Precis Post

"THE MONUMENTAL SARCASM OF THE AGES": SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN THE THOUGHT OF MARK TWAIN

By James D. Wilson

In his article, James D. Wilson’s intention is to investigate Mark Twain’s opinions towards pseudoscience (specifically faith healing and phrenology) and how these reflect upon his opinions of “actual” science. It is known that Twain was not only familiar with the works/thinkers of the enlightenment, but he was also quite familiar with contemporary scientific knowledge and thought.

While at one time excited as Twain aged he became more dissatisfied with science and society. He longed for the pastoral past of his youth, which is seen in his works set in Hannibal, MO (Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn). Twain expressed an interest in pseudoscience, which later turned into disgust. This is a trend which can be easily compared, Wilson argues, to Twain’s feelings towards science and technology at large. Twain was very excited about the possibilities which science (and pseudoscience) presented humanity, but was disappointed by what is in fact done with this promise.

Wilson cites a fragment by Twain entitled The Secret History of Eddypus (which at the time of the essay’s publication in 1975 had only been recently discovered) as exemplary of Twain’s attitude towards phrenology and phrenologists. The Secret History is about a character (also named Mark Twain) that lived in the past and is a high ranking church official (in a church that is an amalgam between the Roman Catholic Church and that of the Christian Scientists). Upon experiencing some cranial discomfort, the fictional Twain, seeks the advice of some phrenologists. His initial reading deems him a rogue and a scoundrel, though when he returns a second time in all his liturgical finery, his reading is very reverent and kind, leading Twain to remark, that phrenology is “the ‘science’ which extracts character from clothes” (4).

Next Wilson moves on to the pseudoscience of faith-healing, which he refers to as “Mind cures”. While Twain’s personal experiences with phrenology are not discussed, there is a lot of information about his experience (and subsequent dissatisfaction) with mind cures. Twain sought treatment with a Dr. Whipple for curing his bronchitis, and he sent his ill daughter Susy to hypnotist Dr. Charcot (who had taught Freud hypnotism), with little success. After his daughter’s death, his opinion turned against mind healing, and those who he connected to it, specifically Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science.

In works subsequent to his disillusionment with faith healers, he compares them to “charlatans, fortune tellers, and quacks” (5). Twain still believed that the mind was powerful and hard to explain things were possible. In his 1892 book Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc, the titular character garners faith and devotion, and has great achievements, however, she remains humble and unpretentious. Unlike, in Twain’s view Eddy, who made great claims about healing. Twain’s main problem with Christian Science, Wilson explains, is that it makes scientific assertions without providing scientific evidence to support them. Twain also took issue with what he saw as the economic exploitation of Eddy’s followers and her use of faith to (in his opinion) exploit people. Twain’s issues with pseudoscience are important (in Wilson’s opinion) because they mirror his thoughts and problems on/with actual science.

A specific example of the parallels between Twains views of pseudoscience and science are seen in the similarity between the portrayal of paleontologists in The Buffalo Express and phrenologists in The Secret History of Eddypus. The paleontologists also make claims that lack conclusive support. They draw conclusions without any way of proving that they are correct. The example of Twain’s that Wilson provides is in relation to the fact that near many old settlements, reindeer are found with marks on their antlers/skulls which indicate that they had been skinned. The paleontologists claim that this is proof that early man wore clothes, when Twain argues; they could have used the skins for shelter or any number of uses.

Wilson concludes that Twain’s view of science and technology is the near opposite of most of his contemporaries. He did not see it as a beneficial result of man’s enlightened state, but as the tools which those with power use to destroy and oppress the weak. Wilson quotes a section from Twain’s late work The Mysterious Stranger, which discusses the systematic evolution of oppression that comes with technological progress, that states, “Cain did his murder with a club; the Hebrews did their murders with javelins and swords; the Greeks and Romans added protective armor and the fine arts of military organization and generalship; the Christian has added guns and gun powder” (11). Though it may have initial benefits, it quickly gives way to profiteering. An example Twain gives in The Secret History is that of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, which he argues perpetuated slavery, because it kept it economically profitable.

In the end, Wilson claims, that Twain merely saw both science and pseudoscience as not bettering the world, but making it a worse off place, an opinion that was rare in an era that was much enamored of technological and scientific advancement.

