Hank, a Noble Savage
Honestly, I must say, I have not completed this book, but even so I have seen a ton of irony in it so far. The first thing that struck me as hilarious is the fact that Hank, a low-class worker of relatively-modern times can go back to Arthurian Britain and almost be the king.
Later, when Hank is almost the ultimate ruler of England and tries to civilize the nation by starting a school and everything, he still maintains some boorish ways even though he makes fun of the Arthurian people for being savages.
“So I did not talk blood and insurrection to that man there who sat munching black bread with that abused and mistaught herd of human sheep, but took his aside and talked matter of another sort to him. After I had finished, I got him to lend me a little ink from his veins; and with this and a sliver I wrote on a piece of bark – Put him in the Man-Factory…” (129)
This is a weird and funny passage. Hank is trying to be this noble benefactor who is letting this peasant go to his school. However, he has to use some of the peasant’s blood and a piece of bark to convey his message. This seems like a very savage way of doing things, which is exactly what Hank is trying to prevent. Also, this passage struck me as ironic:
“Take a jackass for instance: a jackass has that kind of strength, and puts it to a useful purpose, and is valuable to this world because he is a jackass; but a nobleman is not valuable because he is a jackass. It is a mixture that is always ineffectual, and should never have been attempted in the first place. And yet, once you start a mistake, the trouble is done and you never know what is going to come of it.” (141)
Since Hank is a nobleman in this time, he pretty much just called himself a jackass. Nice one. Also, like I said before, I haven’t managed to finish the book, but the last line about starting a mistake and having trouble come from it sounds like some kind of foreshadowing for something down the line.
My whole point of this entry is just to highlight some of the contradictions that are present in Hank’s character. Does anyone else have examples? Also, does anyone disagree with me and think that Hank is in complete control of his situation?
Caprica Six wrote:
Actually, I think you’re right. He is a boor. He’s also a first-class jerk. Here area few more examples of Hank Morgan’s fundamentally inhuman character:
1. In the court of Morgan Le Fay, in order to stop Lady Morgan from executing a distraught old woman, he gives her position to hang her entire band and justifies it thus: “A little concession, now and then, where it can do no harm, is the wiser policy.” Sarcasm, but still a blatant abuse of power on his part.
2. During Hank and the King’s enslavement, they pass by a man being boiled to death in hot oil, and the thing that breaks Hank’s heart most is the sight of…a newsboy?
3. When Hank and the King are about to be hanged Hank muses, “Nothing in the world could save the King of England; nor me, which was more important. More important, not merely to me, but to the nation – the only nation on earth standing ready to blossom into civilization.” Everyone’s got a self-preservation instinct, but Hank has an enormously self-righteous ego to boot.
Twain has a history of creating unadmirable, anti-hero protragonists, but this is the first time I’ve seen a him create a hero who does not redeem himself/develop into a good character by the end of the book. It would have been nice to see some crashing mental breakdown where Hank realizes how much he’s royally screwed up, but as far as I could see he just realized the Church was more powerful than he thought. He never thought that maybe, just maybe, his ideas were wrong and he really was just a power-hungry tyrant.
Posted 15 Nov 2007 at 6:18 pm ¶
ajc02005 wrote:
Your first example touches on an interesting question, Caprica. Was the naming intentional – Lady MORGAN and Hank MORGAN? I have a hard time believing it’s just a coincedence, but that leads to another question – what does it mean? Is Hank supposed to be a 19th century Morgan le Fay?
Posted 19 Nov 2007 at 9:50 pm ¶
sean wrote:
I think CYKAC is a necessary administration of cod liver oil to the Arthurian myth: it expels, in one great seizure of flux (the massacre of death at the end) all of the centuries of idealism and idealization (two different things) that had accrued to the stories of King Arthur. It’s not as though the medieval texts had no room for irony and critique – surely they did. But Twain was reacting to the dominant trends of reception of King Arthur in the 19th C. But more than a critique of the middle ages or “medievalism” (the conscious reappropriation of idealized images of the middle ages), it’s a vicious attack on the trends of the 19th C: industrialism, colonialism, death on ever greater scales in nationalist conflicts. Instead of writing a future dystopia like HG Wells, Twain wrote a backward looking dystopia where the 19th C. is transplanted to the past, and tragedy ensues.
Posted 27 Nov 2007 at 1:59 pm ¶