embarrassment to Twain. He lived in southern society, in a devoutly Confederate state, and yet, he "skedaddled" to avoid being in the civil war. (Well, not exactly, actually his brother - one of the few Lincoln-Republicans in Missouri - was appointed to a high position in Nevada by Lincoln and took his younger brother Sam ("Twain") along with him.) But, were Twain and his brother cowards? How was it they escaped the conditioning that propelled so many other young, intelligent, heroic southern men into that holocaust? I think, unlike Twain the theoretician, that wisdom can prevail over nurturing. In effect, the Clemons brothers defected to the North.
The main point should be that you raise a good question. I think the theoretician set out the goals - the intent of Pudd'nhead Wilson, but the novelist took over from there and wrote a plausible novel, an impossibility for a theoretician.
Dear Ashton and Linda,
The question remains whether Twain simply skedaddled or whether he left to avoid prosecution for his part in a murder. It all depends on whether you believe his story about the two weeks he spent as a confederate irregular. And while early in the war many an intelligent, brave young man joined up, the draft was instituted fairly early in the south, and any man with 5 or more slaves was exempt from serving. This, incidentally is sorry fact behind that southern boast that only a few of the men who served the Confederacy owned slaves, therefore slavery wasn't the issue.
What isn't in question is that his older brother (who was every bit Sam's equal in losing money and much worse at earning it) was broke and unable to pay the $250 in gold for the stage coach journey. Twain of course was making that much a month as a riverboat pilot and could afford to pay both his own way and the Illustrious Secretary's.
At any rate, I can't help but think you've conceded my point, which is that there's more to the evil nature of "Tom" and his mother than the institution of slavery can account for. (And let me get this straight ... dueling is foolish but stabbing an unarmed old man to death is??? I think we can safely rule out that theory.) I certainly will not allow you to just pick and choose for yourself which character traits can be amended, particularly as you're the one who's been championing the all or nothing interpretation of Pudd'nhead.
I guess I should make something clear also: I don't disagree that a lot
of what Pudd'nhead Wilson is about is nature versus nurture, I'm just
saying that you're oversimplifying Twain's message. I also think you're
making a mistake in assuming any or all characters in Twain's books are Twain
himself. Or of believing his views never underwent any changes in 50+ years
of writing.
Cheryl
Linda: I'd love to talk herbs with your daughters, with the caveat
that I'm no good for advice on aromatherapy or medicinal uses or that sort of
thing. I enjoy growing herbs, particularly somewhat unusual ones, but I'm not an
expert. One of my finds at the show this year was sandalwood tree seeds
which I'll try starting in a few days.
Cheryl
From the Meister: Do you think it would be crazy to compare Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court to the young Jane Austen's History of England? It does seem crazy at first, but I wonder if there isn't a striking similarity in tone and style of humor - certainly not in subject matter or attitude about the English. Maybe not - maybe that is a crazy idea.
Dear Linda et. al.,
I sympathize with Eleanor Tilney’s upbringing. It must have been oppressed. Still, it’s time for her to break free.
Couldn’t she have emulated a different heroine, with an even more oppressive father? Let’s see how Celia handles the situation, in “As You Like It”.
Celia: Pr’ythee, be cheerful: knowest thou not the Duke hath banished me, his daughter?
Rosalind: That hath he not.
Celia: No? Hath not? Rosalind then lacks the love
Which teacheth thee that you and I am one:
Shall we be sunder’d? Shall we part, sweet girl?
No; let my father seek another heir.
Therefore devise with me how we may fly,
Wither to go and what to bear with us:
And do not seek to take your change upon you,
To bear your griefs yourself and leave me out;
For, by this heaven, now at our sorrows pale,
Say what thou canst, I’ll go along with thee.
Who would you take as a friend—Celia or Eleanor?
Two points: in my opinion, General Tilney is a mean-spirited blowhard, but he is not dangerous. Eleanor is smarter than he is, and should be able to handle him. Second, Henry does not sit idly by. “He steadily refused to accompany his father into Hertordshire…… The general was furious…. They parted in dreadful disagreement.”
Henry has the advantage on his sister by living by himself, and being a man. That’s no excuse, though. Eleanor should have stood up to the old blow hard (although I accept the point that a lifetime of conditioning is not so easy to overcome.
... why women never want to talk about love is that men always think we're calling them all pigs, no matter WHAT we say. If you want a very sexist explanation, it's like a woman asking "does this dress make me look fat?" No matter what we do we're categorized as hysterical, frigid, calculating, or blonde. And if we don't say anything, we're accused of male bashing. And last but not least, if we say "yes, women are crazy, deal with it" we're accused of hating our own sex.
Here's something a little more typical from Lene Lovich.
I think it'd take a Cardinal Richelieu to find something offensive in there, but I thought I've give you the satisfaction of having a go.
In the mean time, I might point out that not being a feminist is not exactly
the same thing as saying that everything men say or do are with women's (or the
world's) best interests in mind, anymore than not being a male chauvinist means
believing that there's no such thing as a female bad driver. Now Ashton, if
you can curb your touchy male pride for a moment, we can have an honest
discussion about love. Otherwise, we're stuck in a bad "I Love Lucy"
episode. What's it gonna be???
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
I think that I seemed more sarcastic than I realized, certainly far more than I intended. But I will try to suppress my touchiness - you know me well enough to guess how successful I might be.
But, - c'mon, you have to admit that something interesting happened. I mentioned the L-word and the women contributors came unglued a bit. Isn't that interesting? What is that all about? Maybe it has something to do with the Internet and Mama's warning about what we may discuss with strangers. Maybe Mumsey is right.
You know I have had this trouble before. When I suggested that Jane Austen wrote love stories, it was seen as a put-down. The attitude seems to be, "No! no! she did something important, like write about things that cause division - as any great writer must."
Anyway, I would like to discuss the love-story aspect, but are we finished
with Pudd'nhead? I thought we were just getting started.
Ashton
I
mean Cardinal Sinn
Dear Ashton,
No, we're not done with Pudd'nhead, but I'm rather short on
uniterupted time, which I need to frame a response. My boss (the new
grandma) is off helping her daughter with the baby, as mom has finals next week
and dad was called back to his construction job a month early; so I'm working
quite a bit extra. I've also agreed to provide two local businesses with various
items from my kitchen and garden: culinary herbs, potpourri herbs
and some herbed vinegars and oils, which is turning into a bit of work.
Last summer I "made" $22.50 selling herbs. Not quite enough to pay for the gas,
but a start.
Cheryl
From the Meister: Please learn to use your
spell-check. Obviously,
the title of your post should read, "Thyme, thyme,
thyme." Have a care.
Dear Ash and Cheryl,
I am not through with Pudd'nhead either, but ... never mind I don't even have time to write an excuse.
Cheryl, my daughters need to talk to you about those herbs.
Linda
Dear Meister,
It's only a game! Oh, Lord, did I say that? Forgive me. I
only wish I had time to watch. Anyway, enjoy yourself.
Linda
Dear Site Commander,
How is it that there is so much discussion devoted to Mark Twain in a site ostensibly devoted to Jane Austen? Just wondering ...
Dear unsigned,
Maybe we were led astray onto that subject because of our interest in what Mark Twain said about Jane Austen. Another excuse might be the Male Voices Cardinal Rule: Just about anything, anybody, anytime. That rule is strictly enforced.
A more important point is that the vast majority of discussion at this site is about Jane Austen. You can verify that by checking the Table of Contents or the Index for the site.
Links