I thought Wilson did a good job of making his argument; the only thing that I thought would have made it stronger was if an example of what might have caused him to be disillusioned with phrenology had been cited, as the faith healing example was quite strong.

Connections Between "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "The Curse of Caste"

Something interesting was brought up in class today that I had not really thought about. That there is a kind of closeness (or certain connections) between the book we are ending the semester with (The Curse of Caste) and our first text this semester (Uncle Tom’s Cabin). Both of the works unlike just about anything we have read between them (With the exception of The Heroic Slave), initially appeared in a weekly newspaper as opposed to a monthly journal of literature and scholarship. Looking at The Christian Recorder on microfilm I found the visual resemblance to The National Era striking, though the latter was by far a larger paper.

This/these simmilarit(ies)y explains a number of things. The first is the difference of The Curse of Caste’s format. The chapters (or more accurately the installments) are not as long as any other works’ because there is not as much space in a weekly paper (even though Uncle Tom’s Cabin’s installments were still lengthy) as in a monthly journal, as the space can be used for information that would not be relevant if put off until a future issue. Another oddity that is shared by both works is a seeming lack of patience in the author to allow the story to slowly and naturally unfold. In James or Twain a new installment or portion’s relevance to the overall story may not be immediately clear, but as time passes it’s connection becomes apparent. Neither Stowe nor Collins seem to have that kind of time (or perhaps more accurately space. Though Collins may have been in ill health for much of the work’s production.) to allow for it to unfold slowly. When they shift from one action or set of characters to another a quick amount of explanative narration accompanies it, so as to keep the readers in the loop and not confused. Another similarity that I found was that I thought that both of these were not as well written as many of the other texts we read this semester (Though this could probably be traced to my disdain for Stowe and the fact that Collins was not a professionally trained writer, that it was not her primary occupation).

History behind "Coeur D'Alene"

I recall that in class the Regional Narrative was described as being characterized by ‘nothing really happening’, which is really good at describing a good chunk of Coeur D’Alene. While I did not find the story particularly interesting, what I did find quite interesting was the history behind it, which we learned today in class. I’m not quite sure why, but I find information and history about labor disputes interesting. Perhaps it’s because they are David and Goliath stories, although in these, Goliath (the company owners) is usually triumphant over the small and weak David (the workers).

I think I also find this interesting because it is something interesting that has happened in our region. Our region is relatively young, compared to most of the country (and the world) so that is probably a part of it. The Pacific Northwest is also not a region that I tend to associate with struggles like this. When one hears about scabs, Pinkerton’s and violent strike one thinks about eastern urban areas such as Chicago or New York, or occurrences such as the Homestead Strike in Pennsylvania (Where the state militia was sent in after the Pinkerton’s failed to squelch hostilities). One (or I don’t at least) tend to associate this kind of behavior with the rural Pacific Northwest. As a result, when I hear about something like the Coeur D’Alene Strike of 1892 or the Centralia Massacre (yet another scene of union related violence in 1919) which happened in our own backyard, I am intrigued and interested.

I also found it really interesting that so close to the 20^th century (8 short years away) there were portions of the west which were still very wild. While not the land filled with cowboys so common in Hollywood’s golden age, it was still a tough and formidable landscape, where hard people had to engage in backbreaking labor to scrape by.

Progress Report

Sources from Text(s)

1. "Dave's just an all-around genius-a genius of the first water, gentlemen; a great scientist running to seed here in this village, a prophet with the kind of honor that prophets generally get at home-for here they don't give a shucks for thier scientifics" (126)

This is when Tom is "talking up" Wilson to the twins. He is in fact mocking his interest in palmistry, and showing the opinions of the townsfolk of Wilson's ideas and explorations. They still believe him to be a "Pudd'nhead", though he is in fact not.

2. "I haven't examined half a dozen gands in the last hal-dozen years; you see, the people got to joking about it, and I stopped to let the talk die down" (127-128)

Wilson is embarressed by the mocking attitudes of the townspeople who are similar to Tom. He ,however, does not see palmistry as a science, but just finds it of interest. So Twain show's his view of palmistry as contrary to many (if not most) of the townspeople.

Historical Source:
Buckley, J.M.. "Palmistry." The Century; a popular quarterly 47(1894): 635-636.

