Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Huckleberry Finn
>
Huckleberry Finn - Through End of Book
Before I run off and get busy with Thanksgiving I'd like to thank Zeke for the fantastic job he's done with Huck Finn so far! All the wonderful background material and the timely interjections have been really helpful. Good work!!
Kate wrote: "Before I run off and get busy with Thanksgiving I'd like to thank Zeke for the fantastic job he's done with Huck Finn so far! All the wonderful background material and the timely interjections hav..."Absolutely. But be sure to come back after Thanksgiving -- there's lots more to come!
True, Hemingway did say that all American literature develops out of Huckleberry Finn. But he added: If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating. But it's the best book we've had. All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since."
Cheating? Sloppy? Overdone Burlesque?
Or, symmetrical, funny, moving, and/or inevitable?
I think an understanding of Aunt Sally and Uncle Silas is helpful. They are unlike the other “types” Huck has encountered. The Phelps’ household is the closest thing to “normal” he has experienced. They are “good” people. At one point Twain considered having the farmer-preacher Silas Phelps wrestle with his own conscience about what to do with Jim. He wrote in his notes, “…wishes he would escape—if it warn’t wrong he’d set him free—but it’s a gushy generosity with another man’s property.”
The tone changes in this last section of the book in ways that cast the events of the middle section into question.
And the conclusion: are things resolved to your satisfaction or are you disappointed? I think there are arguments for either.
Feel free to criticize. Many critics have.But before you do, let me remind you of something.....
Go back and reread the NOTICE at the start of the book.
Cheating? Sloppy? Overdone Burlesque?
Or, symmetrical, funny, moving, and/or inevitable?
I think an understanding of Aunt Sally and Uncle Silas is helpful. They are unlike the other “types” Huck has encountered. The Phelps’ household is the closest thing to “normal” he has experienced. They are “good” people. At one point Twain considered having the farmer-preacher Silas Phelps wrestle with his own conscience about what to do with Jim. He wrote in his notes, “…wishes he would escape—if it warn’t wrong he’d set him free—but it’s a gushy generosity with another man’s property.”
The tone changes in this last section of the book in ways that cast the events of the middle section into question.
And the conclusion: are things resolved to your satisfaction or are you disappointed? I think there are arguments for either.
Feel free to criticize. Many critics have.But before you do, let me remind you of something.....
Go back and reread the NOTICE at the start of the book.
A lot of the last section strikes me as just ridiculous, meaning all of Tom's elaborate game-playing, unfortunately at Jim's expense, though he's not looking at it that way. And also at the expense of poor Aunt Sally.
But my biggest disappointment was that at the very end I would have liked to have heard at least SOMETHING about the plans or the fate of Jim. Suddenly it seems like Huck's just forgotten him. I found that jarring and unsatisfying after the friendship they had formed.
On the other hand, Huck striking out for the territories is perfect.
But my biggest disappointment was that at the very end I would have liked to have heard at least SOMETHING about the plans or the fate of Jim. Suddenly it seems like Huck's just forgotten him. I found that jarring and unsatisfying after the friendship they had formed.
On the other hand, Huck striking out for the territories is perfect.
Silver and others have written strongly about Huck's decision to help Jim and "go to Hell." I agree that it is a stunning moment in literature. (In fact, can others think of comparable turning points?)
However, as I said yesterday, but had to hold for today, I think those who see it as a triumph of morals may have a difficult time explaining this passage:
"All right; but wait a minute. There's one more thing—a thing that NOBODY don't know but me. And that is, there's a nigger here that I'm a-trying to steal out of slavery, and his name is JIM—old Miss Watson's Jim."
He says:
"What! Why, Jim is—"
He stopped and went to studying. I says:
"I know what you'll say. You'll say it's dirty, low-down business; but what if it is? I'm low down; and I'm a-going to steal him, and I want you keep mum and not let on. Will you?"
His eye lit up, and he says:
"I'll HELP you steal him!"
Well, I let go all holts then, like I was shot. It was the most astonishing speech I ever heard—and I'm bound to say Tom Sawyer fell considerable in my estimation. Only I couldn't believe it. Tom Sawyer a NIGGER-STEALER!
As Twain says, Huck's "heart" wins out. But I don't think we can say he has attained any kind of moral standing.
However, as I said yesterday, but had to hold for today, I think those who see it as a triumph of morals may have a difficult time explaining this passage:
"All right; but wait a minute. There's one more thing—a thing that NOBODY don't know but me. And that is, there's a nigger here that I'm a-trying to steal out of slavery, and his name is JIM—old Miss Watson's Jim."
He says:
"What! Why, Jim is—"
He stopped and went to studying. I says:
"I know what you'll say. You'll say it's dirty, low-down business; but what if it is? I'm low down; and I'm a-going to steal him, and I want you keep mum and not let on. Will you?"
His eye lit up, and he says:
"I'll HELP you steal him!"
Well, I let go all holts then, like I was shot. It was the most astonishing speech I ever heard—and I'm bound to say Tom Sawyer fell considerable in my estimation. Only I couldn't believe it. Tom Sawyer a NIGGER-STEALER!
As Twain says, Huck's "heart" wins out. But I don't think we can say he has attained any kind of moral standing.
But isn't a reason that slavery is wrong is because it is heartless to own people like that? I see what you are saying about Huck following his heart rather than a logical "slavery is wrong and I am going to stand up to it" line of reasoning but I also don't think you can totally separate the two things either.
