During many discussions in class, many students question the motives of the Duke and the King, on whether they are con artists for survival, or commit these crimes in order to satisfy their kleptomaniatic fantasies. Which eventually leads to the question, what is the difference between Jim and Huck, versus the King and the Duke? Personally, I don’t think there is a difference between both of them.
It is claimed that Jim and Huck are stealing goods for survival; however, stealing isn’t justified regardless of the situation. Which brings me to the point that the Duke and the King shouldn’t be classified as robbers. The Duke and the King con people to obtain money for survival. However many believe that what they do is wrong, and isn’t considered survival. I ask myself WHY? Why isn’t it considered survival, if what they are doing is conning people and obtaining money to continue with their lives and survive? What makes Huck and Jim’s survival any different from the King and the Duke's? Although Huck and Jim do it with better intentions, and better methods, it doesn’t mean that what the King and the Duke do isn’t surviving. It doesn’t make a lot of sense; if Jim and Huck are also taking food and goods from other families in order to survive, isn’t that also considered stealing?
posted by Matt S.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment