So Similar

As I turned the pages of Anton Cheekhov’s The Cherry Orchard , its resemblance to Pride And Prejudice immediately stood out. The play revolves around impressions and the relationship between personalities. The plot itself fails to stand out as extraordinary, but rather it is relations that make ordinary events entertaining. Again, money drives people and their actions, social standings are made evident in descriptions and the event are easily foreshadowed. When relating it to something so similar in the near past, my mind made quick connections between the two works to enhance my understanding. There were more logical connections than I would have predicted.

In a family of such bluff and materialist personalities, it would be a shame not to have at least one thinking individual. It used to be Elizabeth Bennet, now we have Anya and Varya in her place. Even as they publicly recognize their poor financial situation, the family continues to live as if it was seasonal trouble and would soon disappear. Anya is first to recognize their mother’s habits, for she “had dinner in a station restaurant, she always ordered the most expensive dishes and tipped each of the waiters a ruble” (320). Not only are they concerned with the situation, they recognize that a change is in order. And so, much like Elizabeth rejected Mr. Collins and a world based on impressions, these two girls disregard public opinion as long as they get to eat. When Pishchik asks for money to pay the interest on his mortgage, it is as if their mother had been role-playing a while ago and quickly forgot their condition. Varya intervenes, reminding both “we have nothing, nothing at all!” (329). A character that is able to keep a grasp of reality when everybody else builds upon optimism is always a character with which the great majority of readers identify. These two girls meet this role and eventually become a source of credibility in the play.

In the animal kingdom mothers are always example to their offspring, which grow up imitating their behavior. Humans are part of such tendency, making it logical for mothers in the texts to encompass the spirit of society. Mrs. Bennet used to incite her daughters to marry a rich man in order to live a worthy life in the luxuries of a great estate: those where the priorities in her society. Her substitute, Lyubov Andreyevna displays similar indicators. She lives in a great estate full of luxuries that work towards appearances. She is not stupid, even if not incredibly bright, and understands the extent of her assets, or lack of. She chooses to ignore trouble and live the day with little care for distant future, which reflects the attitude of a society. This mentality is evident in Pishchik as he asks for a loan while “something else [turns] up, if not today- tomorrow…Dashenka will win two hundred thousand… she’s got a lottery ticket” (330). It is a consumer oriented society that has little understanding of investment, perfectly portrayed by the mother.

As similar contexts come together in describing an idea, characters bred by such contexts connect immensely. This is probably a result of logical human behavior, for our context shapes who we are and how we think. More than coincidence, these connections emerge as a result of authors understanding the every detail in a situation from the social trends to popular behavior.

The Wrong Lens

Even the bravest heroes and most brilliant minds in history conformed humanity. Capable of sin, humans will always have something target of critic, both as a group and as individuals. Mark Twain is no exception. Our character is shaped out of everything that senses encompass. If society labels something as “evil” we will forever take it as such, even if it might have been heroic had society chosen so. Highlighting the positives serves no purpose. If we are to comprehend and study Mark Twain we must embrace his every particularity.

There have been, and still are, societies in which the concept of a single man courting various women is not only tolerated, but praised. In fact, great historical figures ranging from military geniuses to exemplary leaders fall into this category. Should that make them less heroic? The question is not whether Mark Twain experienced influence and even inspiration from minstrel shows, but how important this might be. Does it really matter? Will it change the way we perceive his novel? Is it really such a surprise? All forms of art are ultimately a representation of reality and our understanding of such, including writing. If, in writing a novel heavily reliant on historical data, Mark Twain embraced an already existent representation of the communication that goes on between certain individuals, should that be looked down upon?

In The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn Twain demonstrated a clear opposition to slavery and racism. He narrates a story of liberty and depicts the friendship between a white boy and a black slave. In making the reality clearer through language, he even makes our opposition to racism stronger as we connect with Jim on an emotional level. At the end “they all agreed that Jim had acted very well, and was deserving to have some notice took of it, and reward.” We accompany Jim through his troubles only to discover an exemplary person and true friend in him. Twain exposes the character’s ignorance as his strength for in it he irradiates trust. Unlike a minstrel show, the novel concludes in a heightening of a black individual as a result of his condition.

Mark twain is not a racist, and he did not intend to mock a respectable group of people. Far from it, he acknowledged them as equals in the conditions of a friendship. Many things add up as influence in the resulting piece, but if we must resent the responsible consider history and those who enforced it. Mak Twain accepted a reality and masterfully put it on paper for those to come, for those of us with the bliss of having had society say no to “racism” as it shaped our character.

So Much Drama

Authors are as subject to misunderstandings as we all are. It is highly possible that out of 400 pages a few words end up conveying the wrong ideas. But, when said word appears 200 times it is naive to call it a mistake and ignorant to meddle with it. Disagreeing with the use of the language in a novel expresses dislike for the novel itself, for it is one of the components of the work, sometimes far beyond content.

I wouldn’t use “nigger” in my writing and much less in my daily experience, strongly disapproving of anyone who tries to do so in a demeaning manner. It is disrespectful and demeaning to flag a group of people with an offensive term, but isn’t in equally disrespectful to forget their past as one of the building blocks for humanity. A whole community did not go through slavery and discrimination for centuries to be forgotten in the diplomacy of modernity. Dr Sarah Churchwell expresses a similar point as she argues such “word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery.”

In reading The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn we find this argument even more absurd. Mark twain not only evades any offences as consequence of racism, but he exposes a critique to this behavior. We find Huck’s adventures and his plans intriguing, but tend to forget that they all revolve around Jim’s freedom and his dislike for racial misconceptions. When Tom Sawyer describes the typical prisoner he explains: “they wouldn’t use a goose-quill if they had it. It ain’t regular.” In the same manner, Mark Twain imitates the real language as part of narrating a story with historical context. He could have replaced “nigger” with a vast number of words, but “it ain’t regular.”

The method for introducing this classic of literature into scholar curriculum is not a change of words, but a change of mentality. With a simple introduction to a context, and minimal historical understanding, any reader should feel unaffected by Mark Twain’s vocabulary.