M wrote: "A lot of the last section strikes me as just ridiculous, meaning all of Tom's elaborate game-playing, unfortunately at Jim's expense, though he's not looking at it that way. And also at the expense..."I was somewhat annoyed at Tom's games at this point in the book until it was revealed that Tom knew Jim was already a free man. Then I laughed out loud.
Julie wrote: I was somewhat annoyed at Tom's games at this point in the book until it was revealed that Tom knew Jim was already a free man. Then I laughed out loud. I did too. And this fits in so well with what we know of Tom's character. He lives in a fantasy world which is mainly derived from books. For him the situation is a game. He doesn't think of the pain,and anxiety, that his games may cause others. Since, it is all a game to him.
Zeke wrote: "Silver and others have written strongly about Huck's decision to help Jim and "go to Hell." I agree that it is a stunning moment in literature. (In fact, can others think of comparable turning poin..."But I think that this makes Huck's bond with Jim all the more profound, the fact that he is not doing it becasue of his morals, but rather in spite of his morals. He in his mind accepts the fact that what he wants to do is an inexcusable act and one of which he wants to protect Tom from getting involved it, but even so, if he had done the "moral" thing by not trying to help Jim, he would feel even worse about himself and been less forgiving of himself than his agreeing to throw all sense of right and wrong out the window on Jim's behalf.
Also though I haven't advanced that for into the reading yet for this section, I find it interesting the way in which we can see the realtionship between Huck and Tom, and how in spite of Huck idolizing Tom, Tom is in fact more childish than Huck is.
Huck comes up with a practical plan to rescue Jim that would acutally work and achieve Huck's purpose, but Tom on the other hand discounts it as being too simple, and much like with the bandits at the beginning, Tom is more interested in the play acting while Huck sincerely desires to rescue Jim. Tom draws Huck into his world of make-beleive.
Interesting responses to my challenge. Thank you all. Hopefully, some others will weigh in as well. After the (American) holiday tomorrow, I may try to offer another side to these points, but you each make your case well. Also, Silver, as you read further, it may strengthen your position or undermine it. Will be interesting to see.
One thing that troubled me is the way Huck immediately places himself beneath Tom again. Why he can't realize how much more competent he is than his friend, I don't get. Society has really programmed him that he is worthless.
M. I loved your point about how Jim "disappears." Any thoughts on why this happens?
One thing that troubled me is the way Huck immediately places himself beneath Tom again. Why he can't realize how much more competent he is than his friend, I don't get. Society has really programmed him that he is worthless.
M. I loved your point about how Jim "disappears." Any thoughts on why this happens?
Zeke wrote: "Silver and others have written strongly about Huck's decision to help Jim and "go to Hell." I agree that it is a stunning moment in literature. (In fact, can others think of comparable turning poin..."This isn't a turning point exactly, but I think there is an analogous situation in Don Quixote. Sancho Panza is devoted to Don Q and goes along with his delusion out of love for his master:
...I believe my master, Don Quixote, is completely crazy, even though sometimes he says things that in my opinion, and in the opinion of everybody who hears him, are so intelligent and well-reasoned that Satan himself couldn't say them better; but even so, truly and without any scruples, it's clear to me that he's a fool.
...if I were a clever man, I would have left my master days ago. But this is my fate and this is my misfortune; I can't help it; I have to follow him: we're from the same village, I've eaten his bread, I love him dearly, he's a grateful man, he gave me his donkeys, and more than anything else, I'm faithful; and so it's impossible for anything separate us except the man with the pick and shovel. (Part 3, Ch. 33).
Kate wrote: "Before I run off and get busy with Thanksgiving I'd like to thank Zeke for the fantastic job he's done with Huck Finn so far! All the wonderful background material and the timely interjections hav..."Yes, great job, Zeke.
Zeke wrote: "M. I loved your point about how Jim "disappears." Any thoughts on why this happens?"
All I can think is that Twain didn't want to change the tone of the book by following up on the freed slave, which would be a more serious topic, hard to handle without losing humorous, ironic tone of the book. But he could have given him one sentence without affecting the feel of the ending. So it's puzzling, if we assume that Twain did it on purpose.
All I can think is that Twain didn't want to change the tone of the book by following up on the freed slave, which would be a more serious topic, hard to handle without losing humorous, ironic tone of the book. But he could have given him one sentence without affecting the feel of the ending. So it's puzzling, if we assume that Twain did it on purpose.
It seems as if Twain is being critical of those who possess only "book smarts" or who value "book smaarts" over life experience/"street smarts" or perhaps it is another way in which Twain is critical of the blind faith which surrounds the Bible and that tendency that the word of the Bible should be followed as absolute truth even if people do not acutally understand what it is telling them or take the tame to think it through or question if it does make sense or not. Tom comes up with countless elaborate plots on the best way in which to free Jim, all of which are completely impractical and which are drawn from his own reading of books. Much like with the ransom in the outlaw band, he is determined that they must do what is shown in the books.
He accuses Huck of wanting to do things "irregular" whenever Huck comes up with a plot that is based in practicality becasue in spite of the fact that Huck's ideas are acutally applicable in the real world, they are not demostrated in the books Tom has read.
I agree Silver. In fact, some of those reading the book when it was published would have been familiar with the novels that Twain is lampooning with Tom's schemes.
On the face of it, I don't have a problem with that. But it could have been done easily in a separate short story or sketch. So I am still struggling with four questions about what critics call the "evasion" chapters:
1.Why did he decide to incorporate it into the novel? What did he think his readers would make of it?
