There were a few questions that bothered me while I was reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. First of all, why is Hank so ridiculously resourceful? After all, he had woken up in a different century, for no apparent reason. Yet he reacts quite calmly, rationally discounts the theory of a circus troupe or asylum escapees, and definitively proves for himself that he is in Middle Ages, and that is all that is said on the matter. He never doubts his own sanity, never suspects an involved dream, doesn't get sidetracked with idle thoughts on the superstitious occurrence. Without wasting time, in the space of a few chapters, he makes himself Boss of the country, and creates an underground Industrial Revolution, with time left over to engage in some marketing (in the form of Ye Olde Gilt Sandwich Boards). He takes over a country and starts an impromptu Enlightenment in the span of a few years. How? Yankee pragmatism. Obviously, any Yankee worth his brass knows how to build a national infrastructure; After all, we built up our country. We can fix England right up too. [Cue American national anthem and national pride.]
Twain is writing a satire. Hank isn’t meant to be a realistic person, instead, he’s the American voice, representative of American revolutionism and resourcefulness, “as American as apple pie,” so they say. The juxtaposition of Hank to the coarse Arthurian nobility becomes funny with a tinge of feel-good American patriotism.
Alright, I can understand a nationalistic tale with satiric overtones.
But that led to my led to my next question. Why interpose comedic scenes full of monarchial mockery with dark episodes of torture, slavery, and murder?After hearing how the people of Camelot are just like a bunch of children, it comes like a slap in the face to hear of lines of chained slaves, inherited prisoners who haven’t even a name left to them, and cries from the basement being wrested out of the man on the rack, all at the whim of these children.
The reader is forcibly reminded why America fought a revolution, and how wrong “taxation without representation” can really go. A monarchy subjugates human beings without having the authority to do so. Monarchy is historically anti-American, and by extension enslavement is anti-American. In this way, Twain inexorably leads his readers to question the morality of slavery.
Twain establishes a nationalistic theme, harks back to the Revolutionary War and anti-monarchial sentiment, then expresses the idea of monarchy, the enslavement of human beings. He forces American readers to sympathize with the downtrodden Arthurian masses, and associate themselves with them. Once that empathy is established, the question that logically follows is then how could Americans be slaveowners, and be a cause of human subjugation after having fought to throw off the yoke of a king. The blatant Americanism that is Hank, the forthright, intellectual, compassionate rational Yankee, is Twain’s attempt to wake the country to do as they preach.
After all, what’s a Yankee?
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast. (attributed to E. B. White)
Thanks Lizzie for asking, and answering, the exact questions I was wondering!! The answers you provide are awesome!! The American patriotism that is present throughout this book is incredible. I sometimes wonder if over the years we have begun to take America more for granted. These people were fresh from the war and the fight for freedom and independence and as a result their American patriotism was at a high. Today, I sometimes feel a lack of American pride. Everyone is so quick to judge and criticize, yet few take the time to appreciate what we have. I remember one of my teachers in high school making a comment of how it’s sad to see so few American flags hanging outside people’s homes. A few years ago, that was the common sight, yet now whenever a flag is seen hanging, it is noticeable due to the fact that there are so few. Perhaps the reason our patriotism has fallen is because we do not feel, thank G-d, any immediate threat, for example, when 9/11 occurred there was a sudden out pour of extreme American pride and patriotism—everyone unified together against the common enemy of terrorism. Yet, once we have started to, but again, become to comfortable within ourselves, conflict arises, and then American patriotism diminishes. If only we had authors like Mark Twain to write patriotic novels for us once again!
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, you mention how Twain has intertwined murder, suffering, and pain within his seemingly comical novel. I actually found this juxtaposition quite startling. The most blaring example was when Hank was in Morgan le Fay’s castle and the queen ordered for the composer to be hanged “after dinner” (pg 84). Due to her superstitious fears the queen becomes reluctant to do anything without first consulting Hank and so she then questions Hank as to whether or not she should hang the composer. Hank orders the song that they played to be performed again, and then he says “Then I saw that she was right, and gave her permission to hand the whole band” (pg 85). To me, this was quite jarring as Hank is supposed to be representing the ‘good guy,’ yet he orders such a murderous action to be carried out as if it were the most mundane decision in the world.
