SOS Critical Lens Experts - Marxist Lens

Doreatha Drummond Mbalia’s “Song of Solomon: Struggle for Race and Class Consciousness” is an interesting analysis on the Marxist ideals in the book The Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison. The one idea that Doreatha Mbalia discusses is the idea of “class  suicide”.  “Class Suicide” is term that Mbalia talks about where Milkman Dead gives up his ties to high society in order to stop being part of the oppressing class. Of course this does not happen immediately and Mablia talks about how Milkman throughout the book learns about his class and race. Eventually, he becomes class and race conscious which leads to him deciding on “class suicide”. Although this idea is valid, Mbalia last statement on The Song Solomon’s Marxist critique talks about how the book has a lack of solution to the problems of capitalism. This is true but the solution maybe that the problems of capitalism are solved with a lack of a solution. Mabalia’s analysis on the idea of “class suicide” is strong but Toni Morrison’s solution to the problem maybe a laissez faire approach.

Mbalia’s justifications for the idea of class suicide is best explained with the character Macon “Milkman” Dead III.  For a large part of the book he is following his father Macon Dead II who is a ruthless landlord. Milkman decides to follow in the footsteps becoming the oppressive class. Mbalia talked about one of the first instances of Milkman’s class consciousness with the character of Pilate. The character of Pilate Dead is the aunt of Milkman. She is known to be poor and yet Milkman says, “And while she looked as poor as everyone said she was, something was missing from her eyes that should have confirmed it.” (Morrison 73) This quote used in Mbalia’s analysis shows how Pilate does not care that she is poor. Rather she embraces it and makes it one of her strengths. This must of had an effect on Milkman and must have made him realize that money did not make up everything. Another aspect that Mbalia talks about is Guitar and the seven days. The seven days is organization that Guitar, Milkman’s best friend, is apart of. The purpose of the organization is to start revenge killings on whites to avenge the innocent killings of blacks. This is especially shown when Milkman says “But people who lynch and slice off people’s balls— they’re crazy, Guitar, crazy.” (Morrison 261) This quote selection from Mbalia shows how Milkman can the extremes that blacks would go in order to seek justice but does not want except this. With this exposure, Milkman can gain some race consciousness. The analysis that Doreatha Drummond Mbalia does is shows a great understand but fall off on the analysis The Song of Solomon’s solution or rather lack of solution to the problems of capitalism. Mbalia talks how the at the ending that Milkman’s giving up and “surrendering to the air” does not show a proper solution to capitalism for Milkman. Although this is valid criticism, did Milkman ever had a chance for “class suicide”? Even if he had gotten back to his black roots and gotten rid of his ties to higher society, his parents would be stuck in the system. Also Hagar would still be dead because of his selfish actions. Lastly it would not change that the society in the 1930’s were still not great to blacks. Milkman’s “class suicide” would be insignificant compared to the entire society. Like Ruth’s father, he tried to “fly” but failed to do so. This would mean that Morrison might have been making fun of the fact that really is no solution. Just as ridiculous as humans flapping their wings to fly the idea of Milkman escaping oppression and racism is just as ridiculous.

Doreatha Drummond Mbalia’s analysis on how Milkman Macon gains class and race consciousness is a great showing of the ideas of Toni Morrison. Through the Mbalia’s analysis, she is able to show how Toni Morrison was making a story of Milkman’s self discovery and eventually to his “class suicide.”  Although this is valid, Mbalia’s points fall off at the end of her critique of Toni Morrison’s ending to The Song of Solomon. The ending for the book may have been metaphor that the idea of “class suicide” may not be possible even with the experience Milkman went through. It begs the question, for Milkman to become more close to his black roots, why does he need to give up all his wealth? The Song of Solomon makes it seem that capital is why Milkman is apart of the oppressing class. Whatever the case, Macon “Milkman” Dead might gone through the necessary steps for class consciousness by the end it may have not been enough to stop problems of capitalism.

HF Critical Lens Experts

   I feel that this book could definitely be viewed as a racist to some people and find it as offensive. But also it could be seen as a lesson to others and be viewed from a different perspective. Reason being is because some readers may not support the form of language that the book is demonstrated and believe that the book in overall should be banned. Just like Julius Lester said that he, “sympathize with those who want the book banned, or at least removed from from required reading lists in school.” I agree with Lester on this but one different view of mine compared to his is that the book should not just be removed from all grade levels, I agree that kids should not be reading this in school but I believe those students in higher level of education should be able to have it available to them if they want to read it. The reason why I believe this it’s because it could get the reader thinking and be able to read this book and get the two sides of a story and see how people thought of slavery in the era the book was written. In the book we read how Mark Twain is racist but we are able to see how people who are “racist” to us view their country and see their morals. Another thing that Lester said is that the author is a young man that does not care so much about anything else besides himself and causes the author to have no sympathy towards slavery. He’s previous comment from Twain that he doesn't take anything seriously except himself is that he made a comparison between slavery and him being locked in a cabin by a drunken father and we clearly see what Lester is talking about. We know slavery and being locked by a father is very different but then again, Twain is just a 14 year old boy who doesn't exactly understand.

SoS Critical Lens Experts- Psychoanalytical Lens

From the perspective of the psychoanalytic lens, Jan Furman’s analysis of Song of Solomon from her book ‘Male Consciousness’ is an interesting look at why Morrison had mostly male viewpoint characters, most of whom were desperate for, or assumed they already had, control over their life. Furman points out that Morrison has an idea of ‘masculinity’ that she thinks appears in most men’s thought processes and that she has tried to convey through the different characters in the story. In some ways, this is true. All of the male characters in the book, especially the main characters are seeking to ‘dominate’ most of the people who they come in contact with. However, to me what Macon, Milkman and Guitar have in common is not their urge to control but their search for freedom, though both Macon and Guitar fail due to preconceived notions of what freedom should be.