2. What does it tell us about Huck and Tom's relationship that Huck goes along with minimal objection?
3. What does it show us about Huck, Jim and their relationship?
4. Do your answers to any of the above cast doubt on your interpretations of the middle section of the book?
For myself, I have gone back and forth on these questions, and also a few other issues about the end of the book. And I am eager to think more about M's question regarding the way Jim is dispensed of so abruptly.
On the face of it, I don't have a problem with that. But it could have been done easily in a separate short story or sketch. So I am still struggling with four questions about what critics call the "evasion" chapters:
1.Why did he decide to incorporate it into the novel? What did he think his readers would make of it?
2. What does it tell us about Huck and Tom's relationship that Huck goes along with minimal objection?
3. What does it show us about Huck, Jim and their relationship?
4. Do your answers to any of the above cast doubt on your interpretations of the middle section of the book?
For myself, I have gone back and forth on these questions, and also a few other issues about the end of the book. And I am eager to think more about M's question regarding the way Jim is dispensed of so abruptly.
Vikz wrote: "Julie wrote: I was somewhat annoyed at Tom's games at this point in the book until it was revealed that Tom knew Jim was already a free man. Then I laughed out loud. I did too. And this fits in s..."
It does fit with Tom's character, that's for sure. He was proud of being wounded and later wore the bullet strung around his neck. But I didn't laugh when I found out Jim was technically free already. I thought...they could've all been killed...and for what? So Tom could string out the adventure. Note that this means there was no crisis of conscience, no moral dilemma for Tom, in setting free a man that he knew was legally already free.
Zeke, as always, you pose some very interesting questions and I need to give them a bit more thought.
Zeke wrote: "I agree Silver. In fact, some of those reading the book when it was published would have been familiar with the novels that Twain is lampooning with Tom's schemes.On the face of it, I don't have ..."
In regards to the relationship of Huck and Tom and just what this seen of Tom's foolery in his schemes to try and rescue Jim say about the two of them, it makes me wonder if in fact there is not a part of Huck that acutally is trying to capture something of an actual childhood.
While on the one hand it is easy to becoe frustrated for Huck becasue of the way in which he idolizes Tom so much and how he allows Tom to stall the freeing of Jim by coming up with a brand new plan cockamamie plan everyday, but it may be faulty to say that it comes from Huck feeling as if he is incompetent and not properly valuing himself and his worth and own intelligence.
Tom acts much more like the way one would expect someone Huck's age to act, a person would not expect a child to acutally engage upon the very real life and dangerous adventures which Huck has been lead into.
From the start Huck had this very adult/mature sort of practicality and did not seem to have the ability to enjoy the kind of more typical imagination, and playacting which Tom enjoys.
In comparison to Huck, Tom appears to be completely incompetent, immature, and childlike, and a total goof, but Tom is behaving the way a boy of his age ought to behave, and the way it is normal and natural for a boy to behave of his age. Huck in fact has acted much more like an adult and in the way in which he admires Tom throughout his adventures I think it puts the things he has been through into that context of play-acting and perhaps by trying to give the things he has been through the veneer of a child-like adventure is what helps him to deal with death, violence and danger he has had to face.
In his letting Tom take the lead upon the rescue of Jim perhaps is the way Huck takes a very serious situation and one which had caused him a morality crisis which no child should really be confronted with, and turning it into a child's game as a way to deal with enormity of what he is purposing to do.
By being drawn into this elaborate world of crazy schemes and adventure books he is lifting the adult like responsibility from his shoulders and allowing himself to capture something of what it means to be a child.
Though behind it, he does have the sincerity of wanting to help Jim out, so he does try to reason with Tom and propose much more practical plans of action, but he allows himself to be easily talked out of these things.
Patrice In a similar vein, i think I remember reading that for every slave that was freed a soldier was killed. A person's life was sacrificed for every freed slave.
What a trade-off!
Welcome back Patrice. I hope your holiday travels went well.
The Civil War poses some of the great counter-factual challenges of American History. Not just the one about what would have happened if the south had won the war; for me, despite the north's early setbacks, this was never likely to happen.
When I think about the carnage of the war and the fact that, to a great extent blacks in the south didn't achieve any semblance of equality until a hundred years later, I wonder if it was worth it. What would have happened if the war had not been fought? Could a southern confederacy have survived?
What we do know is that the consequences of the war were, ultimately, of little benefit to the freed slaves. The failure of reconstruction was followed by decades of Jim Crow laws. These went way beyond the common conception of things like separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Black men were arrested for crimes like "walking on the railroad tracks," "Leaving a job without the employer's permission," etc. Then, when they could not pay an exorbitant fine, county sheriffs "sold" them to iron works, mines or plantations where they could "work off their debt to society." Ironically, they were treated worse than the slaves had been; owners had no stake in their health the way they had with slaves, and there was an endless supply to be had.
This is documented in one of the most painful-to-read but essential books I have ever read, Douglas Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name. The Civil War "freed" the slaves, but it was not until WW II when the nation's need for manpower forced the federal government to stop turning a blind eye to the practice (which many northern companies also profited from)that blacks began to get anything close to equal rights.
What a trade-off!
Welcome back Patrice. I hope your holiday travels went well.
The Civil War poses some of the great counter-factual challenges of American History. Not just the one about what would have happened if the south had won the war; for me, despite the north's early setbacks, this was never likely to happen.
When I think about the carnage of the war and the fact that, to a great extent blacks in the south didn't achieve any semblance of equality until a hundred years later, I wonder if it was worth it. What would have happened if the war had not been fought? Could a southern confederacy have survived?