Perhaps this episode was written by Twain in an attempt to prove to the American public how important and worthwhile the Civil War was, despite the huge amounts of casualties and destruction it caused. It was vital for America as a nation to rid itself of the evils of slavery and corruption that permeated in the South. If America had not done so, perhaps the North would have seen itself gradually becoming desensitized to the horrors of slavery. As Hank spends more and more time in King Arthur’s court it becomes apparent that he is slowly desensitizing himself to the terrible lack of value for life that the people of that time period possess. In the beginning of this novel Hank says to himself, “There were twenty or more. Poor devils, many of them were maimed, hacked, carved, in a frightful way; and their hair, their faces, their clothing, were caked with black and stiffened drenchings of blood” (pg 19). It is clear that Hank is clearly taken aback by the sight. Yet, a few chapters later we see Hank himself, ordering others to be killed. He does still act in righteous ways, such as when he frees the prisoners of Morgan le Fay, yet I do believe his sensitivity level has diminished somewhat. Perhaps this may be a lesson for us all to take to heart (a lesson that is actually written as part of Jewish law/tradition)—surround yourself with good friends and neighbors because the people you associate with, directly affect you.
I think the extent of Hank's (or Twain's as the case may be) high opinion of the Yankees as opposed to the British is emphasised on page 137 in chapter 25. He tells the story of how a huge sum of money was raised in London in the early-mid 18th century to build teh Mansion House. He credits those that initiated this plot as "Yankees in disguise", they were so cleverly brilliant, that they must have been Yankees. It was irrelevant to him that this was before the United States existed, and it was unlikely that these men had been living in New England and then returned to London to hatch this plot. Rather, the term "Yankee" is being used to display a sense of resourcefulness and cleverness which only Yankees should be capable. Therefore, since this was a "pure Yankee trait", it must be that these clever men were Yankees.
ReplyDeleteJust as quick comment. Hank was what we would today refer to as an engineer in his past life in late nineteenth-century America. This helps explain his technical resourcefulness, but it doesn't explain his bizarrely exact memory of the comet. That said, it's clear that judging this book by the standards of realism is rather a mistake. Twain takes a lot of poetic license by way of his time travel conceit and satirical bent. Realistic details take a backseat to other elements.
ReplyDeleteA couple of points.
ReplyDeleteIt is true he is ridiculously resourceful and lucky even. I will disagree on small details, where Hank does at first think he is dreaming for the first while he is stuck in the future. It is only after some time passes and he awakes to find himself still in the same dream, that he accepts that his situation is no dream. Since he is resourceful, he may have realized that most dreams do not last for days and days, so the likelihood of it being a dream reduced as the days passed.
Another small disagreement, the space of a few chapters is actually several months and years. The surrounding country is relatively small. In a day's travel they come to another castle and another after that. Having one's name spread quickly is not that difficult in such a small setting. His resourcefulness does help him establish himself, but his "miracle" probably did more for his name than his factories and inventions.
The people at that time were extremely superstitious and readily accepted displays of magic as magic. His name may have propagated due to fear in addition to a curiosity of the people to know more of the magician.
You go on to say that any old American worth his salt should be able to come up with the institutions to run a country, and that Twain is writing a satire to remind people of why they fought the war.
Perhaps Twain meant to illustrate a revolution by a Yankee in Britain's archaic ways with THE BOSS taking over. If that is the case, I would like to point out that it took time, and that he had help.
The stanza at the end is great on its own, but kind of takes away from the argument that the book is a wake up call to all Americans of the values they fought a war to keep. If a Yankee is a specific person, why address the wake up to all Americans, rather than it represent everyone?
In all I did like your post and it was a wake up call to us about senseless violence at least.
I don't know; even if Hank had help, I would also agree that his range of knowledge is exaggeratedly expansive. Even an engineer is unlikely to know everything that Hank does; how to make every type of factory, the pump, the pyrotechnics and explosives, the mining operations, etc. It sort of gives the whole story that silly satirical tone that makes it fun.
ReplyDeleteI was also bothered about what Tamar and others mentioned; Hank's moral inconsistency.
He seems to be a generally good guy, releasing the prisoners, etc. He is duly shocked by Morgan's quick-slaughter of the serving boy, but easily hanged the band for poor performance. It could be that MT isn't taking this too seriously, in the spirit of the satire of the rest of the book. Hank's decision seems sporadic, whim-based, and just the sort of thing a tyrant might do, which is troubling. I guess we'll see whether MT comes back around to address it, or follows it up to find out whether it's comedy or an upcoming character flaw.
I think now that we have finished this book perhaps I can address your comment here. It appears to me that Twain was foreshadowing an actual character flaw in Hank that becomes quite drastically apparent later on in the novel. Hank seems to possess an extreme amount of arrogance—a character flaw that does ultimately bring about his demise. He is so unwilling to relinquish his control of the land that he would rather cause the deaths of thousands of people as he fights with the Church for power. This arrogance is seen when he orders for the band to be hanged—it is in a way proclaiming, “how dare they play so badly in front of me! Who do they think they are?” Perhaps Hank’s arrogance is stemming from the fact that he views himself to be of a higher status and much more intelligent than the rest of the people in Camelot. Or, for Hank this could have been an inherent trait that he also possessed when living as a Yankee in Connecticut, yet he could not exercise his desire for recognition in Connecticut, while he was able to do so in Camelot.
DeleteIn Jewish tradition, we are told that for any character trait one must try and maintain a balance. For example, one must not be stingy, but at the same time one cannot give away all of his belongings until he has nothing left. Yet, there are two traits that we are told one must work on to the point that he acquires the opposite extreme of the bad flaw. These include, anger and arrogance. Anger and arrogance are actually intertwined because the reason one becomes angry in the first place is because one feels, “who is he to do such and such to ME??!!” – it all revolves around me, myself, and I. Jewish law teaches that one must maintain complete humility. This does not mean one has to walk around letting everyone trample him/her; rather it is the recognition that any positive traits one may possess come from G-d and must be used for the good.
And so we see, Jewish tradition, as does Mark Twain, teaches that arrogance will bring a person to failure. Through this novel, Twain may have been trying to portray to Americans, whom he felt had too much pride, (maybe even a pride they did not deserve to maintain, especially when there was so much corruption taking place) that arrogance will ultimately bring about the fall in American civilization if change is not implemented.
Hi Lizzie,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your question of “Why interpose comedic scenes full of monarchial mockery with dark episodes of torture, slavery, and murder?” as a segue into discussing slavery and anti-American values, because after all, the entire point of satire is to do exactly that – juxtapose the ridiculous with the dark so that the criticism is swallowed with a spoon full of sugar. In this case, Twain is satirizing a lot of things, but the thing you pointed out was the slavery. I always thought that slavery was just a symptom of an insidiously diseased social and political infrastructure in which the distribution of power and equality are practically nonexistent. But as I was thinking about it, I began to wonder how, then, a country like America could fall to such barbarianism, no different from that going on in King Arthur’s time. Perhaps it is an even harsher criticism that in America, there is no excuse, no justification, no constitutionality to slavery. Here, slavery was indeed a symptom, but of a new strain of the virus, for we snugly and pretentiously pride ourselves on singing of freedom, where in England, they lived only under the spell of ignorance. In America, it is more symptomatic of racism, rather than inborn status, that governs one’s freedom. If Twain had indeed been aware of the slavery in the Congo happening contemporaneously to his novel-writing, it would follow that he was trying to convey his utter disgust in slavery in all respects, regardless of position, race, or sophistication – as the Congolese were considered barbarians and savage, and therefore ‘less human.’ I wouldn’t argue that had Twain lived in the 20th century, he would have written a very similar book in response to the Holocaust.