Focusing more on Macon Dead, Jan Furman states that ‘Macon Dead’s hearse’ (the car he sometimes drives around town) serves as a perfect symbol of everything about Macon’s life. Though he is rich, his car is a showpiece that no one respects- all of his relationships are cold, grey, and heavy and he treats his family like his car- as a possession that enhances his standing in the eyes of the community. I completely agree with the symbolism of Macon’s automobile. By calculating his worth from the amount of valuable things he owns, Macon guarantees that he will never be valued for himself.

Continuing on to the main character, Milkman starts of the plot of the book with a self-examination so shallow that the conclusion he draws from his moment of introspection only serves to illuminate his flaws. Furman comments that this is when his archetypal hero’s journey begins as he starts the adventure that will lead him to his freedom, though the freedom he eventually finds will be spiritual, not material, in its effect on Milkman’s life. Though this is a good summation, an important point to notice is that Milkman in in his thirties- a decade older at least than most coming of age stories. At the time the story takes place, Milkman is already an adult in a physical sense of the word. Thus, Milkman’s story is less about discovering who he will be than learning who he is, and why he doesn’t want to be like that anymore.

SoS Critical Lens Close Reading - Biographical/Historical Lens

"A young Negro boy had been found stomped to death in Sunflower County, Mississippi. There were no questions about who stomped him - his murderers had boasted freely - and there were no questions about the motive. The boy had whistled at some white woman, refused to deny he had slept with others, and was a Northerner visiting the South. His name was Till...'I'm serious now, ' Hospital Tommy went on. 'There is no cause for all this. The boy's dead. His mama's screaming. Won't let them bury him. That ought to be enough colored blood on the streets. You want to spill blood, spill the Crackers' blood that bashed his face in.' 'Oh, they'll catch them,' said Walters. 'Catch 'em? Catch 'em?' Porter was astounded. 'You out of your f***** mind? They'll catch ’em, all right, and give ’em a big party and a medal.' 'Yeah. The whole town planning a parade,' said Nero. 'They got to catch ’em.' 'So they catch ’em. You think they’ll get any time? Not on your life!' 'How can they not give ’em time?' Walters’ voice was high and tight. 'How? Just don’t, that’s how.' Porter fidgeted with his watch chain. 'But everybody knows about it now. It’s all over. Everywhere. The law is the law.' 'You wanna bet? This is sure money!' 'You stupid, man. Real stupid. Ain’t no law for no colored man except the one sends him to the chair,' said Guitar. 'They say Till had a knife,' Freddie said. 'They always say that. He could of had a wad of bubble gum, they’d swear it was a hand grenade.' 'I still say he shoulda kept his mouth shut,' said Freddie. 'You should keep yours shut,' Guitar told him. 'Hey, man!' Again Freddie felt the threat. 'South’s bad,' Porter said. 'Bad. Don’t nothing change in the good old U.S. of A. Bet his daddy got his balls busted off in the Pacific somewhere.' 'If they ain’t busted already, them crackers will see to it. Remember them soldiers in 1918?'”

In this passage of Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison, several men including Milkman and Guitar are talking about and discussing the death of a boy from the North, Till. Till had whistled at a white woman and denied other accusations and was killed by white men because of it. The main issue at hand that the men are talking about is how because Till was Black and not White and his killers were White and not Black, no sort of kind of justice will be served to him because of the segregation and unequal treatment of the two races. One man states how the law doesn't really apply to Black people unless it's to send them to prison or a death sentence.

The first thing I noticed when reading this passage are the clear differences between how Milkman and Guitar are reacting to the crime and how their beliefs in racism are so different. Milkman is kind of numb to all of the racism and not very reactive towards any racist remarks or racial slurs. He does not at all talkative in this particular conversation, and he does not seem to know how exactly to react to the information being presented in front of him by the other men participating in the conversation. I believe this to be in part of his upper-class bringing and shelter from the lower-class as he was being raised. Guitar, on the other hand, is extremely sensitive towards racism and is very offended by racial remarks and racial slurs. He is very talkative during this particular discussion. Guitar is quite the opposite of Milkman when it comes to this situation, also partially because of his lower-class upbringing rather than Milkman's upper-class upbringing.

The second thing I noticed when reading this passage is a parallel to a current event of today. When Freddie says, "They say Till had a knife. They always say that. He could of had a wad of bubble gum, they'd swear it was a hand grenade," it reminded me of the past shooting of Trayvon Martin, where supposedly an iced tea and a packet of candy were mistaken for possible weapons. In both this real life crime and the crime stated in Song of Solomon, a Black boy is killed by others for rather confusing reasons. There is a huge gap in the years in which the book was written (1977) and in which the crime took place (2012), yet the two crimes presented seem to be very similar.

SOS Responding and Reflecting - Marxist Lens

Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison is an interesting take of the black experience during the 1920’s to the 1930’s. One of the more interesting aspects is the characterization of the character of Macon Dead Jr. He is the father of Macon “Milkman” Dead and is portrayed as a ruthless landlord. The extend he goes to get rent from his clients is appalling. In the first chapter, he goes to the house of a drunk who is out of control and threatening people with a gun. Instead of calming down the drunk, he tries to see if he can get the drunk’s rent. This ruthlessness makes it seem that Macon Dead Jr. is bad person. I believe this is not the case as I think that the society of the character can change people to the point where they become the villain.

