You are on page 1of 7

A Meeting of the Minds

Viewing Mark Twains The Tragedy of Puddnhead Wilson in light of Aristotles Poetics
Penn State Berks

ED BURNS English 471

Burns 2 The Tragedy of Puddnhead Wilson is much more than just a great work of literature. It is a scathing cultural commentary, which comes in the form of a blending of genres. The story is tragic for many of the characters, but comedic in a sense as well. The story is itself funny at times, even when considering the things the characters undergo, the deaths and the betrayals. The story also creates the rise from badness to greatness for the town as a whole and for the real Tom Driscoll. It creates a tragic fall for a great many of the characters, too. And for some characters it does both. Twain can be read through the lens of Aristotle in the Poetics, and should be, for the essential elements of tragedy and comedy put forth are all at play in this piece of fiction. What will this essay do? This essay will examine the similarities between the ideas put forth in the Poetics and how they are exemplified in Puddnhead Wilson. There have been many questions and much contention over whether or not Twain truly wrote a tragedy. Twain did in fact write a tragedy, but made it more complicated by combining this high form with a lower from of work, the comedy, which further enriched his not unrealistic work of fiction.

Twain can be read through the lens of Aristotle in the Poetics, and should be, for the essential elements of tragedy and comedy put forth are all at play in this piece of fiction.
I am not the first person in the world to discuss these geniuses in conjunction. I will address the folks who have already talked about this stuff. One such fella is Philip C. Kolin whose essay is entitled Mark Twain, Aristotle, and Puddnhead Wilson. Kolin agrees that there is a strong connection between Aristotle and Twain. Judging Twains work against Aristotles may at first seem astonishing, separated as they were by time and taste, but after examining Twains remarks on fiction and the theatre and looking at the structure of Puddnhead Wilson, we shall see that such an analysis reveals just how great a craftsman Twain really was (Kolin 1). Twain was of the mind that tragedy was absolutely vital in society. Twain spoke of the importance of tragedy medicinally as a cure for a poor mental health in the audience who needs tragedy-tonic once a month as one of the most effective breeders and nurses and disseminator of high literary taste and lofty emotion (qtd in Kolin 2). Naturally, his sarcastic approach can make it difficult to understand what Twain is saying at times, or perhaps delegitimizes what he has to say. But there is real validity there. In his eyes society can become too caught up in lighthearted entertainment that, as we can see today, is not beneficial to a society. This serious tonic is like a reality check for society. Aristotle also clearly stated that the loftiness of tragedy was important. Both men saw it as an emotional experience of

Burns 3 the highest order used to heal the spectators (Kolin 2). The role of tragedy, then, is quite important to both men separated so much by time and place. Deadly Combination Twain and Aristotle are very much on the same page regarding the importance of tragedy. But surely, coming from such different places, it becomes more difficult to determine the genre Twain was writing in. I contend that it was not mere tragedy, but a combining of genre. Comedy and tragedy come together in a combination better than bread and butter, chocolate and peanut butter, Abbot and Costello. In discussing this controversial novel, readers have not hesitated to use the language of the drama, particularly that of the tragedy (Kolin 1). We know with certainty that there is tragedy in the work, which we will discuss the why later in the paper. H.N. Smith said the work by Twain is at once tragic and comic (qtd. in Kolin 1). Indeed, that is true. The humor of the comedy is there for the reader and lightens up the darkness of the tragic. Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than actual life (Aristotle 6). Both elements are at play in the novel. It is a masterful combination of the two so that each compliments the other without any form of detriment. This is a comedy and a tragedy regarding the characters involved. All the characters suffer from tragic elements in the plot, while simultaneously showering the reader with comic relief at times. Furthermore, there is a very nice unity of plot in the work. (T)he plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole (Aristotle 13). The story has separate parts that are absolutely vital to the story. If any segment were removed the story would quickly become confusing.