What we do know is that the consequences of the war were, ultimately, of little benefit to the freed slaves. The failure of reconstruction was followed by decades of Jim Crow laws. These went way beyond the common conception of things like separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Black men were arrested for crimes like "walking on the railroad tracks," "Leaving a job without the employer's permission," etc. Then, when they could not pay an exorbitant fine, county sheriffs "sold" them to iron works, mines or plantations where they could "work off their debt to society." Ironically, they were treated worse than the slaves had been; owners had no stake in their health the way they had with slaves, and there was an endless supply to be had.
This is documented in one of the most painful-to-read but essential books I have ever read, Douglas Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name. The Civil War "freed" the slaves, but it was not until WW II when the nation's need for manpower forced the federal government to stop turning a blind eye to the practice (which many northern companies also profited from)that blacks began to get anything close to equal rights.
Silver: ...it makes me wonder if in fact there is not a part of Huck that acutally is trying to capture something of an actual childhood.
Very interesting observation Silver. It made me recall a touching passage. "Sid" is still missing, but Huck is back at the Phelps' house.
And then when I went up to bed she come up with me and fetched her candle, and tucked me in, and mothered me so good I felt mean, and like I couldn't look her in the face; and she set down on the bed and talked with me a long time, and said what a splendid boy Sid was, and didn't seem to want to ever stop talking about him; and kept asking me every now and then if I reckoned he could a got lost, or hurt, or maybe drownded, and might be laying at this minute somewheres suffering or dead, and she not by him to help him, and so the tears would drip down silent, and I would tell her that Sid was all right, and would be home in the morning, sure; and she would squeeze my hand, or maybe kiss me, and tell me to say it again, and keep on saying it, because it done her good, and she was in so much trouble. And when she was going away she looked down in my eyes so steady and gentle, and says:
"The door ain't going to be locked, Tom, and there's the window and the rod; but you'll be good, WON'T you? And you won't go? For MY sake."
Laws knows I WANTED to go bad enough to see about Tom, and was all intending to go; but after that I wouldn't a went, not for kingdoms.
But she was on my mind and Tom was on my mind, so I slept very restless. And twice I went down the rod away in the night, and slipped around front, and see her setting there by her candle in the window with her eyes towards the road and the tears in them; and I wished I could do something for her, but I couldn't, only to swear that I wouldn't never do nothing to grieve her any more. And the third time I waked up at dawn, and slid down, and she was there yet, and her candle was most out, and her old gray head was resting on her hand, and she was asleep.
Very interesting observation Silver. It made me recall a touching passage. "Sid" is still missing, but Huck is back at the Phelps' house.
And then when I went up to bed she come up with me and fetched her candle, and tucked me in, and mothered me so good I felt mean, and like I couldn't look her in the face; and she set down on the bed and talked with me a long time, and said what a splendid boy Sid was, and didn't seem to want to ever stop talking about him; and kept asking me every now and then if I reckoned he could a got lost, or hurt, or maybe drownded, and might be laying at this minute somewheres suffering or dead, and she not by him to help him, and so the tears would drip down silent, and I would tell her that Sid was all right, and would be home in the morning, sure; and she would squeeze my hand, or maybe kiss me, and tell me to say it again, and keep on saying it, because it done her good, and she was in so much trouble. And when she was going away she looked down in my eyes so steady and gentle, and says:
"The door ain't going to be locked, Tom, and there's the window and the rod; but you'll be good, WON'T you? And you won't go? For MY sake."
Laws knows I WANTED to go bad enough to see about Tom, and was all intending to go; but after that I wouldn't a went, not for kingdoms.
But she was on my mind and Tom was on my mind, so I slept very restless. And twice I went down the rod away in the night, and slipped around front, and see her setting there by her candle in the window with her eyes towards the road and the tears in them; and I wished I could do something for her, but I couldn't, only to swear that I wouldn't never do nothing to grieve her any more. And the third time I waked up at dawn, and slid down, and she was there yet, and her candle was most out, and her old gray head was resting on her hand, and she was asleep.
There are two lynch mobs in the book. The first is faced down by Col. Sherburn. The second, when Jim is recaptured, backs down because they would have to pay if Jim's owner appeared.
Indeed, when the doctor is prasing Jim for not being a "bad nigger," the best he can come up with is that he's worth a thousand dollars, which we readers recall is more than the eight hundred Miss Watson would have sold him for--and certainly far more than the King got for him. The point is simply that none of them was even capable of thinking of him as a man.
The doctor's phrase reveals all. john W. Roberts in From Trickster to Badman writes: "Bad niggers" [were] "bold individuals who refused to accept whippings, sauced masters and mistresses with impunity, ran away at the slightest provocation, and even killed masters and overseers who abused them."
In short the "bad nigger" was one who acted like a man.
The solution, lynching, was designed to terrorize of course. Twain wrote a scathing short piece about the practice in 1901: The United States of Lyncherdom. Then he decided not to publish it until after his death, saying, "I shouldn't have even half a friend left down there [in the South], after it issued from the press."
http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam4...
Indeed, when the doctor is prasing Jim for not being a "bad nigger," the best he can come up with is that he's worth a thousand dollars, which we readers recall is more than the eight hundred Miss Watson would have sold him for--and certainly far more than the King got for him. The point is simply that none of them was even capable of thinking of him as a man.
The doctor's phrase reveals all. john W. Roberts in From Trickster to Badman writes: "Bad niggers" [were] "bold individuals who refused to accept whippings, sauced masters and mistresses with impunity, ran away at the slightest provocation, and even killed masters and overseers who abused them."