To go over why Macon Dead Jr. is the villain portrayed in the early sections of the books, we must look at his past. I think the best source to explain Macon Jr.’s villainy is dad, the original Macon Dead.   Macon Jr. says when talking about his dad, “Everything bad that ever happened to him happened because he couldn’t read.  Got his name messed up cause he couldn’t read…” (Morrison 99).  Macon Jr. is right. This starts with Macon’s name. His father was called Macon Dead because a mistake a drunk Union soldier made when registering the first Macon Dead after the end of the civil war. The Dead name has humiliated the entire family for generations. The same illiteracy was the reason for the name given to Pilate which humiliated her at birth. Lastly, Macon’s illiteracy became the reason why he died. After he was tricked into signing his land, Macon Dead fought to the death to protect his land. Obviously his missteps affected Macon Jr. but the question remains why he became so ruthless. Based on what I have read, I think he became so ruthless to escape the missteps of his father. After his father died, he was shocked and he did not want the same fate to happen to him. I think he thought the best way to up his chances of survival was to emulate the people who killed his father. The people who killed his father were whites who tricked him to selling the land over to them. These whites owned land which gave them power in this society. This made them almost untouchable and it allowed to do abuse people like the first Macon Dead. I think that Macon Dead Jr. not only wanted to have that kind of power in the society but would go at extreme lengths in order to get it. Macon Jr. might have succeed but at a cost.

Macon Dead Jr. is an interesting character that the author Toni Morrison has created. He seems like he was trying to help himself by attaining higher status in his society. Although the main question is at what cost? He caused deep emotional scars in his family. He became known as ruthless, unsympathetic landlord but his family was living comfortably. So was it worth it? I think that Toni Morrison wrote this character to represent the attainment of high status. He did not only attain the power the whites who oppressed his father but also became the same kind of villain in the process. The villainization of Macon Dead may show that the society can change people to become something that they were oppressed by.

Feminist Lens - Final Reflection

Everything ranging from art to literature to perhaps the most trivial of things are capable of being interpreted to mean anything, depending on what the reader wants to see. A particularly relevant example are the books that we just got through reading these past few months. Huckleberry Finn and Song of Solomon both have many strong societal focuses, whether it regard race, gender, class, and so on. It is just a matter of which focus one chooses to prioritize in the reading that could completely change the messages of the book.

While I read these books, I focused on the two authors’ attitudes towards gender roles in their contextual societies, which gave me a pretty good look at how the issue might have been represented during that time period in reality. In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain’s message was more along the lines of the fact that gender roles are not inherent; rather they are learned, and the women in society who are constantly penalized for their femininity are really the only ones who pick up on this fact. In contrast, Toni Morrison in Song of Solomon focuses more on the aspect of how men specifically are entitled to their superior positions entirely on the sole basis that they are men. 

By focusing on this lens, I was able to really open my mind to how gender issues are represented and pull out the author’s opinions on them, without getting distracted by other ideas, which at many times appear far more distinct than the one that I am looking for. The downside to a single focus is I end up only hearing about one thing and ignoring all of the other viewpoints and issues that the author is trying to make a statement about. I think that in order to really get the most out of a text, a reader would have to read it multiple times with different singular focuses each time. That way they can analyze the text without distractions, and still not miss any other important statements that the text may contain.  

Feminist Lens - Responding and Reflecting (SOS)

Through the relationships between the book’s main focus character, Milkman Dead, and the female figures in his life, Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison serves as a reminder that issues of sexism and misogyny are quite evident even within a completely separate issue, such as the black struggle in the post-slavery society that Song of Solomon is based. Morrison’s main focus regarding gender inequality in society in regards to her book was that men receive special treatment simply on the basis of being a man. Between Lena’s rant to Milkman and Macon’s weekly car rides with him family, the men in the Dead family in particular feel entitled to things, and treat the rest of the family as property to show off, and put to maid-work without any gratitude for their service. In fact, where Milkman and his father Macon are concerned, their unfaltering hatred for the women in their households and the over-prioritization of material wealth rather than love only elevates the illusion of respect from white counterparts, and affects their strive for equality that much further. 

What the inequality between the races and the sexes have in common is they are both still almost just as great an issue today as they were in the context that the Toni Morrison described them in Song of Solomon. Today, some family units are not so far off from what was described in the book. Women and African Americans alike are still fighting for their equality and respect in our white-male dominated society today, and while progress has been made in terms of laws since the context of the books, individual opinions are hard to change with the simple sign of a bill, and are each are still huge topics of debate. 

SoS Close Reading Critical Lens- Psychoanalytical Lens

“You think because he doesn’t love you that you are worthless. You think because he doesn’t want you anymore that he is right–that his judgment and opinion of you are correct. If he throws you out, then you are garbage. You think he belongs to you because you want to belong to him. Hagar, don’t. It’s a bad word, ‘belong.’ Especially when you put it with somebody you love. Love shouldn’t be like that. Did you ever see the way the clouds love a mountain? They circle all around it; sometimes you can’t even see the mountain for the clouds. But you know what? You go up top and what do you see? His head. The clouds never cover the head. His head pokes through, because the clouds let him; they don’t wrap him up. They let him keep his head up high, free, with nothing to hide him or bind him. Hear me, Hagar?” He spoke to her as he would to a very young child. “You can’t own a human being. You can’t lose what you don’t own. Suppose you did own him. Could you really love somebody who was absolutely nobody without you? You really want somebody like that? Somebody who falls apart when you walk out the door? You don’t, do you? And neither does he. You’re turning over your whole life to him. Your whole life, girl. And if it means so little to you that you can just give it away, hand it to him, then why should it mean any more to him? He can’t value you more than you value yourself.” (Morrison, 495-496)

This lecture is actually between the two main antagonists of the story, with Guitar telling Hagar that her love for Macon is hollow, and that she shouldn't fall apart just because he dumped her. Sadly, this lecture falls on deaf ear, with Hagar nearly killing Milkman in an effort to reconcile her worldview with the way the world actually is.

