I also fundamentally disagree that Huck Finn is a pro-slavery novel. I took the novel to be a satirical critique of the south in general in the guise of an episodic adventure story that included a critique of slavery. It’s not just a novel about slavery. The other parts that seem like filler are just as important for what I think the book is trying to do. This larger theme brings all the other episodic elements together: family feuds, conmen, hypocrisy of religion, etc. The fact that many of the ordinary people who own slaves aren’t depicted as monsters is the point. Twain is pointing to the banality of evil (the idea that ordinary people can commit terrible acts without evil intentions). The key moment is when Huck chooses to protect Jim, while violating his own racist southern ideological beliefs, even believing he is condemning his soul to hell and he is doing the wrong thing all because he recognizes Jim’s humanity during their shared experiences escaping from their troubles. Twain is showing here how easily kids are indoctrinated into beliefs about slavery, making them think they are doing something evil when they are doing something morally good.
@@CSreader I should go back to what you refer to as “[t]he key moment” which I vaguely remember, but I’m afraid I have to shut the covers on this one. And a reread would be necessary for me to begin to guess “what… the book is trying to do.” So I have to keep open to your interpretation, but I can’t go back, and probably not ever. Thanks for your thoughts.
Most Twain novels have that juvenile stand-up comedy Schtick that made him popular. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a rascally boys’ tale that tries to comment, in passing, on the slavery situation. The point of view is that of a troubled, poor white boy (via first person narration) who is bothered by the institution of slavery (when he pays attention). My feeling is that Twain hated to sound preachy/ didactic. In the novel, the high point is when Huck decides not to betray Jim and to risk going to hell. In the last section, Twain sabotaged the righteous tone with, say, “Im just fooling around like I always do!” Also, we must remember Huck and Tom are adolescents. They cannot be expected to become overnight abolitionists.
@@doctorbrash5068 I don’t recall any such Schlick in _Prince and Pauper_ which was a nearly perfect piece of literary artistry. I took him for genuine but conflicted, whereas you suggest he was more mercenary than that - which is entirely possible. You are the second person to mention (in your words) “the high point”. I noted it when it went past but it felt too early to be a high point. I took it more as clearing business out of the way. But neither of the Macaulays felt like other than voice boxes for Twain to me. Still, taking it back to that point, and your comments here, have unintentionally carried me off into hypothetical speculation. Twain knew slavery, and had his reasons for sugar-coating it. But now I wonder, and ask, did Twain know Miss Watson was sleeping with Jim, or forcing him to have sex with her (to put it more accurately). We know rape was an integral component of the system. So his use of the child narrator allowed him to conceal that. I’m not going to go back to the text and probe it for clues - nor to the historical record to find out if there were any real-world bases for the characters - but I wish the question had been in my mind when I read it.
I fundamentally disagree that Huck Finn is a pro-slavery novel. That Twain pulled his punches with an eye to sales by including that terrible ending and by bringing Tom Sawyer into the novel is absolutely true. That section does ruin the novel in a way. My understanding is that Twain added it to tie the book to his success with Tom Sawyer and to soften the criticism of the South and slavery, but, for me, Jim’s humanity and the injustice with which he lived still remain. Almost everyone says that Everett’s James is a retelling of Huck Finn, but it feels more like a corrective to me. I believe Everett has said he believed Twain was unwilling or incapable of fulfilling the “promise” of the book regarding its statement on race.
@@BookishTexan I can’t read any more about Twain right now, but I’m very interested in what Everett has to say, and may try to pick up his “corrective”. So much of _Huck Finn_ is flat out ridiculous I can’t wait to see how Everett incorporated it into his novel.
One of those American classics i don’t know I will soon get to. There is so much more interesting stuff to get to first honestly.
@@shoresofpatmos If your interest is in Americana it’s an important book, but you’re right, there’s better books, even by Twain.
I also fundamentally disagree that Huck Finn is a pro-slavery novel. I took the novel to be a satirical critique of the south in general in the guise of an episodic adventure story that included a critique of slavery. It’s not just a novel about slavery. The other parts that seem like filler are just as important for what I think the book is trying to do. This larger theme brings all the other episodic elements together: family feuds, conmen, hypocrisy of religion, etc.
The fact that many of the ordinary people who own slaves aren’t depicted as monsters is the point. Twain is pointing to the banality of evil (the idea that ordinary people can commit terrible acts without evil intentions). The key moment is when Huck chooses to protect Jim, while violating his own racist southern ideological beliefs, even believing he is condemning his soul to hell and he is doing the wrong thing all because he recognizes Jim’s humanity during their shared experiences escaping from their troubles. Twain is showing here how easily kids are indoctrinated into beliefs about slavery, making them think they are doing something evil when they are doing something morally good.
@@CSreader I should go back to what you refer to as “[t]he key moment” which I vaguely remember, but I’m afraid I have to shut the covers on this one. And a reread would be necessary for me to begin to guess “what… the book is trying to do.” So I have to keep open to your interpretation, but I can’t go back, and probably not ever. Thanks for your thoughts.
Most Twain novels have that juvenile stand-up comedy Schtick that made him popular.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a rascally boys’ tale that tries to comment, in passing, on the slavery situation. The point of view is that of a troubled, poor white boy (via first person narration) who is bothered by the institution of slavery (when he pays attention).
My feeling is that Twain hated to sound preachy/ didactic. In the novel, the high point is when Huck decides not to betray Jim and to risk going to hell.
In the last section, Twain sabotaged the righteous tone with, say, “Im just fooling around like I always do!”
Also, we must remember Huck and Tom are adolescents. They cannot be expected to become overnight abolitionists.
@@doctorbrash5068 I don’t recall any such Schlick in _Prince and Pauper_ which was a nearly perfect piece of literary artistry. I took him for genuine but conflicted, whereas you suggest he was more mercenary than that - which is entirely possible.
You are the second person to mention (in your words) “the high point”. I noted it when it went past but it felt too early to be a high point. I took it more as clearing business out of the way. But neither of the Macaulays felt like other than voice boxes for Twain to me.
Still, taking it back to that point, and your comments here, have unintentionally carried me off into hypothetical speculation.
Twain knew slavery, and had his reasons for sugar-coating it. But now I wonder, and ask, did Twain know Miss Watson was sleeping with Jim, or forcing him to have sex with her (to put it more accurately). We know rape was an integral component of the system. So his use of the child narrator allowed him to conceal that. I’m not going to go back to the text and probe it for clues - nor to the historical record to find out if there were any real-world bases for the characters - but I wish the question had been in my mind when I read it.
I fundamentally disagree that Huck Finn is a pro-slavery novel. That Twain pulled his punches with an eye to sales by including that terrible ending and by bringing Tom Sawyer into the novel is absolutely true. That section does ruin the novel in a way. My understanding is that Twain added it to tie the book to his success with Tom Sawyer and to soften the criticism of the South and slavery, but, for me, Jim’s humanity and the injustice with which he lived still remain. Almost everyone says that Everett’s James is a retelling of Huck Finn, but it feels more like a corrective to me. I believe Everett has said he believed Twain was unwilling or incapable of fulfilling the “promise” of the book regarding its statement on race.
@@BookishTexan I can’t read any more about Twain right now, but I’m very interested in what Everett has to say, and may try to pick up his “corrective”. So much of _Huck Finn_ is flat out ridiculous I can’t wait to see how Everett incorporated it into his novel.