~Obituary: Mr. Peter Wilks ~

 ~OBITUARY~

Peter Wilks was a tanner who died an year after his married brother George, leaving Harvey, William, and Mary Jane, left in the Wilks’ family. It was noted that Peter was hanging on his last string. “He was pretty old” (page 168), “Peter said then that he sorter felt like he warn’t going to get well this time” (page 168). He left a letter significantly for Harvey being that he did not get a chance to see him before his departure. The letter specifically said “…where his money was hid, and how he wanted he rest of the property divided up so George’s g’yirls would be all right-for George didn’t leave nothing” (page 169). He was such a kind and considerate man to leave a letter despite the fact he “was one of them kind that can’t bear to make a will” (page 169).  He was “pretty well off. He had houses and land, and it’s reckoned he left three or four thousand in cash hid up som’ers” (page 170). Mr. Wilks will be leaving “the dwelling-house and three thousand dollars, gold, to the girls; and the tanyard, along with some other houses and land…three thousand dollars in gold will go to Harvey and William” (page 174). However, there was a hidden amount of $6,000 dollars that ended up disappearing. Huck Finn was a brave lad who would have made Mr. Wilks a happy man by taking a stand and informing Miss Mary Jane: “I put it in the coffin…It made my eyes water a little, to remember her crying there all by herself in the night, and them devils laying there right under her own roof, shaming her and robbing her” (page 199). What a valiant man who I’m sure Mr. Peter Wilks would be proud to have known.

Mark Twain's Logic in Huckleberry Finn Throughout the Antebellum

The antebellum was a time frame of the post-Civil War where the main conflict within society was centered on slavery. Slavery was a bondage that overpowered society, which, in my opinion had some influence on Huck’s shift during his escapade. When considering the significance the novel has in terms of the actual time frame occurring I feel the author made his ideas known by contradicting this time period. See, during this time a Caucasian along with a runaway slave was permanently death without query. Considering the symbolism within this book in terms of the Antebellum itself, I find that it’s only logical to conclude how he used the raft, the river, the day, and the night, as symbols to contrast the antebellum and portray the setting of the book significantly. Being that the raft was considered to be the mere communion of fellowship that was significant during the antebellum, he comes back to contradict himself by reiterating that the land in the same sense was the reality of how life was like. In the quote: “for the next day or two we had considerable trouble, because people was always coming out in skiffs and trying to take Jim away from me, saying they believed he was a runaway Negro. We don’t run day-times no more, now; nights they don’t bother us” (pages 135-136), he provides contrast with day and night which also relates to the raft (river) and land. Throughout his contradictions, I feel that Twain’s way of contradicting himself throughout his symbolism created analytical factors to consider life as if to live during the antebellum. He made the novel more significant by constantly regaining the reader by reinforcing the setting in which the adventures occured.

Re: Ask Breah "Question Of The Day"... My Opinion Piece

Dear Valiant One,

 

Wow, your questions are definitely brain-stumpers but it all depends on perspective. When reading your letter I researched the actual time period, which doesn’t quite surprise me. I feel like you are doing a risky thing by having an African American along with you on your escapade; however, it’s such a great deed only a ‘valiant one’ could fulfill. In my opinion, because I am an African American, I feel like life should not have been as unfair as it was. Your loyalty to your pal Jim, in my perspective, is quite admirable in my eyes. Honestly, many Caucasians from that era were not as valiant as you were. It seems to me that your conscience has continuously played tricks on you according to page 130 where you said: “I was a goner, for whenever anybody was after anybody, I judged it was me-or maybe my pal.” However, I don’t necessarily feel that you’re wrong for what you’re doing. Yes, it is a risky factor. In those days according to the Fugitive Slave Act, being caught with a runaway slave would lead to death for the Caucasian individual. On the other hand, I guess you’re just a complete paradox of the unknown, for the simple fact that at the end of the day, you quote: “Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don’t. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft” (page 126). I feel here that you are basically telling society that despite your uneasiness, loyalty is more valuable to you in terms of your freedom; yet, in the same sense, you portray society in such a way that leads you to the raft. Basically, your adventures in my opinion are known as your home. “There warn’t no home like a raft, after all” (page 126). If you were to be honest with yourself, you’d find that Jims significance to you is home; better yet, the fellowship of communion which you shared on the raft.   

                On the other hand, as far as your affiliation with the con-artists, I would have to say that’s a decision entirely left in your hands. I, myself, wouldn’t dare to be involved with their kind, especially after I witnessed the article: “Watch Out… They’re Cunning!!!” Then again, I know even though they maybe con artists you can’t truly judge them by their exterior. Deep, deep, down inside they have good intentions in some aspect. For example, like when Duke made a bill so that you all could run in the day-time instead of the night. Besides, you did say: “for the next day or two we had considerable trouble, because people was always coming out in skiffs and trying to take Jim away from me, saying they believed he was a runaway Negro. We don’t run day-times no more, now; nights they don’t bother us” (pages 135-136). With that being said, I guess there is good in those varlets vaguely behind their scams. At the end of the day, you have to make a finalized decision on what you should do. If there’s one thing I remember growing up, “never forget where you come from.” In other words, just because the prices are high Valiant One, don’t forget what these people have done for you, because they helped you in some way or form. Therefore, to answer your question, if you consider the ethics of this situation, then yes,  you’re wrong; but, if you hold on to your character, the same character Tom Sawyer would have approved of, then in my eyes, you’re justified right my friend.