This provides a skeptical account of Palmistry and it's being accepted as 'science'. It was published at the same time (and in the same publication) as Pudd'nhead Wilson so the ideas are contemperary to Twain's.

Critical Source:
Baylen, Joseph O.. "Mark Twain, W. T. Stead and "The Tell-Tale Hands"." American Quarterly 16(1964): 606-612.

This article talks about Twain's interest in palmistry. Specifically an encounter in 1894 (when Puddn'head Wilson was written)

Long Paper Topic

I’m not quite sure what I am going to write my paper on yet, but I have it down to two options.

Option One: The first option that I am considering is inspired by Pudd’nhead Wilson, and it is related to the use of fingerprinting and palmistry in the novel. I am thinking that I could write a paper about the prevalence of pseudoscience (palmistry, phrenology, etc.) in the late 19^th century. I thought it was interesting that both fingerprinting (based on actual science) and palmistry (which is nothing close to a science) are considered the same thing. I think that it is interesting that in the 19^th century, a time of so much scientific progress (at the tail-end of the age of enlightenment and the formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution) that so much nonsense could be taken for actual science.

Option Two: The other option utilizes my interest in the dialects which are used by different characters. I would (probably) focus on how a character’s manner of speech affects their ability to pass. I would specifically focus on the Characters of Eliza (& George) in Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Roxanna in Pudd’nhead Wilson. In the cases of both sets of characters they appear as though they could be white (or Mediterranean or Creole) one is in a much better position to pass for one because of their dialect. While both Eliza and Roxanna were raised in similar circumstances, Roxanna finds herself at a disadvantage when compared to Eliza.

I have some qualms in regards to both of these topics. First off, I’m pretty sure that the former topic is too broad and vague for a paper to be done well on that topic, without it being sharply narrowed. I also fear that the latter topic may be too specific, and I will not be able to produce a paper that is long enough. While I know that the second option is more refined, I am unsure of whether I’ll be able to find sources (specifically historical ones) that will relate to my topic, while I am sure that an abundance of material exists in regards to pseudoscience.

Basically, I’m not very sure. Marie, what are your thoughts?

'Pudd'nhead' Wilson and true identity

Thank God for Mark Twain. Finally something I’m enjoying. Not tolerating, enjoying. Okay, that’s enough of that.

Pudd’nhead Wilson is interesting in that it uses the ‘comedy of errors’ but in a really interesting way. While in part, the crux of the plot reminds me of Twain’s earlier work, The Prince and the Pauper, it’s distinctly American setting (among other things) clearly differentiates this story from its earlier thematic sibling. The switched identities of Tom and Chambers, allows Twain to make an interesting statement about racial roles and identities.

By having Tom (who is in fact Chambers) and Chambers (who is in reality Tom) switched at birth by their nurse (and Chambers’ mother) Roxy, each receives a role different from that which they were assigned at birth. While Roxy prevents her from being separated from her son by having him “sold down river”, her actions turn him into a cruel, spoiled, young man. As a result the “real” Tom is all his opposites (if only because he is a slave).

I find the results of Roxy’s action interesting because (despite the frequent racist attitudes of the book) it seems to support the idea of nature vs. nurture. The reason that Tom acts the way he does is not because of any weakness in his race, but because his upbringing allowed him to act in such a way with little to no repercussions. Yet, when Tom’s true parentage is revealed he is beside himself. Tom (takes the easy way out and) blames all of his weaknesses and flaws on his racial identity, rather than taking responsibility for his actions.

That Twain presents a story that (even though 30 years removed from the civil war and emancipation) seems to favor nurture over nature is surprising to me. While Roxy and Chambers speak in “slave” dialects and Tom does not, it has nothing to do with their (innate) intelligence. Instead should Chambers (the ‘real’ Tom) have been raised as he should have, he would have spoken like Tom and vice versa. While this is not particularly revolutionary to a reader of today, at the time of its publication some readers, no doubt, found it shocking that the wits of black slaves are equal to those of their white owners.

This use of a racist system to make a more liberal statement is interesting. While Twain did this more famously in Huckleberry Finn in the 1870s, some two decades later, he still held his liberal beliefs about slavery and racism.