In short the "bad nigger" was one who acted like a man.
The solution, lynching, was designed to terrorize of course. Twain wrote a scathing short piece about the practice in 1901: The United States of Lyncherdom. Then he decided not to publish it until after his death, saying, "I shouldn't have even half a friend left down there [in the South], after it issued from the press."
http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam4...
I think most people will have finished the book by now but, in any case, this isn't a major spoiler if you haven't.
I'm curious, before we get on to discussing the book as a whole, whether anyone wants to weigh in on the discovery late in the book that the dead man in the ruined house was Pap Finn. It seems to me that there are --at least-- two possible explanations for why Jim didn't tell Huck sooner. Each says something about Jim's character, but I fear they probably can't simultaneously be valid.
I'm curious, before we get on to discussing the book as a whole, whether anyone wants to weigh in on the discovery late in the book that the dead man in the ruined house was Pap Finn. It seems to me that there are --at least-- two possible explanations for why Jim didn't tell Huck sooner. Each says something about Jim's character, but I fear they probably can't simultaneously be valid.
Julie wrote: I was somewhat annoyed at Tom's games at this point in the book until it was revealed that Tom knew Jim was already a free man. Then I laughed out loud.
But Julie, how do you feel about it on reflection? If Tom knew Jim was already free doesn't that make his pranks downright cruel?
And, by the way, Twain's plot device violates something he had criticized James Fennimore Cooper for doing: "...the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable."
Miss Watson may have wanted to free Jim after her death, but back in Hannibal the runaway slave is still the prime suspect in Huck's "death." Thus, we are being asked to believe that a white woman would free the black man she believes has killed her white ward. I don't think so.
As Julius Lester, a critic of the book as a whole, says acerbically, "White people may believe such fairy tales about themselves, but black people know better."
But Julie, how do you feel about it on reflection? If Tom knew Jim was already free doesn't that make his pranks downright cruel?
And, by the way, Twain's plot device violates something he had criticized James Fennimore Cooper for doing: "...the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable."
Miss Watson may have wanted to free Jim after her death, but back in Hannibal the runaway slave is still the prime suspect in Huck's "death." Thus, we are being asked to believe that a white woman would free the black man she believes has killed her white ward. I don't think so.
As Julius Lester, a critic of the book as a whole, says acerbically, "White people may believe such fairy tales about themselves, but black people know better."
I find the rather complex relationship which Twain demonstrates between the whites and slaves to be a rather interesting which seems at times to be contradictory or hypocritical. The episode with the Wilkie's slaves struck me as being a bit strange, the way in which the town was outraged by King separating the mother and her sons, even though it was common for slaves to be separated from their families and the marriage between slaves were not really recognized by their owners, nor were slave families typically respected or seen as having any sentimental value, they were seen primarily as a commodity.
In addition the situation with Jim, though he is being kept as a prisoner locked within a hut and chained up, so that reward money as a runaway can be collected upon him, Jim himself describes Aunt Sally and Uncle Silas as being the kindest people. And besides keeping him as a prisoner they seem to care for him well and seem genuinely concerned about his well being.
In some ways they seem almost like Huck, they are basically good people at the root of it, and do not wish Jim any ill will nor do they act toward him out of active malice, and they seem to have some ability to recognize him as a human being yet, they accept the law for what it is, just as Huck does not argue against the law and holds to what it says, he simply decides to act in spite of the law and accepts his own wickedness out of his loyalty to Jim. Uncle Silas and Aunt Sally do not think to question of the law may be wrong, and it would not occur to them to rebel against it, but they still feel a basic sense of duty and Christian charity to treat Jim with a measure of good will.
Zeke wrote: " Julie wrote: I was somewhat annoyed at Tom's games at this point in the book until it was revealed that Tom knew Jim was already a free man. Then I laughed out loud. But Julie, how do you feel about it on reflection? If Tom knew Jim was already free doesn't that make his pranks downright cruel?
"
My initial reaction was that it was more cruel if they had been actually risking his eventual freedom. There was a possibility that they might take too long and someone would discover the fact that they were trying to get him free or even just happen move him somewhere else for another reason. I was just saying that was my first reaction to laugh. In reality it probably isn't really funny. There are other things to consider like the danger of someone getting hurt in a breakout vs. just telling someone that he was supposed to be let go. I didn't have the impression that Tom was intentionally being cruel though...he was being the regular childish, adventure-loving, do-it-by-the book Tom who probably didn't think about it backfiring.
Silver wrote: "In some ways they seem almost like Huck, they are basically good people at the root of it, and do not wish Jim any ill will nor do they act toward him out of active malice, and they seem to have some ability to recognize him as a human being yet, they accept the law for what it is, just as Huck does not argue against the law and holds to what it says..."Well said.
Thanks Julie for both answers--to me and to Silver.
Here's what I found especially important: "In reality it probably isn't really funny."
Because I worry about how often those of us in the "majority" don't recognize how those who may be the butt of the joke are feeling.
Again, that is NOT any criticism of your comment. It is an invitation to myself to look in the mirror.
Here's what I found especially important: "In reality it probably isn't really funny."
Because I worry about how often those of us in the "majority" don't recognize how those who may be the butt of the joke are feeling.
Again, that is NOT any criticism of your comment. It is an invitation to myself to look in the mirror.
