Crain vs London

Now in class we have been introduced to the concept of naturalism which is a shift from realism. Both naturalism and realism are from the same branch and that is why many scholars do not distinguish them as different movements. Naturalism is a type of literature that applies to scientific principals of objectivity and detachment to the study of human beings. In class we read some pieces of two important naturalist writers which are Crane and London. Both these writers wrote about how humans react to nature and how insignificant they are against it. In their works they described nature as a very powerful force against humans. in "To Build a Fire" by London he described a 'man' as an insignificant human being against nature. Crane depicted him as almost stupid and without an imagination to survive. Nature was up against him and of course took over him. This is a very naturalist view of nature since it is seen as an indifferent force. On the other hand, we take into account Crane's "The Open Boat" where a group of human beings are put against nature and trying to survive. They each put their skills to work but then again we see how nature is much too strong for any human being.

Huck Finn after Ch31

After chapter 31 Huck faces once again the moral dilemma of freeing Jim, but this time we as readers actually hear what Huck is thinking and we feel it. Huck is very descriptive through out this scene which draws together the theme of freedom and social satire. In this chapter we notice how Huck is trying to get away from the perverted value system and finds himself trying to do the right thing for Jim but at the same time he believes he is doing wrong due to the morals he has grown up learning through society. We see Huck trying to follow his hearth and instincts as he sacrifices himself for him friend Jim. After chapter 31, the quest for freedom comes back as it was interrupted while duke and king entered scene after chapter 16. But in these chapter, this process is more internal for Huck since he is on his own trying to fight his way though society. We hear Huck now feeling for Jim, but he still doesn't see the big picture because he doesn't feel for slavery as a whole.

Novel change after Ch16

After chapter 16, I have become to realize Huck's changes on his morals and they way he is with Jim. Huck's really starts to question actions he feels are wrong like whether or not he should turn Jim in or not since he seems how many great things they Widow has done for him. He never seemed to realize this in the beginning, but now he sees the importance of education and going to school and learning new things. Huck has also become more book smart as I noticed that his speech changed and the way he narrated things changed drastically. He has become more observant since he goes into great description of things, as well as more mature. He notices the feud between both families in chapter 18 and questions why they are fighting and understands that it is very wrong. We also see his moral have changed as he becomes very emotional in the scene where Buck dies and Huck begins to see how wrong it all was and notices he doesn't fit in and goes back to Jim and the raft where he takes comfort in and can be himself. I also noticed they way Huck starts to call the raft a "home" for him since he feels himself while he's there with Jim. He also starts to notice all the people that have been good to him like Buck and the Widow and this seems to help him mature throughout the rest of the chapters as his views change about his moral.

Comparing Huck, Pap, & Jim

As we read more into the novel, I've noticed how Huck and Jim's relationship develop as I saw how Huck was glad to see Jim after he ran away from Pap. Jim made Huck not feel lonesome anymore and they started really connecting since they each had a similar quest to freedom. Huck seems to want to get away from society and the people he doesn't really fit in well with, while Jim doesn't want to be sold and wants to seek for him own freedom. This quest of freedom unifies Huck and Jim. They are both also very street smart and can survive on their own. Jim is like a father figure toward Huck since he helps him find shelter and food, while Pap locked Huck up in a cabin and wouldn't come back for days. Another way Jim seems like a father figure is the way Huck looks up to Jim and really believes all his sayings about good luck. We see the archetype of communion through the way they share their food and eat together as a sign of family and togetherness. They both also seem to take good care of each other which was not the case while Huck and Pap lived together. Pap is the complete opposite of a father figure since we learn that he teaches Huck that lying isn't a bad thing, while Jim on the other hand tells him it is very wrong and justifies a way to get around it. Pap would encourage Huck to take part in unlawful activities like when he asks to take the judges money form Huck just so he could get drunk. Huck sees these activities and knows they are wrong. And so through the book, we are well aware how Jim is seen as more of a good influence on Huck's life rather than Pap.

1st impressions of Huck Finn

As Huck Finn was introduced in the novel The Adventures of Huck. Finn by Mark Twain, i figured he was not raised with manners or very educated. I got this impression from the way he saw life while he was taken in by the widow. He seemed to me like he lacked a family to teach his manners as i saw in the scene where he felt that sitting down to have dinner and prayer before dinner were unusual to him. Huck Finn also seems like a very adventurous boy since he is always looking for something to do and accepts Tom's request of forming a band of robbers. Since Huck never really had a family, he sees his friends as his family and does not really distinguish right from wrong. He also doesn't seem to have morals in life and feels that religion is silly. I believe that all the mischief Huck may get into in the future will directly be caused by the fact he never had a family.

Own Philosophy

During the last couple of weeks in class we have been leaning about Romanticism and Transcendentalism which are philosophy that deal up close with the individual soul and not conforming. I believe that there is truly no way for an individual not to conform to its surroundings. I also believe that for a society to run smoothly and safely, a government figure is needed. We as individuals are capable of doing good, but some bad as well and that is why we need government to lead us and keep control over us. I'm not saying I prefer government to completely rule over the people, what I'm saying is we need some type of leader to keep society in a good path. I do believe people are one with nature and that great things come from nature since our world did start from just that, but the idea of rebelling from society is not particularly a very smart one. Our society should have individual freedoms but also some type of government.

Thoreau

Thoreau is a new author that we learned this week while studying transcendentalism. To me Thoreau went to the extreme with his beliefs on transcendentalism. He respected and followed Emerson's ways and beliefs, then decided to do put it all to practice by living on his own within nature. He depended on himself by living outside of society's rules and regulations. He felt that by living on his won withing nature he wouldn't find himself conforming, but in the end he say that he was and decided to move on as he realized he had not accomplished what he wanted to in life. He lived "to find purpose, simplicity, and a life away from society." He also suggested to limit affairs to two or three instead of 100 which would limit complexity. Nowadays Thoreau would think of our modern lifestyle as a nightmare since it goes against all his beliefs because we are about more speed and technology.