Portrait of a Lady and Realism

At first I thought that I knew where The Portrait of a Lady was going; rich European aristocrats running around Europe and courting the beautiful and self-sufficient (Or so James tells us) American, Isabel. She rejects Lord Warburton, much like her previous American suitors (most notably Caspar Goodwood), only to fall in love with Gilbert Osmond. Right when I thought the story was going to continue with a (clichéd) happy marriage, James turned the tables on me.

He instead decided to depict the situation realistically. The character of Osmond is not as it appears to Isabel, but is that which is suspected by her cousin (and unrequited lover) Ralph, who believes that Osmond is just acting in the way that Isabel wants. Their marriage quickly goes downhill, as the difference in their true natures are revealed, and Isabel is stuck in a loveless marriage with a man who only wanted access to her money.

Though it started less than realistically, Isabel being invited to her relatives’ English estate, being left a sizeable fortune by Mr. Touchett, and being courted by an English lord; as the book progressed, however, it became more true to life.

This really reminded me of Emile Zola’s Germinal, in that rather than focusing on a fanciful story, it was true to real life. Though James is branching towards realism and Zola referred to the style of realism that he developed as “naturalism” they are similar in their style. The biggest difference between the two and their style is the setting and characters. While The Portrait of a Lady concerns the wealthy well-to-do of Europe, Germinal focuses instead upon coal miners who make up the lowest rungs of the working class. Their approaches are similar though, as James presents the marriage between Osmond and Isabel as unhappy (which makes sense and is more likely than wedded bliss) Zola allows only one character to survive the climatic mine cave-in (which kills a number of the book’s central characters), they allow what would happen in the real world to occur, rather than what would give the stories a happy ending.

I also found interesting that not only would she be in an unhappy marriage (which is not necessarily unheard of in literature of the time) but that she refuses to leave Osmond though she is treated shabbily. She remains faithful to him, even though staying around him makes her miserable (and he is not faithful to her, as he is involved with Merle).

I have to say that this change of events made this book all the more interesting, when I feared it would be a cliché romance amongst the elite of British society.

Paper Idea

While reading the large amount of text we’ve had to read so far, one thing really stuck out to me as interesting, and it came from both the short stories/novellas which we had to read. In both Frederick Douglass’ “The Heroic Slave” and Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” we see shipboard slave rebellions. While this plot point is similar, otherwise the two works are very different. One of the biggest differences has to do with the portrayals of the revolt leaders, Madison Washington in Douglass and Babo in Melville. So in my paper I am interested in comparing these two revolt leaders, who other than being smart and leading a revolt, are quite dissimilar. Perhaps addressing what each author’s characterization says about what the author values? I’m not really sure what the full focus will be.

Babo's not a very threatening name for an evil mastermind

Prior to reading “Benito Cereno” my only real exposure to Herman Melville was having to read a portion of the final chapter of his magnum opus (The so-called “great American novel”) Moby-Dick for my junior high school English class. My recollection of this assignment is that it was the longest reading assignment I had during high school. The half-dozen or so pages we had to read were longer than James Michener’s The Source, Plutarch’s Lives (Of Solon and Theseus), and Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, combined. In retrospect, I know that this is ridiculous, so I was looking forward to reading some Melville with a more open, and knowledgeable attitude.

Suffice it to say, my memories of lengthy description and lengthy passages wherein little to nothing happens to further the plot occurs remained accurate. Despite this, I did enjoy Benito Cereno, though getting through the text at times was quite challenging.

At times the it seemed like a mystery story, because until the reveal of what had happened (in the “third installment”) there was a feeling that something was wrong, however, what it was wasn’t exactly clear. Knowing that the story was about a slave revolt (but not much else) made me suspicious of a lot of things.

When Melville presents us with description of the Don Benito, Babo relationship describing how while they were, “lingering around the corner of the elevated skylight, began whispering together in low voices ”, one cannot help but feel suspicious of the circumstances (185). I saw less the villain Iago poisoning the mind of noble Othello in their actions, but more an evil Cyrano, telling an impotent Christian what to say. I thought, due to how it seemed that Babo was in control of Don Benito, that the revolt had already happened (as indeed it had), and that the real Don Benito had been killed. In his place was a fair-skinned slave (all that light-skinned deception from Uncle Tom’s Cabin has affected my perceptions), whose purpose was to deal with anyone they encountered, whilst Babo was the real mastermind, who had to stay close to his “puppet” to make sure that everything went according to plan.