I didn't find what Tom Sawyer did to be funny. Perhaps I don't have the sense of humour to appreciate it. When Aunt noticed things were missing from home, the two boys did not stop. They got worse, stealing and replacing things intentionally confusing her further and she of course wondered if she was going crazy. I have certainly lost interest in reading more of Tom's mischief and pranks in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
Selina wrote: "I didn't find what Tom Sawyer did to be funny. Perhaps I don't have the sense of humour to appreciate it. When Aunt noticed things were missing from home, the two boys did not stop. They got worse,..."I have to admit that I had rather mixed feelings in regards to the incident with the spoons and the miscounting, a part of me felt bad for Aunt Sally and yet at the same time I could not resist the fact that it was a bit amusing.
In regards to the charades with trying to free Jim, though Tom's actions may have very real consequences, and the life of another person is at stake, I did not see Tom as being intentionally malicious I just saw him as a typical boy play-acting adventures and not meaning any real harm, but not taking the time to consider the reproductions his actions may have. Personally I do not think that Twain meant for us to take Tom's escapades in a serious fashion. I felt they were there to add a certain comedic value to the story. Though Tom's countless schemes did get tiresome I did find the humor in it.
Well said again Silver. Practical jokes are usually funny in one way and not funny in another. I think it is normal for us to have mixed feelings about what Tom did (especially since we know that it is fiction). There is always that fine line where a joke becomes cruel though. Intention makes a difference....is the joker trying to be mean or joking as friends or somewhere in between?
T.S. Eliot defends the ending of the book on structural grounds. But he also asks a provocative question.
[I]t is right that the mood of the end of the book should bring us back to that of the beginning. Or, if this was not the right ending for the book, what ending would have been right?
Around 1970 a scholar named John Seelye rewrote the novel in a book titled, The True Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He added coarse language and gave Huck adolescent sexual urges that would have been impossible to publish in the 19th century. He also ended the story after the incident at the Wilkes house, avoiding the evasion chapters entirely.
His last chapter is well worth reading. It is his invention of how the novel should end. You can access it at amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Adventures...
Go to the "Look Inside" feature and type in XXII and it should take you to the right place.
Personally, I like Seelye's ending better because I don't forsee a happy future for Huck as he lights out for the "Territory."
[I]t is right that the mood of the end of the book should bring us back to that of the beginning. Or, if this was not the right ending for the book, what ending would have been right?
Around 1970 a scholar named John Seelye rewrote the novel in a book titled, The True Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He added coarse language and gave Huck adolescent sexual urges that would have been impossible to publish in the 19th century. He also ended the story after the incident at the Wilkes house, avoiding the evasion chapters entirely.
His last chapter is well worth reading. It is his invention of how the novel should end. You can access it at amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Adventures...
Go to the "Look Inside" feature and type in XXII and it should take you to the right place.
Personally, I like Seelye's ending better because I don't forsee a happy future for Huck as he lights out for the "Territory."
It seems to me that one of the morals/messages, behind this story is the idea that people are basically good natured but they are incapable or unwilling to be independent thinkers and they are led astray from thier basic nature becasue it easier to become a follower of what they see as being "authorities" over them be it religion/Bible, superstition, books, the mob, law, etc...So people are led into acting in illogical ways or in ways that may seem at odds with thier own sense of morality, and right and wrong, becasue it is easier to go along with what they are told than to question and analyze these "authorities."
In character such as Aunt Sally/Uncle Silas, the Doctor, Huck we see individuals who do not appear to hold any genuine prejudicial feelings and show themselves as capable of acting in a benevolent way towards African-Americans. They display there ability to see slaves as human beings and value thier life and basic human rights yet at the same time they accept blindly what the law says about slavery which leads them to treat Jim in ways that seem to be contradictory. They are torn between being law obliging citizens and following what thier own basic instincts tell them of right and wrong.
Througout the book an assortement of characters are met who accept slavery without question, and own slaves themselves while at the same time appear capable of certain senteimental feelings towrds the slaves and an understanding that they should be treated with a measure of humanity.
While Twain is critical of the institution of slavery he also really humanizes those that actively help continue slavery and are participants in it, opposed to simply painting them all in the broad brush of villains.
Yet I think it can also be argued that Twain does give an overly romantic view of slavery.
Silver wrote: "While Twain is critical of the institution of slavery he also really humanizes those that actively help continue slavery and are participants in it, opposed to simply painting them all in the broad brush of villains.
Yet I think it can also be argued that Twain does give an overly romantic view of slavery.
"
I think one of the most difficult aspects of this book is our current view of slavery versus an historical one. Twain was a pretty scathing critic of human behavior and was someone who actually saw the reality of slavery on a day to day basis. So was he blinded by the familiarity of it or is our view point colored by our assumptions about what it we imagine it to have been like? I think a little of both is probably true.
Yet I think it can also be argued that Twain does give an overly romantic view of slavery.
"
I think one of the most difficult aspects of this book is our current view of slavery versus an historical one. Twain was a pretty scathing critic of human behavior and was someone who actually saw the reality of slavery on a day to day basis. So was he blinded by the familiarity of it or is our view point colored by our assumptions about what it we imagine it to have been like? I think a little of both is probably true.
I feel that in the book, it is sometimes unclear where do we draw the line between slavery and racism. We are quite clear what these two terms mean, but within the book, it is mixed, in that I don't see very well whether the character is doing something or not acting in certain ways because the character is for/against racism or because the character is for/against slavery. That doesn't mean it is a problem with the book, for slavery and racism commonly go together for the era Twain wrote about and we can't always clearly divide/categorize. To me, I think the slavery is more of a social background of the story rather than a theme. The themes of cross-cultural/class friendship and racism are stronger.
