PDA

View Full Version : Tom Sawyer: Spirited Boy or Budding Sociopath?



SilentMute
07-08-2013, 08:11 PM
I credit my love of reading to how my school introduced it to me when I was younger. They often would take a chapter from a book, and that is what we read. For instance, I was first introduced to Tom Sawyer by the chapter that dealt with the whitewashing fence incident. It piqued my interest in the books the stories originated from, though it may have been many years before I actually read them fully. The one chapter was about as much as my attention span could handle at that point.

When one reads The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, at first Tom seems to be the picture of "boyness." He is what we expect boys to be--and maybe some of us dreamed about being such a boy (even if we were girls). The whitewashing incident shows Tom to be a master manipulator, but that particular time it is just clever. He found a way to make a chore look like fun--and apparently was successful in convincing everyone.

As I read the book more, I became a little horrified by both Tom--who I saw more as a little sociopath--and society's attitudes of that period.

First, society's attitudes. I have to say I am very glad I didn't grow up then. Several times children go missing in this book. The townspeople search anywhere from three days to a week at most. Many people give up after three days, and after a week the attitude is, "Oh, well. They're dead. We'll have their funeral on Sunday." I realize probably there were many ways to die then. I realize people have to go back to their lives. But really! Pedophiles must have had a field day during these times! If you could remain undiscovered for a week, then you were in the clear.

Then they want to pardon Injun Joe just because he died in the cave after being locked in accidentally. This man killed at least one person, is suspected of killing four others, and he was going to maim a woman because her dead husband had once had him horsewhipped. Just because you die a terrible death doesn't wipe away your sins, so to speak.

Tom Sawyer seemed like a budding sociopath to me about the time he first disappeared. Granted, children can be thoughtless. They sometimes do things without realizing the worry they put their parents through. However, I think most kids--if they realized they were worrying their loved ones--would stop whatever it is they are doing that is causing the worry. Tom witnesses the grief of his family, he knows that he and his friends are believed drowned--and yet he waits to reveal that they are alive and well. This goes beyond regular childhood insensitivity.

I was pretty much convinced he was a little monster the second time he disappeared. I didn't think it was an accident he got lost in the cave with Becky. While Becky got weaker from lack of food, Tom didn't seem to suffer so much (which makes me think he had a hidden store of food). He just happened to have kite line with him, which comes in very useful much later. He doesn't mind going back to the cave soon after he is rescued. I think most kids, if they had spent three days lost in a cave--no food and in the dark--would probably be reluctant to go back. In fact, I think most would develop phobias that would haunt them for the rest of their lives.

But what really convinced me he did it on purpose was what he told Huck about how robbers make women they abduct fall in love with them:

Only you don't kill the women. You shut up the women, but you don't kill them. They're always beautiful and rich, and awfully scared. You take their watches and things, but you always take your hat off and talk polite. They ain't anybody as polite as robbers--you'll see that in any book. Well, the women get to loving you, and after they've been in the cave a week or two weeks they stop crying and after that you couldn't get them to leave. If you drove them out they'd turn right around and come back. It's so in all the books."

That passage really creeped me out. I wanted to scream at Judge Thatcher--who has a great opinion of Tom, "NO! Don't let him anywhere near your daughter!"

I believe Mark Twain made Tom Sawyer respectable in later books. Supposedly, Tom is a compilation of several boys Twain knew. I don't know if he actually meant to make the child a monster. I am very curious about how psychiatrists would view Tom Sawyer now. What is interesting is that the pariah child, Huck Finn, actually seems to be a decent person.

The book was well written and an interesting read, but I didn't find it charming like I was supposed to.

The Atheist
07-08-2013, 09:30 PM
First, society's attitudes. I have to say I am very glad I didn't grow up then. Several times children go missing in this book. The townspeople search anywhere from three days to a week at most. Many people give up after three days, and after a week the attitude is, "Oh, well. They're dead. We'll have their funeral on Sunday." I realize probably there were many ways to die then. I realize people have to go back to their lives. But really! Pedophiles must have had a field day during these times! If you could remain undiscovered for a week, then you were in the clear.

Sign of the times. If a child hadn't been found in that period, then it was very likely dead.

Also, Mr Clemens admits to a little literary licence, so it isn't necessarily a true representation of life in the 1800s. However, we do know that many, many kids died in childhood, from a variety of reasons, so people were far more used to the death of a child then than now, when only a tiny minority of parents has to face that horror.



Then they want to pardon Injun Joe just because he died in the cave after being locked in accidentally. This man killed at least one person, is suspected of killing four others, and he was going to maim a woman because her dead husband had once had him horsewhipped. Just because you die a terrible death doesn't wipe away your sins, so to speak.

Twain covers this with his own astonishment that people would be calling for him to be pardoned before his death.

He is quite right - go and check. Think of the most heinous child-murderer you can find. You will find someone, somewhere, protesting his innocence.

Why do mothers support men who have killed their child? It happens frequently - humans are strange beasts.


Tom Sawyer seemed like a budding sociopath to me about the time he first disappeared. Granted, children can be thoughtless. They sometimes do things without realizing the worry they put their parents through. However, I think most kids--if they realized they were worrying their loved ones--would stop whatever it is they are doing that is causing the worry. Tom witnesses the grief of his family, he knows that he and his friends are believed drowned--and yet he waits to reveal that they are alive and well. This goes beyond regular childhood insensitivity.