 

~Breah

 

Ask Breah "Question Of The Day"

"This article is written with enriched dialect to portray the actual character in full capacity."

Dear Breah…

                I’m jus’a young lad on an adventure wit my ole pal enjoying our freedom of redemption. Been away from my folks from some time and honestly I ain’t ‘shame. Truth is I need a lil ‘ssurance concern’n my deeds. See, “a couple of men were tearing up the path as tight as they could foot it. I was about to dig out from there in a hurry, but they was pretty close to me then, and sung out and begged me to save their lives-said they hadn’t been doing nothing, and was being chased for it” (page 130). So I thinks to myself that “ I was a goner, for whenever anybody was after anybody, I judged it was me-or maybe my pal” (page 130). Thing is I left my home, and now I’m ‘venturing down South; and, my heart only ‘llowed me to help. I let them tell their lies to both me and my pal. I queried these varlets ‘course, and they not bad. Actually, one seems pretty frugal and t’gether they’re quite witty. However, “it didn’t take me long to make up my mind that these were liars who warn’t no kings nor dukes, at all, but just low-down humbugs and frauds. But I never said nothing, never let on; kept it to myself; it’s the best way” (page 134). Reckon I made the right decision deep down by letting ‘em on the raft cuz they were in trouble. Can’t stop wondr’n though if I’m wrong sense I know ‘bout these guys and not saying nothing but tolerating it? “If I never learnt nothing else out of my pap, I learnt that the best way to get along with these kind of people is to let them have their own way. Maybe I’m contemplating my decision because of my pal. See he’s a Negro, and I’s not. In this era I’m livin’ in, they look at yah skin for they see anything else. Though I know I’m wrong it jus seems right at the same time. Should I stick with these frauds, and continue the journey on the raft with my pal, or should I just dump everyone and continue my own adventure alone to prevent trouble? Whatcha think?

 

~ Valiant One

"Watch Out...They're Cunning!!!"

                Two men were just identified and reported by a group of former male Arkansans. Reporters have made it known of the similarities the men share with the scammers who fled vigorously from the Mississippi area several weeks ago. According to witnesses, “one of these fellows was about seventy, or upwards, and…the other fellow was about thirty” (page 130). Rumors had it that these unsuitable varlets were quite witty. Mississippi witnesses said they chased them into the woods with dogs and horses attempting to capture the con-artist who had been on the loose for some time. These varlets had “ben a-runnin’ a little temperance revival…takin’ as much as five or six dollars a night-ten cents a head, …puttin’ in time with a private jug, on the sly” (page 131).  One of the varlets had also been involved in “selling an article to take the tartar off the teeth- and generally the enamel along with it” (page 130).

Word slowly surfaced until recent Arkansan men sent in a descriptive report concerning their experiences with the artists and their portrayals. Anonymously, it’s been said that the artists were seen boarding a raft where a young Caucasian boy and (it appeared to be) a runaway slave had been affiliated with these men. Apparently suspicions have been concluded that all four men are affiliated with one another due to the ironic invasion of the camp-meeting. An Arkansan preacher says: “Can’t b’lieve those so called “pirates for thirty years...(who claimed to be) robbed and put ashore off of a steamboat without a cent”(page 141) had me convinced enough to “let him pass the hat around” (page 141) for a collection.” A false bill was even found advertising a “$200 reward…(for) a run away from St. Jacques’ plantation, forty mile below New Orleans…”(page142). Speculations have been made that this confirmed the affiliation of the con-artist and the African American man who had been anonymously seen and reported back in Mississippi. It appeared that they were looking hard to make a quick buck wittily. These cunning fellows have been place to place with new approaches.

It’s safe to say that the low comedy used to con the Arkansan men were derived from a general statement recorded: “…these Arkansaw lunk-heads couldn’t come up to Shakespeare; what they wanted was low comedy…”(page 159). “AT THE COURT HOUSE! FOR 3 NIGHTS ONLY!...” (page 159) several low comedies were performed with a charging admission of “50 cents, LADIES AND CHILDREN (were) NOT ADMITTED” (page 159).  Rumor has it that the house was full; yet, these cunning men had conned these gentlemen. The Arkansan men once more showed for the following night of Showtime with “sickly eggs…and rotten cabbages” (page162). They left the town awaiting a show and the men escaped with their profits. No one knows where these men are headed for; they are still on the loose. “Watch Out… They’re Cunning!!!”