Kate raises a very interesting point. I've been thinking about it in slightly different terms and her post really broadened my thoughts.
Much of what I read about the book stresses the vividness of its descriptions. Yet, for me, while the book is filled with sharp depictions of characters, I didn't feel any "horrifying" images imprinted themselves. I felt a bit of distance from scenes like the lynching and the tar and feathering and the shooting of Boggs. I understand their abstract relevance to the book's themes, but their violence don't hit me emotionally the way something like Jim's confession of hitting his daughter does.
What Kate prompts me to wonder is whether this is because we have become jaded to horrors or whether we romanticize the past as we think about it compared to the difficulties of our own times?
Much of what I read about the book stresses the vividness of its descriptions. Yet, for me, while the book is filled with sharp depictions of characters, I didn't feel any "horrifying" images imprinted themselves. I felt a bit of distance from scenes like the lynching and the tar and feathering and the shooting of Boggs. I understand their abstract relevance to the book's themes, but their violence don't hit me emotionally the way something like Jim's confession of hitting his daughter does.
What Kate prompts me to wonder is whether this is because we have become jaded to horrors or whether we romanticize the past as we think about it compared to the difficulties of our own times?
Zeke wrote: "Kate raises a very interesting point. I've been thinking about it in slightly different terms and her post really broadened my thoughts. Much of what I read about the book stresses the vividness ..."
My impression is from the over all tone of the book, that Twain had not truly meant for us to take these events as truly serious, even in the more darker, or dramatic aspects of the story there is also a touch of humur at the background of it.
I think the reason why we may not feel the horror of some of these events is not becasue we are desensitized or becasue of romanticisation but becasue that is how Twain intended us to read them. He painted these things in a lighter brush to keep the reader at a distance from the horror of the reality of the events.
I think part of the reason for the story ending on what could be seen as an overly sentimental note, or unrealistically happy is becasue in the end, though there may be more real-life repercussions in this book than in Tom Sawyere, and a more serious nature in the things which Huck experiences, the story is still at heart meant to be a boys adventure story.
Silver wrote: "My impression is from the over all tone of the book, that Twain had not truly meant for us to take these events as truly serious, even in the more darker, or dramatic aspects of the story there is also a touch of humur at the background of it."
This is my impression as well. I think there is much beneath the surface of the novel, like there is beneath the river, but most readers are traveling "deck passage" and enjoying the view too much to notice the strange eddies in the water. Nevertheless, they are there. One of the remarkable aspects of the book for me is that it is so funny and so dark at the same time.
Silver and Thomas both find dark readings of the book to be overly serious. In effect, they say, "Lighten up." Although I don't really agree with them, their case is buttressed by the fact that immediately after this book, Twain started on one called Huck Finn Among the Indians and trivial ones called Tom Sawyer Abroad and Tom Sawyer, Detective.
I guess you could say that Tom is the main character in this book too and the long trip down the river is the sidebar. Perhaps, to paraphrase Freud, "Sometimes a river is just a river."
Which raises a question: if a reader finds meaning that the author didn't intend is it still meaningful?
I guess you could say that Tom is the main character in this book too and the long trip down the river is the sidebar. Perhaps, to paraphrase Freud, "Sometimes a river is just a river."
Which raises a question: if a reader finds meaning that the author didn't intend is it still meaningful?
Zeke wrote: "Silver and Thomas both find dark readings of the book to be overly serious. In effect, they say, "Lighten up." Although I don't really agree with them, their case is buttressed by the fact that imm..."
Hah. Your TS Eliot quote @33 got me to the idea that the long trip down the river is just a diversion, or maybe just Huck and Jim caught in the middle of their own story tale adventure. After all, Huck's father is dead and Jim is free, so the real threats have been removed (although we are oblivious to this) and it struck me that Huck's telling of the episodes along the way are related very much as an observer. Which ties into your comment @38. Jim and Huck feel distanced from the activity going on around them as they float down the river. Kind of like Huck is just enjoying one of Tom's adventure stories with himself as the hero.
Hah. Your TS Eliot quote @33 got me to the idea that the long trip down the river is just a diversion, or maybe just Huck and Jim caught in the middle of their own story tale adventure. After all, Huck's father is dead and Jim is free, so the real threats have been removed (although we are oblivious to this) and it struck me that Huck's telling of the episodes along the way are related very much as an observer. Which ties into your comment @38. Jim and Huck feel distanced from the activity going on around them as they float down the river. Kind of like Huck is just enjoying one of Tom's adventure stories with himself as the hero.
Zeke wrote: "Silver and Thomas both find dark readings of the book to be overly serious. In effect, they say, "Lighten up." Although I don't really agree with them, their case is buttressed by the fact that imm..."I would not say that the author did not intend for there to be deeper meanings behind the book, I just do not think that Twain intended for the reader to take what could be seen as the more serious aspects of the book too much to heart.
I think that Twain intentionally wrote these scenes in a way which would prevent them from being too disturbing for the reader, becasue I don't think he was truly trying to horrify us.
But that does not mean that be default the story itself must be simplistic. I do beleive that he was intending to write a social commentary with this book, yet at the same time I could see Tom and his antics with the way he takes too much to heart the books he has read as warning to the reader not to become too much like Tom.
Good point Silver. Over at the biography thread Kate made a good one too:Clemens being taken over by Twain.
Your mention of the Notice is a great point. Perhaps it's not just a tossed off joke after all.
BTW, I had promised to tell about the conjecture as to who ""G.G. Chief or Ordnance" is.