Yael, really insightful post! It’s funny because as I was reading your reply, I began to think to myself, if Twain had lived in the 20th century, perhaps he would have written a novel similar to this, but in reference to the Holocaust rather than slavery—and then I read your last sentence and I was like, “Wow!! Great minds think alike!!” Sorry, I just had to let you know
DeleteIt is a very interesting subject to think about how before another group embarks on enslaving a certain race, or committing genocide, they begin by first dehumanizing the victims. For example, during the Holocaust, Jews were degraded to a status lower than that of animals (ironically Hitler himself was an animal-lover).
This brings me to the discussion of the value of human life. It appears that in Camelot there was less of an emphasis on the importance of human life. People were being killed right left and center; it appears to occur without anyone blinking an eye. Perhaps this phenomenon was able to occur exactly because it was so common. Illness, poor health, and infant deaths were extremely widespread due to the lack of cleanliness (and thus abundance of germs) and shortage of good medical care/technology. People were thus forced to accustom themselves to losing loved ones on a regular basis. As a result, people became numb to the pain and heartache of death. In order to continue living semi-normal lives, they had to be able to tune out the terrible realities that surrounded them. And thus, when deaths would occur, they were commonplace and seemingly not tragic.
Twain’s choice to write about such a time period was probably his way of dealing with the pain of losing his own children. Perhaps this was his way of showing the world how when such painful things do occur human nature may appear to actually become numb to it all, where in reality, the pain is intensely severe—the suffering occurs silently. The episode in the book involving the woman in the house filled with smallpox is quite a vivid illustration of how rampant such terrible pain was, and how people ultimately dealt with it—death was preferred to all of the suffering that had to be endured.
In response to your comments about slavery: We like to hope that such atrocities such as slavery could never occur in our modern, cultured, and developed world. Yet, the Holocaust was not that long ago. The genocide in Darfur is still occurring. There are atrocities being committed even in our highly sophisticated society!!! Perhaps this is a lesson to us all. One may think that being intellectually advanced and educated will prevent persons from acting in such inhumane ways as was done in Camelot, yet this is apparently not so. No amount of intellectual stimulation can give people a conscience. In fact, it seems to cause worse behavior as people become so caught up in the intellectualness of it all that they forget basic human behavior—at least in Camelot it was not done as a systematic purposeful action. The intellectually empowered Germany intentionally and methodically targeted its victims; America, ‘the land of freedom of religion, and equal opportunity for all’ also deliberately enslaved the African Americans. And so it is apparent that no matter how much intellect and development a nation has, basic human ethics and principles are, unfortunately, not obvious. We have to make every effort to ensure that we are consistently focusing on establishing and maintaining our morals, or else disaster is inevitable.
Satire is definitely a major tool used by Mark Twain to convey to the readers his disgust in slavery or any authorities that exploit other human beings by exercising undeserved power over them. I especially like Lizzie's point about "Twain's attempt to wake the country to do as they preach," and the fact that the juxtaposition of the American patriotism woven throughout the novel with these "dark episodes of torture, slavery, and murder" exacerbates this point. There is some displeasure bluntly expressed regarding slavery in Mark Twain's novel too. Hank is a huge advocate for the abolishment of slavery, and even remains as a slave with the king in disguise until the king promises to abolish slavery. Additionally, Twain outrightly compares the sixth-century system of slavery to the American South at the point in the novel when, as freemen, Hank and the king are sold into slavery without the sellers proving that they are slaves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hank's knowledge being exaggeratedly expansive, I think it is important to realize that this novel isn't intended to be realistic, and therefore the unrealistic details aren't meant to be the focus of analysis. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that although the details of the unrealistic expanse of knowledge that Hank possesses are not important in regards to the purpose and intent of the novel, his expanse of knowledge befits the satiric nature of the novel. The fact that the Yankee knows so much is so unrealistic that it highlights that the novel is not meant to be taken literally, but rather satirically, and this helps us interpret some of Mark Twain’s perspectives on democracy, slavery, and technology. I think that it's an interesting consideration - whether twain himself believed in a character with such a broad expanse of knowledge, a renaissance man, or whether it was just a necessary artifice for the story to work properly. He was a fantastical figure and I myself wondered if it was just in comparison to the time in which he found himself, just like Noah was considered righteous for his time but not particularly special for Moses's time, or if he would have been a fanciful figure no matter what time period he was in.