Maybe you need to be a boy to go with that one, but it would have been the epic troll of all time.


I was pretty much convinced he was a little monster the second time he disappeared. I didn't think it was an accident he got lost in the cave with Becky. While Becky got weaker from lack of food, Tom didn't seem to suffer so much (which makes me think he had a hidden store of food). He just happened to have kite line with him, which comes in very useful much later. He doesn't mind going back to the cave soon after he is rescued. I think most kids, if they had spent three days lost in a cave--no food and in the dark--would probably be reluctant to go back. In fact, I think most would develop phobias that would haunt them for the rest of their lives.

After finding the real treasure there? Not likely! Like any other boy, immediately wouldn't be soon enough to get the yeller boys.


But what really convinced me he did it on purpose was what he told Huck about how robbers make women they abduct fall in love with them:

Only you don't kill the women. You shut up the women, but you don't kill them. They're always beautiful and rich, and awfully scared. You take their watches and things, but you always take your hat off and talk polite. They ain't anybody as polite as robbers--you'll see that in any book. Well, the women get to loving you, and after they've been in the cave a week or two weeks they stop crying and after that you couldn't get them to leave. If you drove them out they'd turn right around and come back. It's so in all the books."

That passage really creeped me out. I wanted to scream at Judge Thatcher--who has a great opinion of Tom, "NO! Don't let him anywhere near your daughter!"

Well, the judge did say it was 50/50 whether he'd be president or hanged.

Isn't it funny how close to reality it is, though? Remember, Tom is reading that in fictional accounts, but it describes perfectly the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)


The book was well written and an interesting read, but I didn't find it charming like I was supposed to.

You have to admit it's better than Little Women, though!

:D

Ecurb
07-09-2013, 01:42 PM
If you don't like Tom in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", you'll really hate him after reading "Huckleberry Finn".

SilentMute
07-09-2013, 03:54 PM
@The Athiest--I haven't read Little Women, so I can't say just yet.

@Ecurb--Oh, snap! That is what I'm reading next! Of course, I'm getting paid to write a summary for it, so that should ease the painfulness of it.

It is rather difficult for me. I read these great works of classical literature, and I always have a different reaction than what is considered the norm. For instance, Don Quixote. That was supposed to be funny, but I didn't really see it that way. I saw Don Quixote as a lunatic who hurt other people, worried his family, and was exploited. Yes, it was a good--though overly long--book...but I didn't see it as a comedy.

Ecurb
07-09-2013, 04:43 PM
Tom is a minor character in "Huckleberry Finn", so don't worry. Nonetheless, he behaves like a self-centered jerk.

prendrelemick
07-10-2013, 06:47 AM
Twain is holding up a distorted mirror that is reflecting Society's ridiculousness. I think that is his mission. Each event may well've happened somewhere, and attitudes like those you rail at I'm sure can still be found if you look. Twain heaps them all up together in one place and creates a world we recognise but is not an accurate representation. Which is fair enough, it is fiction.

WICKES
07-23-2013, 11:19 AM
Aren't most little boys borderline sociopaths? The one thing I do love about Huck and Sawyer, especially Huck, is their cheerful toughness. I once attended a seminar on The Catcher in the Rye in which the professor noted the difference between Holden Caulfield and Huck Finn. They are separated by almost exactly 100 years (Huck lives on the banks of the Mississippi in the 1850s, Holden in New York in the 1950s), but are worlds apart in their ability to cope with life. By today's standards Huck is a horrifically abused child: he has lost his mother, his father savagely beats and neglects him, he is dirt poor, illiterate and so on. If he lived here in the UK he'd be placed on the 'at risk register' and taken into care. Holden by contrast is rich, well-educated and loved. But Holden is the one who is broken by life, not because he's a sissy and Huck isn't, but because Holden is living in a much more neurotic, cynical, frightened world. Huck's world is brutal and ignorant, but it's young, vibrant and above all secure. Christianity is still at the centre of the culture and Huck is free in a way that Holden never will be. If things get too rough he just takes off for the woods, makes himself a fire, smokes and 'thinks things through'. No-one tells him he's a victim and he hasn't really got anything to compare his lot with. The Western world is not yet overpopulated and ruined by endless, soulless suburbs. He won't have to face 50 years locked inside an office staring at a computer screen. In a way Holden is more to be pitied than Huck. It's easy to dismiss Holden as a whiney, spoilt little rich boy, but he isn't. I always liked and sympathized with Holden: had he grown up with Huck on the banks of the Mississippi he wouldn't have been such a mess; Huck would have slapped him on the back, given him a big grin and taken him 'huntin n' fishin'. The world Huck and Sawyer inhabit is certainly much harder, but then THEY are harder. They are also self-sufficient. If Huck was living in the suburbs of LA or Toronto or London or Paris etc in 2013 he'd be self-harming, taking Prozac and visiting a child psychologist who'd label him as 'maladjusted'.

I love Huck. Huck is to me what Falstaff is to Harold Bloom- he cheers me up.