EVIL! *><*

As this book just seems to go on, and on, and even onner (my word, add it to the dictionary) I just seem to get more bored. Mark Twain sure can extend the moment, but jeese sometimes it just goes on long enough! What could have been maybe a chapter or two like the encounter with the King and Duke just went too far. I really didn’t like them to begin with, but I grew to resent reading the dang thing as I went along. Here’s a really good example of the really poor impression they presented to me;

“…And every little while the prettiest kind of girls, with the tears running down their cheeks, would up and ask him would he let them kiss him for to remember him by; and he always done it; and some of them he hugged and kissed as many as five or six times- and he was invited to stay a week; and everyone wanted him to live in their houses…” -p128

Though at first when I read this, I thought it was sweet that he would do that for those nice young women, but another look I realized that he might very well just be taking advantage of all of them. Was he really a pirate needing sustenance for a lost crew? He didn’t seem that way when he told Huck and Jim that he was an exile from France, meaning he had a seat of great power at one time. It seems he’s just lying to get a nice house, more attention than what’s needed and some extra money to get by. He’s also “doing good” to the women of the audience a little excess. Hugs and kisses are nice, and inspire a few “awww” moments I suppose, but it says only some of them got extra, so that makes it sound a little bit like he’s exerting his racial superiority by taking advantage of their pity. If this sounds offensive or like I’m over considering the passage, contact me. Though I probably won’t shut up, I’ll most definitely accept the comment .

Well, if I were to ever pick up a book with endless amounts of satirical referances, Huck Finn was probably one of the best, because I must say; I am not disappointed. Here’s one I found while reading:

“Trouble has done it, Bilgewater, trouble has done it; trouble has brung these gray hairs and this premature balditude. Yes gentlemen, you see before you, in blue pants and misery, the wanderin’, exiled, trampled-on, and sufferin’ rightful King of France.” -p120

I thought this was pretty funny as seeing how these crazy old guys who Huck just randomly met (as he does a lot of people throughout these chapters I suppose) speak english pretty well (and by the looks of it with a pretty good southern accent) and claim their King and Dukes of France. Shouldn’t such high quality or at least former high quality men of France be a little more well kept and more…French? The Satire alert is a blowin’.

Though traces of racism still exist today between the Latino-Americans, the Muslim people and African Americans living presently, I have my doubts it was ever as bad as when we still had slaves, being the late 1800’s. One of the reason that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is being banned by many school curriculums is because it deals with racism; a topic that few educators want to delve into too deeply and often avoid. An example of racism is when even though it could possibly be a coincidence Jim went missing the same time Huck did, Jim is immediately the main suspect of the murder. By all means, it could have very well been Huck’s father (though we know it wasn’t but they sure don’t) since he so poorly mistreats and neglects his own son. He could have been in a drunken rage and Huck could have said something to piss him off enough to kill him. Even though we know this isn’t true, it is possible, but instead Jim is the automatic scape goat, and a bounty is placed on his head. (He did escape as well, causing an alternative motive for the bounty, but for a time they did think he did it).

Huck’s father is definitely the worst case I’ve ever encountered when it comes to supporting others, despite their skin color. Here’s a satisfactory quote on page 27;

“Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger 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 got as fine clothes as what he had…etc”

I can’t imagine why Huck’s father would really care about how the African Americans are being treated if he didn’t own a slave nor did he know of any personally that he knew he had power over. He certainly didn’t have any money, nor did he have a role in any highly respectable positions in his own government. I don’t see how he has the position to be in to complain when he’s too drunk himself to vote! Go figure…

It doesn’t surprise me at all that the book we’re reading, Huck Finn is full of satires, and is constantly poking fun and pointing out the flaws of the time period of when it was written. A few vague examples are Ms Loftus, being a complete definition of a “sivilized” human being and yet she drops the n bomb constantly as if it weren’t a big deal. Just another word in the every day vocabulary like “as” or “him”. Yet another is Tom Sawyer himself, when he plays robbers and wants to make a gang of burglars who aso double as murderers and yet they still find themselves crashing Sunday School parties and waving around sticks. He tried to be a bad boy like Huck, but he’s still a good innocent little kid just trying to look tough.