Are they similar? Aristotle and Twain also had similar ideas regarding believability. Kolin notes some of Twains ideas on theater and the importance of truth in fiction. Twains ideas on this matter come right from the work of fiction in question. Truth is stronger than Fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to the possibilities; Truth isnt (Twain qtd in Kolin 2). Similarly Aristotle says that tragedy is an imitation of an action and it is good based on the likelihood that it could actually occur. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and higher thing than history; for to express the universal, history the particular. By the universal, I mean how a person of a certain type will on occasion

Burns 4 speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages (Aristotle 14). Though his speech is antiquated, we can see what he means. Literature was an objective reflection of reality for Aristotle just as it was for Twain (Kolin 2). Neither man thought it was good for a work to stray too far from reality. Instead, each event and character must be believable in order to be credible and enjoyable. Moving on We can move now into the novel itself and show why it is the story is called a tragedy in the traditional sense created by Aristotle. To Aristotle, writing in aristocratic culture, tragedy depicted the fall of a noble man from greatness (Railton). Aristotle says it best himself Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions (10). This is just what Twain does with more than one of his characters. In the very beginning of the novel David Wilson, a man who is intelligent and thrifty, enters a new town for a new life. He has a lot of potential in this new town. He is a noble man poised for greatness. But he falls from greatness quickly. When we look closer at the last act of Wilsons story, we can see why, despite the lack of corpses, Twain calls it a tragedy. We can see how it dramatizes Twains own career (Railton). There are many questions surrounding the title of the work. The Tragedy of Puddnhead Wilson makes it seem as if the work were only about Wilson. One piece of criticism by Jerry B. Hogan asked the question in its title Puddnhead Wilson: Whose Tragedy is it?

Let me take brief moment, perhaps an extended one, to address this topic. I would like to suggest here that, perhaps, Twain meant it another way; that is, the true tragedy of Puddnhead Wilson is not his ostracism from society but that in order for him to be a success, a hero even, he has to expose the whole rotten Tom Driscoll affair and his success in doing so (his success in court is the one thing that does the most to solidify his acceptance into the local society) permanently blinds him to the utter failure of the society he had so longingly waited to join and so fervently wished would accept him and which

Burns 5 finally does (Hogan 11). This idea from Hogan that the true tragedy of Wilson is interesting and I am inclined to agree with it. However, I do not think it is this simple. This is not just the story of David Wilson As said above and alluded to before, this tragedy involves more than just David Wilson, the namesake of the work. It involves every major character. The story has the key elements of tragedy as outlined by Aristotle for many of the characters in Puddnhea d Wilson. Roxy, Dave, Chambers, the Judge, the twins, the list goes on. The initiating reversal is Roxys act of changing the babies. This does not save her child from being sold down the river but it is responsible for it (Kolin 3). He is not the only critic to see it this way, and I am in agreement with Kolin and Hogan, The switching of the two babies is, though, the primary mechanism through which tragedy enters Roxys life in the novel (Hogan 910). Aristotle himself spoke of the importance of the character creating his own problems. Roxy begins the whole affair by switching the babies. She is not the only one with problems, however, In the twins fall from favored status in the Dawson Landing community to discredited and defeated politicians bereft of friends, and, then, to falsely accused, imprisoned and hated suspects in the murder of Judge Driscoll, their lives fulfill the requirements of medieval tragedy (Hogan 11). The twins are not mere victims of the happenings of the town. They, through no true fault of their own, bring about their demise by possessing the fancy knife valued at $500. Tom, being a greedy SOB, steals the knife and seals their fate. Another victim of the happenings in the town is the benevolent foster father of Tom. Judge Driscoll, tragic though they may be on the personal level, is the most logical and most appropriate figure to be destroyed by a product of the abominable system (which the judge righteously upheld) known as slavery (Hogan 10). Hogan contends that the reason Driscoll suffers an ill fate is because of his support of slavery. I disagree with that reasoning, however. It seems that his benevolence, a seemingly good trait, is his downfall. For by forgiving Tom again and again he creates a situation where Tom tries to take advantage of him. Kolin nicely analyzes and summarizes the tragedies at hand. Everyones hopes are bitterly denied. Tom is sold down the river. Roxy loses her son she hopes to save and with him her security. The Driscoll name perishes. The twins are thoroughly disappointed with the West, a possible haven for them. The town and its citizens retreat into the ignominy brought about by their callous attitude toward human life. Even Puddnhead suffers defeat, for his victory is a fruitless one. It only underscores his deception. And all of this is accomplished through the dramatic techniques of reversals and recognitions sanctioned by one of the worlds greatest critics and