The other thing that struck me was that when Babo was sent to his fate (execution for the revolt) he acted very much in a way that reminded me of Othello’s villain, Iago. When his deception near the conclusion of the play, and is asked for a motive he responds, “From this time forth I never will speak word” (Act V, Scene II), which is quite similar to Babo, who we are told after the events of the revolt, refused to speak, in his defense or otherwise.

Situation Critical (Response to Uncle Tom's Cabin)

Let me get this out in the open. I did not like Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I have had to read books that I have not liked for class in the past, however, with them I usually understand that they are of literary merit. They are revolutionary, well-written, timeless, or tell a story that has not been told before. While one could easily argue that this book does fulfill the criteria I just listed, I personally do not think that it is good literature. I just thought that I should put my response (or at least opinion) to Uncle Tom's Cabin out there, before discussing the response of other (I assume, more qualified) critics.

What I found interesting about the reviews that we read, was how positive the response was. As a person of my time I am mostly familiar with much of the negative criticism that exists in regards to Uncle Tom's Cabin, so I was (more or less) surprised at the positive reviews that abounded about Stowe's masterwork. Allen praised the realism of the book, and was glad that such attention (from the book's success) was being brought to the issue of slavery. The only real qualm he had with the work, was the over-piety of the titular character, which though presented by Stowe as a positive trait is viewed by Allen (and many of his successors) as a very negative characteristic.

Something that I did not realize was how incredibly influential the novel was. While I know it was one of the best-selling novels of the 19th century, and have heard that Lincoln referred to it as "the book that ended slavery", I did not realize that it was as influential as it was. In his article Levine touches on some of the articles which Fredrick Douglass' Paper re-published about the book that talk about the effects of the book's influence. Not only did it help sway opinion in the North, but it also had affect in the South and had influence abroad (especially in the U.S.'s former mother country, Britain). This was interesting, because it meant that clearly the book accomplished (to an extent) what Stowe intended it to do, bring an awareness to the horrible practice of slavery.

I also found it interesting to see that even at the time of the novel's publication there were negative feelings about the ways that characters were depicted, and especially harsh was the criticism of Stowe's support of Colonialism (which seemed to conflict, and undue a lot of the good that the story had done, prior to its ending.). Overall I found the reception of the novel more interesting than the novel itself. But then again, I did not think much of Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Mid-book and the idea of Good and Evil

Before I begin this post, I would like to re-visit my previous post, briefly, before moving on to new ideas. In the reading since my last post, the dialects (or vernacular) of the slaves actually played a small role in the action of the story. When we are introduced to the St. Clare household, among those to whom the reader is introduced to is, Adolph, who is St. Clare’s personal servant. Unlike many (if not most of) the slaves we meet to this point he speaks like his owners. For this he is criticized by his fellow slave Dinah who is tired of Adolph and his ilk, “cuttin’ round, makin’ b’lieve you’s white folks. Arter all, you’s niggers, much as I am” (187). It was interesting to see this kind of reaction to a difference as small as how the slaves talk. It seemed like the non-domestic slaves, almost see the domestic slaves as traitors to who they are (and their race), by taking on the manners of their white owners. This is clearly still an issue today amongst African -Americans who are sometimes criticized for acting “white”. I just thought this was interesting, now on to new business.

There was an Idea that was brought up earlier on in the book that has since been focused on more, and that is the relationship between religion and good and evil. Early in the book, when Uncle Tom is sold by Mr. Shelby, we are first exposed to this. Though Shelby is a “good” and religious man he is still made evil by his association with slavery. When the faithfully religious Uncle Tom says, “pray for them that ‘spitefully use you, the good book says”, Stowe seems to be using him to indict the establishment which claims to be Christian and yet does not practice what they preach (48). So I was confused, Tom’s faith is painted as not only an important aspect of who he is, but one that makes him a better person. So what’s Stowe’s position? Considering that her father and all of her male siblings became ministers, I think that it is safe (to say the least) that Stowe’s view of faith was in general, positive.

So what’s interesting is what the text seems to say. Religion alone does not make a person good or bad. While there is Tom, whose religion helps him to get through the tough times he encounters as a slave, as well as the ridiculously pure and angelic Eva, whose faith is strong, many of the characters are not this cut and dry. There are those like Eva’s mother Marie, who while a faithful church attendee, certainly does not follow the teachings of her faith. There are also those like the evil slave owner Simon Legree, who tells Tom that, “I’m your church now”, reflecting his thoughts on Christianity (293). Despite the atheism of an evil character like Legree, not all without religion are shown to be evil. After all, there are many slaves (including Tom for most of his life) who do not know religion, and they are not portrayed as bad or evil. The most notable example of the non-religious being good is St. Clare, a good man, who despite his desperate desire to believe in God cannot. Despite his lack of a true religious affiliation, he is a good person, he is not bad merely because he lacks faith (for most of his life at least). Stowe in doing this presents us with an interesting (and true idea) that good and evil cannot be assumed by one’s religious affiliation. Good and evil are far more complicated than that, which is an important thing for Stowe to touch on. For especially with a subject as seemingly black and white as slavery, amongst those involved there is a fair amount of moral ambiguity.

Slavery is bad! or: Why do the Quakers and Slaves talk funny?

Reading Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Blockbuster (it was one of the bestselling novels of the century) Uncle Tom’s Cabin so far has been enlightening. Though not for the reasons that Stowe’s initial readers in The National Era or her subsequent pre-emancipation readers who read it in novel form rather than serialized. While Stowe worked to get across the horrors of slavery, and how even the most (seemingly) moral of men are made evil through the institution of slavery, this is nothing new to me. Growing up in post-emancipation, post-civil rights movement, raised by “Boomers” Stowe’s message is something I have heard since I was a little kid. Slavery is bad. I get it!

Its original readers were shocked at the apathy held by those who made their livelihood from the slave trade, when Haley says, “all I want is a livin’, you know”, the nonchalance with which he justifies his involvement in this morally questionable trade is incredible, to say the least (49). They were surprised (as was I) that Mr. Shelby would be willing to sell Uncle Tom, who as he asks Shelby, “have I ever broke word to you, or gone contrary to you, ‘specially since I was a Christian?”. (48) While these moments are surprising and work within the novel, others are preachy and instead of using the situation to create the impact needed, resort to awkward proselytizing in the anti-slavery cause. The laments of Mrs. Shelby are particularly unsubtle, when learning of her husband’s deal with Haley, she cries out, “this is god’s curse on slavery-a bitter, bitter, most accursed thing”, and she continues “I was a fool to think that I could make anything good out of such a deadly evil” (29).

What I find interesting about these depictions and attitudes is that, while seeming (to me at least) like common sense, these ideas were not wide-spread at the time. They were existent amongst the Abolitionist community, but not necessarily the nation at large. Other than this area, the slavery aspect is not what particularly interests me.

The depiction of many of the people in the book, so far strikes me as interesting. Especially, since, even if the character is supposed to be a positive character, something about how they are portrayed does not seem all that positive.

The Quakers, who are Stowe and the Abolitionists’ ideological allies, are portrayed as devout, helpful, hard workers, whose help of Eliza and George, is definitely a sign that they are good moral people. Their manner of speech however, seems to place them in a nostalgic past where the language of the King James Bible was spoken commonly by all people. This makes them seem out of touch and weird, though they are “good people”.

Many of the slaves’ manners of speech seem to speak to their lack of intelligence. Even the positively shown Uncle Tom, whose conformity and unwillingness to rock the boat, is one of his better qualities (in Stowe’s mind) speaks in a manner that can charitably be described as intelligent. Sam and Andy, the slaves whose slyness (if not traditional intelligence) allows for Eliza to escape into Ohio, speak like caricatures, not real people.

The only Slave characters so far to sound like the “normal” whites, are Eliza (who was raised in the house of the Shelby’s like one of their own) and her husband George (whose intelligence is praised by Stowe at his introduction). What do they have that Uncle Tom, Sam, and Andy have in common? They are of mixed heritage, both have fair enough skin that they can pass for white, though they are not. Is this intentional on Stowe’s part or just a coincidence?

The depiction of those with whom the reader is supposed to identify, are somewhat unflattering, which is odd, for a novel calling for tolerance and the end of slavery. Were I reading at the time, based on the characters and not the situations I might find myself saying, “slavery is…bad?”