A few more specific examples are ones I found as follows:

“And he said if a man owned a beehive, and that man died, the bees must be told about it before sun-up next morning, or else the bees would all weaken down and quit work and die. Jim says bees wouldn’t sting idiots; but I didn’t believe that, because I had tried that lts of times myself, and they wouldn’t sting me.” -p.45

I found this quite humorous, but confusing at first. I think Jim was really trying to get a joke out by stumping Huck. This is just one of those instances where the southerners somehow have this knowledge of the weirdest things (African Americans, usually, since they were expected to know all about witchcraft and the sort). Personally, I had never heard such an absurd statement in my life, but it was really funny to hear it (once I finally got it). Another (maybe a better) example was one I discovered on p. 46:

“Yes. You know that one-laigged nigger dat b’longs to old Misto Bradish? Well, he set up…” -Ch 8

Very very interesting that an African American slave like Jim would address one of his own as a person being labeled by the n-bomb. I would figure that at least they had respect for one another, but it seems as though some or many of them have been convinced they are truly inferior to their white owners and deserve such a derogatory term to call them. Especially if it’s based solely on physical features.

Satire (according to dictionary.com):

The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

According to our class, we deducted that a satire was nothing different, but a sick humorous way of depicting a controversial issue, often ensuing in an umcofortable feeling if you get it, swift and just anger if you don’t.  We are on the verge of starting (if we haven’t already) the adventures of Huck Finn.  Banned in many school curriculums, this book covers all the issues of the time.  The idea was, that Mark Twain would publish the book in order to expose the animosity and inhumane subject of slavery.  Huck Finn, from what I already know, breaks the strictest rule of his state; in the sense that he assists a slave in escaping his plantation to be free.  When I read and listened to the article where Irish babies were proposed to become a “delicious dish” to feed a good family of four, I was in a state of horror.  But as it turned out, it apparently was supposed to be funny.  Some people got it, but as they laughed I became even disgusted with my own classmates.  I was one of those who just didn’t get it.  As the definition implies, only those who get it find it funny, the others just see it as moronic or distasteful.  The Onion proved the most bizarre of the examples of satire.  The one about the “Theory of Math” I found completely idiotic and was quick to explain the error.  My family often tells me I take things too seriously, and once again this was the case.  As usual, I had over-analyzed the situation but completely skipped over the fact it was just a joke.  It was supposed to be dumb.   All these are examples of satires.  The author or illustrator wants to get a point across, and all the time that point is that they imply change.  Writers of satire demand change, and subtly expose that which is wrong and wish only to see it be changed. 

As I read Frederick Douglass’s work on how a slave lived I was horrified at such an apalling scene set before me.  Sleeping without beds, but with hard scratchy blankets, living an entire year with the same clothing, and being restricted from anything pleasurable by the tyrannical Mr. Severe.  Singing provided, form what I already know, a way to complain without getting whipped.  They sang of their woes on the plantation, their poor living conditions, or their unending hunger.  They were only given around 8 pounds of pork or fish (whatever was in season) but the thing was, it expired.  Within weeks too. 

Many slaves had families, and the children, figuring they needed less, were only given a shirt or two with possibly socks or shoes.  Their food rations were given to their guardians.  The slaves sang to express their reluctance to be where they were and the pain they were undergoing.  On the terms of the Underground Railroad and the GrapeVine, song was a well organized code, the lyrics sometimes changed to fit a message but still followed the tune of the original song. 

According to the article and past ones we have already covered, the African-Americans were very religious, at least those who were considered sophisticated enough to attend.  They sat in churches, being preached about why it was set in the Bible that they were supposed to be slaves.  It was within the will of God that they would live the hard and unbountiful lives they were already suffering.

I am an aspiring writer as some of you may know, and so I have already written a very long and intricate story. I’m quite proud of it actually, because I did finish it in 8th grade at a whopping 82 pages (single spaced might I add!). But of course I reread it last year and thought it basically sucked as far as I could tell. No amount of revisions would keep it the way it was without a few MAJOR changes. So I am still rewriting it and it is almost past its original mark. ANYWAY, the point I’m trying to reach is that the main guy in the backstory going on has got a pretty good case of EVIL goin for him. His name is Lord Deaghas Fescar, and basically he’s raised an army of undead to take over the world (typical). But what’s not so typical is his reasoning. He’s not doing it for all the money he could wish for, or to become an evil dictator and hold all the power. If you read the story, (it’ll take time if I ever get it up here, but its worth the effort!) From the prologue Deaghas’ history is revealed. His father made a pact with a gigantic demon who threatened to destroy the world. Well, Dad said he would tell the demon where the resistance was so that his country, Delanta, could be saved. The demon agreed and attacked the resistance. The resistance, though, knew this was gonna happen and killed the demon. Uh oh. Not good for Deaghas and his dad (Dheavin by the way). Because of his treachery, the resistance sends over guys to kill the entire royal family, but then the citizens riot and they kill them too. So everyone’s dead except Deaghas and he escapes as a slave and watches as his whole world is collapsing in front of him.