Burns 6 practiced by the worlds greatest tragedians. From all this we must conclude with Leavis and say that Puddnhead Wilson belongs frankly to a sophisticated literary tradition (4). It is nice that Kolin sees this as sophisticated literary tradition but it seems that there are more elements of tragedy at play. It seems fairly clear, then, that the tragedy in this book is not just David Wilsons, or any other characters or group of characters, but the entire communitys (Hogan 11). It is the town which also suffers tragedy according to Hogan. Kolin seemingly agrees in part, though he words it differently. Twain is really uncovering the fatal blemish of an entire society that accepts appearance for reality, servility for majesty (Kolin 3). I like the idea here, but I struggle with its inclusion with tragedy. Tragedy, we must remember, includes a fall from greatness. Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type, not, however, in the full sense of the word bad It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive (Aristotle 9). The townspeople do not fall from greatness because they never seem to have achieved it. Instead, they are part of the comic elements of the story. They end the story on a high note. In the beginning they are living their lives, idiotically ostracizing the smartest man in town. In the end they wind up with that man as their mayor, and we imagine he will lead them ably so they my continue to live, a set of values which enables its adherents to contentedly enjoy their pleasant, fatcat homes and to self-righteously measure honor and character in terms of medieval chivalric and dueling codes while simultaneously enslaving and often clandestinely intermingling with the subhumans who constitute the economic base on which this morally over-weight and lethargic community rests (Hogan 11-12). Now, however, they will be forced to question the issue of race, becoming more enlightened in the process. This clear paradox is like the novel as a whole in that it is simultaneously comedic and tragic. On the one hand, Twain invites us to not only scoff at their stupidity, but truly laugh at it. His sense of humor is a bit dark, and this is where it manifests itself. Here is a town with many average and ordinary people who all fall for the societal farce of the justification of slavery. We can laugh at this just as we laughed at their stupidity in condemning Wilson. Yet, it is tragic, because the result of their collective stupidity is not funny, it is sad. The result is the enslavement of innocent human life into a world of bondage. These men and women consider themselves enlightened, but are not smart enough to see the essential sameness between people in their humanity, which transcends color. Indeed,

Burns 7 the whole novel may label each person as white or black, slave or free, but their human behavior is just that: human. It is funny because it is so obvious to us as the reader, it is comedic; yet it is tragic because the results of it are horrific. Every several hundred years God creates a human being that surpasses the others in ability and intelligence. These people create things that are virtually timeless. Oftentimes these people create works of literature and thought that can last for thousands of years. Two such people were the great men Aristotle and Mark Twain. Aristotle wrote his Poetics nearly 2,500 years ago and literary critics still look to him as THE expert on the ideas of tragedy. Around two hundred years ago Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, wrote classic American works that today are a staple of Literary Canon. These men lived thousands of years apart. They never spoke to each other. There is strong evidence that although Twain may have been familiar with Aristotle he did not read the Poetics. Nevertheless, his great work The Tragedy of Puddnhead Wilson is an excellent work of tragedy that reflects many of the ideas that Aristotle proposed all those years before.

Works Cited Aristotle. The Poetics. Trans. S.H. Butcher. N.p.: Penn State Electronic Classics, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Hogan, Jerry B. ""Pudd'nhead Wilson": Whose Tragedy Is It?" Mark Twain Journal 20.2 (1980): 9-12. JSTOR. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Kolin, Philip C. "Mark Twain, Aristotle, and "Pudd'nhead Wilson"" Mark Twain Journal 15.2 (1970): 1-4. JSTOR. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Railton, Stephen. "The Tragedy of Mark Twain, by Pudd'nhead Wilson." Nineteenth-Century Literature 56.4 (2002): 518-44. JSTOR. University of California Press. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Twain, Mark. Pudd'nhead Wilson. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1999. Print.

You might also like