I chose this excerpt because it shed an interesting light on the various actions of the two people who actively try to harm Milkman. In many ways, this paragraph strips Hagar down to the basics of her character- the problem being, that she doesn't really have one. As Guitar put it, she feels like she is nothing without Milkman. Despite this, Hagar is not a flat character. Indeed, her problem is one of the main points of story- women who love men too much will end up used, abused, or abandoned, depending on the man. Though not a very pleasant message, it is in keeping with most of the female characters in the story who suffer various forms of abuse and neglect.

The other character this text sheds light on is Guitar, the one who is speaking. By giving a clear summation of the situation, he shows himself capable of clear thinking. However, most of his antagonistic qualities come from the irrational hatred he has of all the white men of the setting, seeing them all as personally responsible for the poverty he grew up with.

As the story continues, it becomes more and more obvious that both Hagar and Guitar are victims of the society that shaped them, unable to extricate their identities from the Blood Bank where they were raised.

Feminist Lens - Critical Lens Experts (SOS)

As discussed in the previous entry, the character Milkman is depicted as being selfish, thankful, and otherwise self-centered towards everybody, including his own mother and sisters as detailed in the rant he gets from his sister, Lena, stating, “You have yet to wash your own underwear, spread a bed, wipe the ring from your tub, or move a fleck of your dirt from one place to another. And to this day, you have never asked one of us if we were tired, or sad, or wanted a cup of coffee.” To an extent Milkman had begun to take after his father’s attitudes, in which he only values material wealth and the respect of others as a result of said wealth, with no real respect towards any other person if it means to inconvenience him. As Jan Furman writes in her analysis of gender roles in Song of Solomon titled Male Consciousness, “As it was with his father, family for Milkman was a burdensome afterthought… His interactions with them -all women- is mostly an exercise of male prerogative.” By this, Furman goes on to describe that, because Milkman only extends favors to anybody if it benefits himself, when he struck at his father for beating his mother, Milkman described the feeling as a “snorting, horse-galloping glee as old as desire.” This goes to show that his intentions for besting his father were not so much as to defend his mother as it was to exert his own dominance within his family household. 

Before reading Furman’s analysis, I interpreted Milkman’s attitudes simply as a result of society’s elevating of masculine roles above feminine ones, which would thus explain his egocentrism in the face of the other women in his life, but I didn’t really connect it to being a result of his Father’s influence on him additionally. This understanding of Milkman's influences and priorities as a result of them aided my comprehension of his character development as the book progresses, most particularly through the events following Milkman’s “necessary but unfortunately shallow self-examination,” as a result of Lena’s rant.

Feminist Lens - Close Reading (SOS)

Text: Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison

Lens: Feminist Lens

“You’ve been laughing at us all your life. Corinthians. Mama. Me. Using us, ordering us, and judging us: how we cook your food; how we keep your house… Who are you to approve or disapprove anybody or anything? I was breathing air in the world thirteen years before your lungs were even formed….  but now you know what's best for the very woman who wiped the dribble from your chin because you were too young to know how to spit. Our girlhood was spent like a found nickel on you. When you slept, we were quiet; when you were hungry, we cooked; when you wanted to play, we entertained you; and when you got grown enough to know the difference between a woman and a two-toned Ford, everything in this house stopped for you… You have yet to wash your own underwear, spread a bed, wipe the ring from your tub, or move a fleck of your dirt from one place to another. And to this day, you have never asked one of us if we were tired, or sad, or wanted a cup of coffee. You’ve never picked up anything heavier than your own feet, or solved a problem harder than fourth-grade arithmetic. Where do you get the right to decide our lives?... I’ll tell you where. From that hog’s gut that hangs down between your legs. Well, let me tell you something, baby brother: you will need more than that.” (Morrison, pg 215)

In this passage from Song of Solomon, Lena, Milkman’s older sister, is lecturing him about the disrespect he pays towards women, particularly to those who reside within in his own household. Lena describes the efforts the girls went through during their lives after Milkman was born as being “spent like a found nickel.” In this metaphor, Lena compares the efforts she and the girls put into raising Milkman to how a child would spend a nickel on a pleasantry without any sentiment because they didn’t even need to work to earn it. All his life, Milkman didn’t have to work for any of the things he received, and even after he was capable of “know[ing] the difference between a woman and a two-toned Ford,” he still took all of the girl’s efforts for granted and never did a single thing to pay them back. In fact, while the girls spent his entire childhood doing motherly tasks including cooking, entertaining, etc. Milkman, as capable as he is, wont even bother to do menial tasks like “mov[ing] a fleck of [his] dirt from one place to another.”

This can be connected to a certain attitude of male privilege which existed in Milkman’s society, and within Milkman himself, which is a term that defines the social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are only made available to men solely on the basis of their sex. Lena makes an effort to devalue him further by insulting the only thing that gives Milkman leverage in society, which she calls the “hog’s gut that hangs down between [his] legs”. At the end of her tangent, Lena refers to Milkman as “baby brother” in order to further remind him exactly where he stands in the family hierarchy, and reinforce the fact that they are done putting up with his disrespect and underappreciation and for their work and his misogynistic attitudes have absolutely no value in their household.

