Mississippi River Symbolism In Huck Finn

A very apparent symbol that reoccurrs is the Mississippi River. This is also a motif. The Mississippi River as you know, is very reoccurring throughout the story as it is the whole setting throughout the whole story. The Mississippi River is a symbol in the story because it represents freedom. Throughout the story, it can be analyzed of just how freely the people of the town can roam about. For example, on their journey on the raft, Jim and Huck can be shown as a great example of how free they can be along the River. On their ride along the Mississippi River, Huck and Jim don’t have to answer to anyone, and I mean anyone. The Mississippi River serves as route to freedom for both Huck and Jim. On one hand, the River serves as a route for freedom

From the start to the end of the story, all the way through, the audience is given an insight of how society was during the passage of this story, as well as how some of the characters, most particularly, Huck Finn, viewed society back then. Throughout the story, the audience is constantly reminded of just “unsivilized” the Mississippi River town really is. This hypocrisy can be seen from the very beginning start of the story to begin with. First off, it can be observed that Huck is trying to get away from his current society at is. At first, you’d wonder, “why is this?” but it turns out he was doing this for a very important reason. That specific reason is because his town is very backwards when it comes to some of the more obvious logical things/decisions that could be made. For example, in the opening of the novel, we get introduced to a new judge in town currently working on a case on Huck Finn and his father, also known as Pap. This case is about the custody of Huck Finn as his father fights to take custody of him, although being shown as being abusive to Huck. In the end, Huck’s father regains custody of him, but that’s not the only thing that isn’t logical. It’s when the judge compares Pap’s control over Huck to being as natural righteous as a slave owner owning a slave. This is proven as being illogical because this is very much not right, as the judge compares a man’s ownership of property-the slaves in this case[which isn’t right neither]-to a man’s custody over his child. This insinuates that the judge and people of the town believe kids should be treated as property as