The overall plot of Pudd'nhead Wilson was one to keep readers interested. Crime stories are great for that very reason. But Twain wrote a more complex story than one about a murder. Many things in this book caught my attention, but none as much as the argument between nature and nurture.
Nature vs. nurture seemed to be a big point of this book. Would the real Chambers have turned out to be such a non-caring, cold-hearted, gambler if he had been raised as Chambers? I don't think so. And would the real Tom have turned out to be such a nice and caring person if he had been raised as Tom? I don't think so on that either. I do think that the Tom who grew up as Chambers would have had some differences. He would have been educated like he was supposed to be, but I'm not sure if he would have gotten into gambling. I also don't think he would have been harsh toward the real Chambers. I honestly think that nature and nurture both play a role in socializing members of the community. The real Tom seemed to have a kind soul and he either learned it from the world he grew up in, or he was naturally that way. It is hard to know because he wasn't raised as a white person, but both nature and nurture could have been thrown into the equation.
Chambers, the real Chambers, on the other hand might not have turned out as sweet as the fake Chambers had. Chambers seemed to think of himself first (which could have been a learned trait, but most humans tend to be self-centered). I think he learned to be cruel from the world around him and he felt like he had a right to the things in his world. I'm sure it was a hard punishment for him to suddenly become a slave after all the years of being privileged and I think it might have even made him more bitter.
Where the real Tom is nice and doesn't know what to do with his new found freedom, the real Chambers probably also feels trapped in his new role as slave. The pair really are two sides of the same coin and their destinies were tied together the moment Roxy decided to swap them from the cradle. Because of this, how much of their personalities were constructed because of those who nurtured them and how much was because of their nature? I guess it would be hard to tell because neither boy grew up in the world that they should have and that might have made all the difference.
I wrote about a similar concept regarding nature vs. nurture. Mark Twain almost seems torn between which side of the argument makes the most difference on a person’s character. I gave a few examples of both sides in my own blog post, where Mark Twain can be seen supporting both sides. Ultimately I believe this was intentional. Like you mentioned there is influence from both human nature, in respect to our inherited characteristics, and our learned traits. Twain may have used the argument from each side to develop the idea that a person is shaped by their blood as well as their conditioning through life’s experiences.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe the quality of a person’s character is most deeply rooted through their own experiences in life. The thing that makes a person bad or good is what is shown to them as bad or good. And of course what is bad or good is all relative to society and cultural norms.
Those are exactly the questions that the book wants us to ask, Alyssa.
ReplyDelete