HF Critical Lens Close Reading - Marxist Lens

“When the duke had got the men very excited and eager to see the show, he opened the curtain and the king came out. He was completely naked and his body was painted every bright color imaginable. He looked wild, but it was very funny. The people almost died laughing. The king did a kind of little dance, and the men laughed louder. They stood up and cheered louder, and the king returned and did the dance one more time. Then he left the stage. The duke closed the curtain and bowed to the men and said that the show would be performed two more times. He said that he was sorry that they could not perform it more often, but that they must soon return to London. He said if they had succeeded in pleasing them, to please ask other men in the town to come to see the show. Twenty people shouted, “What? Has the show ended? Is that all?” Suddenly, the angry crowd stood up and began to move toward the stage. Then a tall, good-looking gentleman jumped up and stood on a chair, shouting, “Stop! Listen to me. We were tricked! We’ve been made to look like fools. But do we want the entire town laughing at us. No! What we have to do is to leave here quietly, tell the others that it was a great show, and try to get all the men of the town to come to see it. Then we’ll all be fools together.”” (Twain 84-5)

In the quotation, the characters the Duke and the King execute their shakespeare play scam. After advertising a shakespeare play for a men only crowd, the King would go on stage naked and dance for a little. After the short dance the play would be over. The crowd gets angry over being scammed but instead of initially mobbing the Duke and the King, they pretend that the play was good in order to trick the rest of the town.

The first interesting aspect is that the Duke and the King are given nicknames that are often synonymous with the rich. Initially this can be interpreted as the Duke and the King can represent the rich. When the King goes up on the stage naked he is described as “wild” and Huckleberry finds the experience funny. Then everyone laughs. After the king is gives his closing speech. The people in the crowd realized that were scammed. One question to ask is that did the crowd deserve being scammed? The crowd went to this event, paid for it then expected a supposed result. They went to a show that was advertised with the tagline, “WOMEN AND CHILDREN NOT ADMITTED”. What they probably expected was an adult, men only explicit yet it doesn’t change the fact that the poster was describing a bunch of shakespeare plays performed by two guys. Regardless what the little substance the show had, the audience got what they paid for. In a wider sense, what did the crowd pay for? In Marxist view, this could be reliance on the system of human exploitation for capital. The south was a society that relied on the use of slaves to do their work. The slaves were bought and sold like everyday objects. They did the chores and housework. Like the play, the people of the south initially saw the practice good as it made them money, made their lives easier and gave them higher place in their society. Maybe like the crowd they saw downside in the ways. The practice was taking the way the slaves rights and it was dehumanizing them. Exactly how the play was advertised, this aspect was always there. The play was always a sub-par shakespearean play performed by two men exactly like how slavery was always going to be the exploitation of people for self benefit.

Yet the “scam” was not the only thing to happen. Instead of lynching the Duke and the King, the crowd decide to trick the rest of the town so they can share the embarrassment. The scam scene shows an interesting dilemma. The crowd decides to bring other people in to the scam rather than condemning the actual con artists. If we continue the analogy from earlier, then this means that the south may have realized the true nature of slavery but instead of condemning the actual cause they decide to be “...all be fools together.” The south not only was ashamed of the use of slavery but in a way to amend what they have done they brought others into the “scam”. For the crowd deciding not to condemn the root cause makes it seem that the use of human capital caused the south to go at extreme lengths to protect the very practice the got them there in the first place. This demonstrates the coward nature of south. The slaves did not show the superiority that was often used in it practice. It showed the true nature of the south which was a representation of the inherent danger of relying on certain economic systems and shows the cowardly lengths some might go to protect them.

Feminist Lens - Responding and Reflecting (HF)

The society in which Huckleberry Finn is based is founded on a number of attitudes which we would consider problematic today, such as racism, classism, and most relevantly, sexism. While we have come quite a long way since the 1850’s by actually recognizing and speaking up about these attitudes, they still exist very strongly in our own society almost a century and a half after the fact. While at face value, Mark Twain’s writing can be mistaken for validating a lot of evil that occurred in his time. However, the text could also be interpreted as a fairly progressive statement on a number of issues, if analyzed with a trained eye. 

One of these issues, specifically, is the general attitude towards feminine roles. The absence of any important or impactful female roles exhibits the male dominance which existed in 1850’s society, despite how the few women who are described in the text are just as qualified -if not moreso- to have a leading role in said society as any man. Twain touches on this issue mostly through the character Judith Loftus, in which her alleged female-specific ability to recognize and teach the gender binary as seen in chapter 11 proves that women are intelligent, have incredible attention to detail, and that while they aware of their position in society, they know exactly how to fool a man as to perhaps get the best of their unequal stature. 

Today, women in our society have a lot more opportunities than how they did in Mark Twain’s time: between being able to vote, have a job, be in positions of power, and so on, it is clear that we have come a long way. However, we are still facing a lot of discrimination today just through people’s individual conservative and sexist points of view. Besides the older generations, the main offenders include those who title themselves as ‘Meninists’, who are usually young male individuals who believe that the movement for equality between the genders is allegedly “oppressing men.” These misogynistic attitudes that exists in our current society sound similarly to how they did in the context of the book, although now with less strength from laws and such no longer exist to help support their views. 

Mark Twain’s commentary on the female position in society serves as a nearly timeless reminder that gender discrimination is a very real problem that exists, and needs to be destroyed. While of course I am glad that the statement is included in such a respected piece of literature, (depending on where it’s banned), it almost saddens me that it is still relevant a whole 130 years after it was initially composed. 

HF Responding and Reflecting- Psychoanalytical Lens

While reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I found myself comparing it to other coming of age stories that I have read in the past. This has lead to some interesting interesting inferences about Huck’s journey, both ethical and physical, throughout the story. Before I read Huckleberry Finn, I had thought that many Northern ‘free’ states were aware that slavery was wrong, but the laws and tradition that surrounded it made it hard to stop. Now, though, when I read  about Huck’s struggle with the fact that he had been taught that it was morally right to own (and turn in) slaves, as well as most people in the story immediately stereotyping Jim as being at the root of any problem that he is even mildly involved in, my perception of the pre-Civil War North, has changed.

Mark Twain uses the inherent helplessness of the characters present in the storyline for everything from comedy to drama. This is framed perfectly with his two main characters, Huck and Jim. When Huck runs away from his abusive father, he expects help from no one, because he fears that they would be unable to protect him from his father, due to the fact they could not protect him in the past. When Jim runs away from his owner, he fears he is about to be sold to a man he knows nothing about, and separated from his family. At the end of the book, Mark Twain wraps up both of these issues by setting Jim free and killing off Huck’s dad, ending the current conflict. However, I received a new perspective on these events when reading Henry Smith’s critique. In his critique, he points out the lack of realism in this kind of ending. What I realized, though, was that neither Huck nor Jim have managed to achieve anything in the book that helped solve their own problems- all of their problems were solved by other people. In many ways, this observation perfectly captures the inherent problems with the book- though Huck managed to develop a better moral compass, he is still unable to change his place in life.

HF Responding and Reflecting

In “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain, this book seems to be quite unique to the society of today. Matter fact it is very different because of the context and background in which the book was written in. Mark Twain appears to be very straight forward when it come to race issues and discussion that are occurring especially towards black people. One example is the use of the “n” word several times throughout the story and it also seems to fit the format of the text but at the same time it could come out as offensive today. Mark Twain like I said is straight-forward and very blunt when it comes to the use of the “n” word. To me I believe this action being exercised is not a huge deal for me because I like to see the reality of things and I feel that Mark Twain does a good job expressing his opinions and views of this era. It helps us see the difference of the older era and today. We see where this country was and the direction it has taken while seeing the changes of this country. Although one thing that has not yet changed is racism. Even though more than 100 years have past, we could see some similarities today compared to this story. Although when this story was written, slavery had ended a couple decades before but people were still furious for this action. White people just didn’t support the fact that slaves were free. It makes sense that Mark Twain also would explicit say the “n” word because people were used to this word and for them the meaning was to describe a certain group of people.   

HF Critical Lens Experts- Psycological Lens

From the psychoanalytical lens, Henry Nash Smith’s critique of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from his book ‘A Sound Heart and a Deformed Conscience’ appears to come from Mark Twain’s use of Huck Finn as the narrator of the story. Since Huck is the viewpoint character, his continual use of slang, and his uneducated accent make up a large amount of the text. In some ways, I agree with Henry Smith. By making Huckleberry the narrator, there is much less of a disconnect between the voice of the narrator and all the other characters inside the novel. However, I think that the true potential that Huck has as first person narrator is the unique insight into his character development. Huck’s overall ethical standpoint has been changing throughout the entire novel, so that by the time Tom Sawyer re-enters the picture, Huck is now much more capable of figuring out that Tom is a rather selfish individual.

Another part of the book that Henry Smith pointed out was that in most parts of the novel, Huck and Jim’s main and only recourse is to run away, since they are both powerless and most of their society, albeit for very different reasons. Huck is, and is proud of being, an uncivilized youth. Keeping this in mind, he cannot understand complex issues, and, unless his developing moral compass demands it, will run away when he is over matched. Jim is unable to do anything but run away because he is a black escaped slave in the South, with a bounty on him. As Huck so nearly demonstrates in one chapter, even a child could cause him to lose his freedom with the simple mailing of a letter to his bounty hunters.

The final part of the critique that I agree with is that Mark Twain wrote this story in such a way that it was impossible for Huck or Jim to ever actually find the freedom they were looking for. For example, the book ends with Jim receiving news of his freedom- however, he is still black in an era where he is most definitely a second class citizen, and he still lacks any skills outside of those he learned while in slavery. To put it another way, he is not significantly better off than he was when he and Huck were ‘adventuring’. Huck’s desire to go out West is equally implausible- what will likely happen is that the Widow Douglas will take him back, and he’ll live with her until Tom comes up with something else for them to do. Though better of than Jim, Huck will also never experience the freedom that he thinks he wants.

HF Critical Lens Experts - Marxist Lens

“The Form of Freedom In Huckleberry Finn” (1970) by Alan Trachtenberg is an interesting analysis of the class structure within antebellum society. Alan takes a long analytical look at the book and reaches a conclusion on the idea of “freedom”. When Huckleberry helps Jim the slave, he discusses how Huckleberry is going against his societal norms where even being friends with a slave was considered taboo. Through these actions, Alan concludes that Jim’s freedom from slavery was nothing compared to Huckleberry’s “freedom” from societal norms. Although Alan Trachtenberg does admit Huckleberry is a naif, Alan’s analysis can be contested on the  basis that Huckleberry’s “freedom” may not have been truly earned as by the end of the book as he still is the same, literal naif narrator.

To understand Alan Trachtenberg’s reasoning, we can look back at the raft scene. After Huckleberry tricks Jim in thinking that the fog was a dream, Jim says, “I was so happy that I wanted to get down on my knees and kiss your feet. But what were you thinking? Only how you could trick old Jim and make him seem to be a fool.” (Twain 52) Based on the passage, one can assume that Huckleberry learns that Jim has feeling for him and through this event Huckleberry becomes more tolerant. Initially this reasoning may seem valid, it completely disregards the ending in which Huckleberry narrates, “I may leave for the Indian Territory without waiting for Tom and Jim because Aunt Sally wants to make me her son and raise me in a proper manner, and I cannot endure that. I’ve been there before.” (Twain 157) To summarize, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ’s ending has Huckleberry Finn planning to leave to go out west because he does not want to be adopted by Aunt Sally. After all of Huckleberry been through, he is still not “free” from the southern society’s norms. The simple fact that he allowed Tom to take advantage of Jim’s circumstance is representative of his misunderstanding of how south society's policies are flawed. Additionally, Huckleberry ends his story by saying he is going to move west. Huckleberry’s words make the situation seem meanless. He dismisses the fact that he almost had Jim go back into the institution of slavery. Huckleberry’s casual remarks shows that he has not grown much as a character and is not truly “free”. Lastly, if Huckleberry Finn had the “freedom” that Alan Trachtenberg describes then would Huckleberry apologize to Jim? This makes Huckleberry the same, naif narrator proving he is not “free”.

