My Head Hurts After This One

I finished reading “A Connecticut Yankee” today, but for the sake of the rest of the class, I will not write about the very end….yet. Instead, there is a quote that I found interesting that pertains to the discussion of disguise. When Hank is hiding from the slaves who are trying to get him killed, he is searching for a way out of his problem. He finds his solution when

At the first second-hand clothing shop I came to, up a backstreet, I got a rough rig suitable for a common seaman who might be going on cold voyage, and bound up my face with a liberal bandage, saying I had a toothache. This concealed the worst of my bruises. It was a transformation. I no longer resembled my former self (Twain 342).

Normally, I would not find this particularly strange, as many characters throughout time have found disguise as a way out of trouble. However, I thought about it a little more, and found something weird about all of this: When in his most dire times, why would Hank, a man who has shown a knack for finding center-stage and boosting himself up to a level above others, shrink down and make himself appear as a mere normal citizen? I’m thinking through this, so bear with me here as I try to make sense of all this.

As we discussed in class, disguises generally serve as a way for a character to have social mobility; in other words, a poor man can look noble, and a rich man can look like a “nobody”. This is evidenced throughout many of our most famous plays. The one that comes to mind is The Taming of the Shrew (which I coincidentally just reread for a Shakespeare class), where Lucentio, who is of rich descent, trades places with his servant, Tranio, in order to enable a love plot to happen. These characters require social mobility, so Lucentio can snag the girl of his dreams. Lucentio, as far as readers know, does not have any tendencies that would make us believe that he has a problem with making himself look like a lower class person. This line of thinking is where I start to have problems when thinking about Hank.

Though Lucentio moves down the social ladder, it is not surprising, as nothing is said to the contrary that he would have a problem with this. Hank, however, strikes me as the type who would not resort to such a thing during a life or death situation. Yes, he does wander disguised much of the novel. However, at other points in the book when he wants to make a statement or save himself, he reverts to his “diva” form and uses his position in the hierarchy to weasel his way out of certain spots (Merlin's Tower, with Arthur's sister, among others). It seems very out of character for Hank to rescue himself by doing something that does not put the spotlight on him. I thought that he would have told everyone that he was the Boss, or would have bought clothes to make him look like nobility, as he always seems to strive to look as powerful as possible. Perhaps I am thinking too hard about this, but this use of disguise within the novel really perplexed me.

While Taming of the Shrew and this novel are obviously very different, there is a similar theme within them: the characters use disguise (coincidentally, to achieve downward mobility) in order to attain the means they find necessary to their survival. Nevertheless, this seems very unlike Hank, as he seems like the type who would rise up and show everyone how noble he truly is, as he does this in all other situations that could potentially prove fatal to him. I understand the idea of disguise, and it makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, I cannot understand the use of Hank’s disguise here, as he is not the type to move down the structure when faced with a situation that could prove too much for him to handle. I would appreciate any feedback on this. Maybe I’m nuts, but this use of disguise does not seem to make sense with the consistent character that Mark Twain has created throughout the book.

Some Food for Thought

While doing my reading today, I stumbled upon a passage that really caught my attention. It occurs when Hank is watching the double standards that occur within the society that he has been warped into, specifically the fact that royalty was allowed to kill, but a peasant could not even think it (A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court, Mark Twain 163). Hanks states,

If I had the remaking of man, he wouldn’t have any conscience. It is one of the most disagreeable things connected with a person; and although it certainly does a great deal of good, it cannot be said to pay, in the long run; it would be much better to have less good and more comfort (163).

I thought long and hard about this passage, and started to think about the way in which it can be interpreted. I first tried to see the passage from the narrator’s point of view, so it would be possible to put it in context.
My first thought is that this is an incredibly profound statement that I absolutely disagree with. That being said, I see where Hank is coming from. He is seeing all of this injustice around him, and feels for the people he sees that are deserving of a better hand than they are dealt. He wishes there was something he could do, that there was a way he could make everything better for these people. This is why he wishes he did not have a conscience: Hank does not want to deal with these feelings of pity for people that cannot be helped. He contends he would be better, “to have less good and more comfort” (163). If one cannot feel a sense of right and wrong, than there is nothing to weigh one down with from a moral perspective. Hank thinks that if there is no conscience, he will not feel the injustice that he sees, and can go along without a care in the world. As the saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss”. Ignorance in this case is not having a perception of what is right or wrong, and without these feelings, man would not have a care in the world, and life would be much simpler (163).
As I said earlier, I see where Hank is coming from. When seeing terrible acts going on around, one can see why he would wish for people to not have to worry about morals. However, I am of the belief that a conscience is a necessary part of what makes us human. In my English 402 Critical Theory class, we were describing the essential attributes of what makes one “man”. One of the things we saw as crucial was the idea that man has to make choices in life, and these choices somewhat define him. Aristotle describes this as a tragic flaw, an error within pieces of tragedy that lead a person to his or her ultimate destiny (from Critical Theory Since Plato, Aristotle p.58). I see these choices that Aristotle describes as conscience decisions that makes us who we are. If man is not able to see the difference between right and wrong, between what is just and unjust, how will he ever find what his true destiny is? Aristotle says that a character in tragedy makes a decision: this decision ultimately defines his or her life (58). If people were to live their lives in the way that Hank describes, we would cease to be human. We would not have that perception of feeling, would not notice when we make mistakes. In Aristotle’s view, we would be unable to meet our final destiny (58).
Skeptics may say that tragedy is not real, and that we cannot base real characteristics off of plays. In defense of my position, I once again point to Aristotle, who states that, “Tragedy is essentially an imitation not of persons but of action and life, of happiness and misery” (55). Part of being a human is the ability to weigh what is right and wrong. Without a conscience, this would not be possible. Therefore, without a conscience, we cannot make a decision that leads us to our ultimate fate. This, in turn, prevents us from being human. I see Hank’s perspective, and can see why he makes his statements, but I personally cannot subscribe to a reasoning that asks me to dehumanize mankind for the sake of ease.

Introduction

My name is Michael, but you can call me Katz. I am a Junior at the University of Redlands, and I am studying English Literature as my major. The assignment that I have been given to do on Blogger is to write my thoughts on pieces of literature, and to respond to the blogs of my peers as well. If all goes according to plan, people will not tear down my ideas and tell me how wrong I am. However, it never really ends up that way in my world...