Michael Pruess
				Real Men
Mark Twain's book, Huck Finn, utilizes Twain's knowledge of the United States of America to present a believable tale set along a realistically-portrayed Mississippi river. In one of the towns Huck visits after leaving his home, a mob forms to Colonel Sherburn, a man who has just committed murder. Huck follows the mob to Sherburn's house and witnesses Sherburn addressing the mob condescendingly, informing them that they lack the guts to lynch him. He explains that this is because none of them are true men, that "a man goes in the night, with a hundred masked cowards at his back." Sherburn paints a clear picture of the conduct expected of real men, and uses it to show those who would see him dead that they are incapable of killing him. A man—an individual—is the one who leads the mob.  Sherburn's words shake his assailants and they disperse, their cowardice seemingly vindicating him. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a contemporary of Mark Twain, famously said that "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist."  Emerson was a leader of the American Transcendentalist movement and was a staunch supporter of individualism. His words suit his character and sound very nice, but while he might be able to explain his ideas to inhabitants of Brook Farm, they don't relate at all to Huck Finn. As Emerson's definition can't be applied to Twain's book, and Sherburn's definition of a "man" is an integral part of his hypocritical nature, I would contend that neither definition is valid. 
Emerson was a brilliant scholar, but his definition of a "man" is not valid in the context of Huck Finn. In a real-world context, where each living human is in fact an individual, Emerson's words may be quoted meaningfully. Because Huck Finn is a work of fiction based upon a real place, and because its attempt at realism mandates the use of stereotypes, none of its characters can be true individuals—that hard-sought realism would all go to waste. Emerson's definition would be valid and relevant in context if it would be meaningful to apply it to the book. One could use it to look at each character in turn—"Oh? Pap? Conformist. Non-man. Buck? Conformist. Non-man. Silas? Conformist. Non-man." But by the end of the day, once one has turned over every character in the book only to find out that they are all non-individuals to some extent or other, nothing has been accomplished. It seems an entirely pointless waste of energy to use Emerson's quote to prove that not one of the characters within a work of fiction is a true "man." His definition, having no place in an analysis of Huck Finn, is invalid.
Sherburn's entire rant about "men" and "cowards" is hypocrisy. It does sway the mob before him, but not because he is that much of a man. The mob displays an extreme case of the cowardice Sherburn describes. Sherburn is capable of standing up to the mob because of a self-assurance he has imbued himself with, not because he is any less of a conformist than anyone in said mob. When explaining himself, he says that he was "born and raised in the South, and I've lived in the North; so I know the average all around." He uses his experiences to qualify his words, but while this intelligent use of ethos is sound rhetorically, a quick glance at the big picture shows that the way in which he goes about backing up his statements shows him to be, by his own definition, not a man. When he tells the mob how a "real lynching" is done ("in the dark, Southern fashion"), he is conforming to an idea of what a "real lynching" is—an idea he shares with others raised in the South who have lived the same life as he and experienced the same things. The main implication of his speech about men and cowards is that he himself is a man while the ones who seek to kill him are not, though by his own definition of "man" he is no better than they are. He isn't leading anyone and he relies on the masses of others like him to support his definitions and views. He is not an individual but rather a sad man with a twisted interpretation of the facts. He avoids death only to continue living in denial. His definition of "man" is no more than a part of his self-contradicting character. It is not valid.
	Another  mark against the validity of the definitions of Emerson and Sherburn is Tom Sawyer. The least conformist individual in Huck Finn, Sawyer is far from being a man who "goes in the night, with a hundred masked cowards at his back, and lynches" a man. Sawyer adheres to values and ideals that stem from his own misinterpretations of literary fiction. His actions seem out of place and freakish to his reality-grounded friend Huck, and that is what they are—weird, out of the ordinary, nonconformist. Tom is the furthest from mainstream of any character in the book, and he's no more of a man for it. His only bravery is his foolishness (as seen when he is concocting plans to free Jim), a trait he shares with Huck and a symbol of his childhood. Sawyer fits the bill perfectly for both Sherburn's "individual" and Emerson's "nonconformist," but he fails to be anything else that Sherburn ascribes to "men." This is in part because he isn't a man; he is a child, and as such is not leading mobs down the warpath to lynch murderers.
	Were Huck Finn more fanciful, it might contain characters who conform less, and Emerson's definition of a "man" might become valid. Sherburn's definition will remain invalid so long as his character remains consistent; accepting his definition is comparable to ignoring the integrity of his character.  Neither Sherburn nor Emerson's definition is one that can be looked to in the context of the book. The true "men" of Huck Finn are defined by something other than their ability to lead or how conformist they are, something that transcends individualism—their ability to be human, to care for others. It is not leadership or nonconformity that makes Jim a man, and it is not a "man" that Tom is made for being a nonconformist. What sets Jim aside is his kindness and caring for Huck, and Huck will grow up to be a real "man" because he is capable of caring for others, as seen in his internal struggles regarding Jim and their results.