Alan Trachtenberg points on “freedom” are valid to a certain extent as Huckleberry does learn to see a Jim as a person. For a time where the rampant racism and class structure of south made blacks seem inferior this is a step up from complete prejudice. This raises the question is this enough to sway a child like Huckleberry Finn from the childhood of the racial superiority of the whites? The answer is still no has Huckleberry still can not understand how this superiority effect people like Jim. Some can interpret this as Mark Twain’s comment on the southern society and how the society might have been still unable to get away from the class structure even if presented a way out.  

HF Responding and Reflecting - Biographical/Historical Lens

Throughout my years in school, this is now the fourth time I have read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in a school setting. Each time I've read the novel, there has never been one particular focus in how I was reading. The assignments were far more based off of the content and events that took place in the book, rather than having to make connections and draw inferences from what I was reading. I believe that this gave me an advantage in reading the book through the Biographical/Historical lens because I didn't have to focus so hard on what was happening. Instead, I could think about what was happening in United States history in parallel to what was happening at that time in the novel.

For example, it never really struck me in the past at how odd and unusual the relationship between Huck Finn and Jim was for that time. Had the same relationship been in place in current times, no one would think anything out of the ordinary about it. If anything, people would see Jim as much more of a mentor or big brother figure to Huck Finn, rather than just a Black man. But in those times, Huck Finn for sure would have been shamed and frowned upon for so much as talking to a Black man in the same way he would talk to a White man. There's also the event where after Huck plays a mean prank on Jim, he apologizes. Again, this sort of action would be positively reacted upon had it occurred in times like today. However in the 1800's and 1900's, being a White boy apologizing to a Black man was seen as a sort of sin. It was almost as if in doing so and apologizing, Huck was treating Jim and putting him on a social level equal to Huck's. 

In reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn through the biographical/historical lens, I've also been able to view and interpret one of my favorite scenes in the book in a completely different way. There's a scene when Huck Finn is off of the river and disguises himself as a young girl, but then has to continue to prove him "being a girl" to a woman he encounters. Throughout the scene, we as the reader can tell that the woman is skeptical of Huck being a girl, and she continues to ask him to perform certain "womanly" tasks, such as sewing. Later when he's been discovered, one point the woman brought up is that he threw like a man, not like a girl. This reminds me a lot now of events in the feminist movement today that weren't nearly as existent in the times of the novel. In 1845, the feminist movement had basically not been founded yet, as the 1900's are really when women started to speak up, leading up to the 1920's when women were finally able to vote. Nowadays feminism and women's rights are HUGE, and I think the comparison of the eras is very interesting and the scene in the novel can really highlight how the movement has evolved throughout history.

Feminist Lens - Critical Lens Experts (HF)

Text: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Critical Lens: Feminist lens

Recently, I read an article regarding the critical lens analysis of an excerpt of my particular interest called Reading Gender in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Myra Jehlen, a Board of Governors Professor of English at Rutgers University. In her article, she wrote an in-depth analysis of the excerpt that I did my own close reading of in the previous entry, so it was interesting to read a higher-level analysis of a scene that I already have existing opinions about.

In the excerpt from the book, Huck Finn goes into town disguised as a woman in order to learn what the town knows about his disappearance. The first house he happened across was occupied by a woman new to the area by the name Mrs. Loftus and after a short conversation and a series of trials, she was able to see right through Huck’s disguise. Afterwards, Mrs. Loftus proceeded to educate Huck on how to properly act like a girl, as to aid his disguise in the future.

Jehlen goes on to explain that the fact that Mrs. Loftus is able to recognise gender-specific stereotypes and then teach Huck the differences proves that said mannerisms are actually more of a concept of nurture rather than nature, and simply an act put on to fit in with the expectations of the society she lives in. She writes, “Femininity, as Judith Loftus has here defined it, is something that women do, as a composite activity made up certain acts they perform well and others they as skillfully perform badly, or perhaps most skillfully not at all. Masculinity is the equal and opposite condition.” (Jehlen, pg 513) Nobody is necessarily born good or bad at any given task; an individual must learn and practice a over time in order to become proficient in anything at all. For instance, Twain writes, “Why, I spotted you for a boy when you was threading the needle; and I contrived the other things just to make certain.” (Twain, pg 53) In this scene, Mrs. Loftus teaches Huck that women are expected to be good at threading needles, bad at throwing, and catch things in their skirt rather than between their knees, while men are expected to perform with the opposite amount of skill for each of the tasks. In Mrs. Loftus’s particular time, certain expectations existed in society which limited the activities each gender could actively participate in, which explains how women never got the opportunities to practice the same skills as men, and vice versa.

Furthermore, as Jehlen writes, “With Huck sitting in Mrs. Loftus’s kitchen got up like a girl, nothing any longer is given, anyone can be anything.” (Jehlen, pg 515) By introducing this new idea that gender belongs to the concept of nurture rather than nature through the voice of Mrs. Loftus, Twain may also be hinting at the possibility that the entire concept of gender itself is arbitrary. Just as I had brought up in my previous entry, the very fact that Mrs. Loftus is literally teaching Huck how to act feminine by telling him about a few of the stereotypical things that differentiates feminine and masculine mannerisms proves how gender stereotypes don’t actually come with your assigned sex at all. Rather, they are learned by living and growing in a society that expects these mannerisms out of its citizens, and anyone who may spot the ruse (such as in Mrs. Loftus’ case,) will have to act within these expectations despite their actual capabilities for the sake of fitting in.

While I was reading the scene myself, I could recognize the fact that women seem to be better equipped at recognizing heteronormativity and stereotypical mannerisms between gender, hence the line, “You do a girl tolerable poor, but you could fool a man maybe.” (Twain pg 52) Based on this text, I could assume that that Twain was trying to hint at the existence of heteronormativity and the enforcing of gender stereotypes in society, but I didn't quite grasp the concept of “acting” by these stereotypes until after the fact, as it just took reading Myra Jehlen’s work to actually be able to put the entire idea into words.

HF Critical Lens Close Reading- Race/Cultural Studies Lens

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful.  Why, looky here. There was a free n----- there from Ohio—a mulatter, most as white as a white man.  He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane—the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State.  And what do you think?  They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything.  And that ain't the wust. They said he could vote when he was at home.  Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to?  It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that n----- vote, I drawed out.  I says I'll never vote agin.  Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me—I'll never vote agin as long as I live.  And to see the cool way of that n-----—why, he wouldn't a give me the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way.  I says to the people, why ain't this n---- put up at auction and sold?—that's what I want to know.  And what do you reckon they said? Why, they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the State six months, and he hadn't been there that long yet.  There, now—that's a specimen.  They call that a govment that can't sell a free n----- till he's been in the State six months.  Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock-still for six whole months before it can take a hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free n-----, and—"

   There happens to be a specific race in which Mark Twain focuses to in which discriminate and that is African Americans. The author seems to be comfortable enough to say the “n” word in the book and just this word itself is discriminatory. Besides this, there seems to have been quite some opinions on what people believed about black people and they didn’t support the direction the State was heading towards. What I mean by direction is that the Country was making a move into letting black people vote and a lot of folks were not happy with this action being performed. One example of someone who was not happy by this in the book was Pap. He was angry at the government and one black men from Ohio that was able to vote. In chapter 6, page 24 Pap pours out his anger at a black male because there was a state that will allow this men to vote and Pap stated that due to this, “I’ll never vote again.” This shows what a huge impact black males having the right to vote cause Pap to take into action. He asks himself also, “What is the country a-coming to?” He seems to be also quite disappointed with the country while at the same time being furious about the decisions that are being made. I feel like a lot of other people of Paps generation may feel the same way towards black men voting back in the day. One reason why I say this it’s because if one person has an opinion or an idea, guaranteed that someone else has the same opinion. Another reason why other people may agree with Paps is that black people were not treated equally before so therefore were treated bad and did not support any kind of positive moment that will help black people. It also seems that Pap is pretty angry at the fact that the black men may be better than his ownself and has a type of jealousy. “There ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane,” said Pap. This black men seems to have better gear than that of Pap’s and seems furious to know this fact. In addition, there’s another statement that Pap said in which other people again may think similar. “I says to the people, why ain't this n---- put up at auction and sold?” he said , this may be what a lot of other people may also say by knowing what’s going on about this black men. In conclusion it just seems that Pap is racist that’s for sure and gets you thinking on the society that use to be like and what people’s reaction were being taken towards certain actions.

HF Critical Lens Experts - Biographical/Historical Lens

"The Composition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Victor A. Donyo has been written by an author who seems to have created multiple works of writing drawn from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In this specific article, Donyo sheds light on his own conclusions and insights from the famous Twain novel, portraying his inferences in a most relatable way to the reader of the article. Donyo puts a clear focus and emphasis on the historic background of the era of the novel and examines parallels in the history of the United States and the events taking place in the novel.

One of the first historical connections Donyo makes from the novel to U.S. reality is that of the Post-Reconstruction Era. This era in history covers the complete history of the entire country from 1865 to 1877 following the Civil War, as well as focuses in on the transformation of the southern parts of the United States with the reconstruction of state and society. In his passage, Donyo states that "Pap Finn's rant about education and the government and the 'mulatter' college professor who was allowed to vote touched upon the real post-Reconstruction issues facing a compromised federal government, and upon the real problems of Blacks who wished to vote; although voting had been difficult for the free Blacks in the 1845 era, it was far more dangerous and confrontational in the 1872 and 1876 elections."

While I agree that Pap's rant provides a solid example of how things were in the Post-Reconstruction era, I have to disagree that the 1872 and 1876 elections were more influential of the issue of free Blacks voting in elections. In the 1872 election, President Ulysses S. Grant was elected to his second term in office, regardless of a division within the Republican Party. The main issue and topic of discussion for this particular election was that of corruption in the federal government, but was not centralized on the corruption within the voting policies regarding free Blacks.

In the 1876 election, one of the most disputed presidential election in American History, Rutherford B. Hayes lost in the popular vote but won in the electoral vote, giving him the presidential victory over Samuel J. Tilden. As the Compromise of 1877, the Republicans withdrew federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. Similar to the last election of 1872, the main issues and topics of discussion presented were again not centralized around the voting rights of free Blacks, but rather focused on the continued corruption of the federal government as well as the Financial Panic of 1873. While tensions may have risen from the 1845 era to the 1870's, I would not go as far to say that it was "far more dangerous and confrontational" during the two 1870's elections.