I know that seems irrelevant and too too detailed and long to mean anything about why this dude is evil, but keep listening. Deaghas comes back, since he was basically born to receive the country and discovers that all the people are zombies! He then finds out its because a this disgusting worm that releases chemicals to make the dead into undead. Ew? yes. He then harnesses the zombies unending power to become the worlds greatest army. They never hunger nor thirst, sleep nor tire, and they don’t feel pain. He’s gonna use this army of undead upon the world because he believes his father was justified in his decision to risk losing Delanta to the demon, and the council’s actions were not. That resistance was made up of every leader from all the nations (I got a map for all this, but you’d have to ask me personally to see it.) Deaghas thinks that they should all pay for what they have done, and he will spare no one in his wrath.

Now Deaghas here is a perfect example of evil, correct? Sounds like it to me. But he was never inherently evil. His intentions were somewhat good and he had reasoning to back it up, but over time he became corrupted by his own intentions (and by one a those undead making worms) and turned evil. I discovered after some thinking that a lot of people we would model Evil after started their evil sieges out of intentions on doing good. Darth Vader wanted to save his wife in the third movie by turning to the dark side and learning how to keep her from dying. That intention wasn’t evil, but it was dangerous and he took a chance going against the Jedi Council. (If you haven’t seen the movie and don’t know about the ending look away now!) But of course, he became consumed by the Dark Forces and unintentionally killed his wife. Isn’t murder considered an evil act? Moving on…

Another example is one I had to take a stab at, was Saruman from the The Lord of the Rings. He was a wizard that was the head of a wizard council and was the most powerful of them all. He was a white wizard (white = good Black = bad) and was the wisest of them. But then he started looking into the Palentir, one of the 3 lost Seeing Stones. As he stared into it he became twisted and gripped by the evil lord Sauron’s power. Sauron tricked Saruman into joining him into trying to cover all the lands in a darkness. Then he became the corrupted wizard, who needed to be dealt with, because he was poisoning the land of Rohan and Gondor with his vicious orc attacks and his wargs. He became an ally of Sauron, the most evil entity in the book (based off of Hitler if you do your research about Tolkein) when if he saw what he was doing when he was still good he probably wouldn’t believe it.
In conclusion, I think that Evil at least from these examples were not wrought from thoughts of evil, but were corrupted from original intentions to do good. Though I admit, murder, genocide, and torture are rarely started from good intentions, Saruman, Vader, and Deaghas all share similar qualities in the sense that they became wicked in the same process. I felt I had to get my opinion out, despite the fact I don’t have tape with me. I’m always open for comments and I’ll keep posting.

Evil to me takes no physical shape or form, for it manifests itself in many different ways. It can take the shape of the apple in the classic Adam and Eve story from the old testament or in the shape of the dark, which hides unknown horrors in which the human mind can only imagine. Human nature compels us to fear the unknown because of just that. Its unknown to us. That leaves the doors open to many many possibilities that all point to the deepest fears hidden far inside the human psyche.

In movies, Evil is displayed as Sauron’s Eye, A demonic figure, or a zombie or what have you. In literature, Lord of the Flies is a classic example that when humans are left to their own devices without order and a system of law, that we will be overtaken by evil.  True evil lives inside all of us, and it takes the shape of our most unclean thoughts, like fear and anger. The Seven Deadly Sins reflect what we have successfully identified as “evil feelings” or “evil actions”. Gluttony, Greed, Envy, Lust, Pride, Sloth and Wrath. We go to church because we wish to be rid of these awful feelings and repent our sins. In the media, purging of evil shows as slaying the vampire, overcoming fear and it always leads to a happy ending or some sort of conclusion.

I know my parents for one, could argue that either of these three men were some of the most diabolical of all time.  They would include: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pat, and Milosevic.  Each are responsible for a death count in the millions.  Hitler was the indirect murderer of over 6 million Jews, and at the end of WWII a tenth of the worlds population had died.  Pol Pot was head of the Vietnam War, destroying 2 million Cambodians in trying to remove them and to set a path for a communistic future.   Milosevic was behind the genocide in Bosnia and violated laws of war, and was charged for it.  He resigned a few years later.  I’m not sure what it would take to redeem them from the horrors they have shown the world.  Now we know what man is capable of.
The church believes that if we do not renounce the evils we unknowingly commit, then there will be no happy ending. Instead we would be condemned to hell, the domain of Satan and all his demonic kin for all eternity. Without that role of Satan to keep us away from hell (by way of fear and intimidation) we wouldn’t be able to find our way on the path to goodness and the line between right and wrong would be blurred. Satan is necessary, but not to be taken lightly if you are one of religion.