Some think it refers to General Grant, who Twain admired and whose autobiography he published. Such a reference would tweak the southerners who hated him.
I'm more inclined to believe it refers to George Griffin, a black employee who was devoted to the family for years and who, as his butler, was close to Twain. Twain put him in charge of security at the Hartford mansion. One night in July 1877, while the Clemenses were away, Griffin shot at some rowdies who were yelling insults at Twain. Naming him Chief of Ordnance would be the kind of inside joke Twain would enjoy I think!
Your mention of the Notice is a great point. Perhaps it's not just a tossed off joke after all.
BTW, I had promised to tell about the conjecture as to who ""G.G. Chief or Ordnance" is.
Some think it refers to General Grant, who Twain admired and whose autobiography he published. Such a reference would tweak the southerners who hated him.
I'm more inclined to believe it refers to George Griffin, a black employee who was devoted to the family for years and who, as his butler, was close to Twain. Twain put him in charge of security at the Hartford mansion. One night in July 1877, while the Clemenses were away, Griffin shot at some rowdies who were yelling insults at Twain. Naming him Chief of Ordnance would be the kind of inside joke Twain would enjoy I think!
I've enjoyed reading the posts - thought I might throw in a few words. There may be an interesting parallel between Huck's confinement at the hands of Pap and Jim's confinement at the end of the novel. Huck becomes, in a sense, Pap's slave - he is locked in the cabin when Pap goes out - and is clearly not free to leave. Of course Huck and Jim, as free and slave, are in entirely different situations. Nonetheless, they are both trying to avoid "capture" by the "sivilized" world.At the end of the novel, it is not clear that Huck will be sucessful living in nature - apart from society. Freedom - for both characters - is an illusion. The river is like a kind of parallel world -it can accomodate the imagination for a while, but it can't provide complete protection from society's obligations and expectations.
Tom wrote: "The river is like a kind of parallel world -it can accomodate the imagination for a while, but it can't provide complete protection from society's obligations and expectations. "I agree. The river has its perils. It's not just storm and current could capsize the boat. Other men use the river. Other boats on the river present a danger to Huck's raft and Huck got thrown into the water. The river is not his alone. The river is part of society and civilisation.
Thomas wrote: I think there is much beneath the surface of the novel, like there is beneath the river, but most readers are traveling "deck passage" and enjoying the view too much to notice the strange eddies in the water-------------------
I love the way you phrased that. I may have to steal that from you. :)
Wow Tom. Great insight about the illusions of freedom. I'm glad you've been enjoying following the conversation, and even more glad that you jumped in. Hope you'll add more as we conclude with thoughts about the book as a whole.
Specific to your point, I think freedom is definitely illusory for Jim as well. Someone pointed out that the final section of the book and Tom's treatment of Jim reflects the illusory freedom of the slaves which ended as Twain was writing.
Specific to your point, I think freedom is definitely illusory for Jim as well. Someone pointed out that the final section of the book and Tom's treatment of Jim reflects the illusory freedom of the slaves which ended as Twain was writing.
Zeke wrote post #41--Which raises a question: if a reader finds meaning that the author didn't intend is it still meaningful?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A friend from another GR board posted this Amy Tan article that addresses this very question.
BETWEEN THE LINES -- Students Read a Lot Into Amy Tan
Don't think, if you're a struggling writer, that you can relax when your books hit the Required Reading lists in college and high school literature courses.
Certainly being on such lists results in celebrity, invitations to lecture and a flattering degree of scholarly response to your work. But as San Francisco novelist Amy Tan has discovered since her first novel, ``The Joy Luck Club,'' was published in 1989, there is also considerable and sometimes outrageous speculation from students and professors alike about literary significance, symbolism and author intention.
``One student discovered (that `The Joy Luck Club') is structured to the four movements of a sonata. The `proof' lay in the fact that my parents wanted me to become a concert pianist, as mentioned in my author's bio and book jacket,'' Tan recalls wryly in a spirited and thoughtful lecture she has given to several groups and has now committed to audiotape. Called REQUIRED READING AND OTHER DANGEROUS SUBJECTS, it's available from our old recording friends (the ones who produce Jessica Mitford's singing tapes) Don't Quit Your Day Job Records, P.O. Box 27901-120, San Francisco 94127. (415) 284-6363.
In this talk, Tan describes how fans as well as academics sometimes believe they have uncovered secrets to her psyche and her art through recurring elements in her books. ``On one occasion I read a master's thesis on feminist writings, which included examples from `The Joy Luck Club.' The student noted I had often used the number four, something on the order of 32 or 36 times, in any case a number divisible by four. Accordingly, she pointed out, there were four mothers, four daughters, four sec-
of the book, four stories per section.
``Furthermore, there were four sides to a mah- jongg table, four directions of the wind, the four players. More importantly, she postulated, my use of the number four was a symbol for the four stages of psychological development which corresponded in uncanny ways with the four stages of some kind of Buddhist philosophy I had never heard of before.''
Of course, sometimes the author is the last to know: What may seem unimportant at the time of writing can become significant in terms of posterity. It could be that a Buddhist interpretation of the ``The Joy Luck Club'' is entirely appropriate, and Tan seems to acknowledge that. What she finds amusing, if baffling, are the extremes to which zealous readers often go in appraising her work.
``The student recalled that the story contained a character called Fourth Wife, symbolizing death, and a 4-year- old girl with a feisty spirit, symbolizing regeneration. And there was a 4-year-old boy who drowns and, perhaps because his parents were Baptists, he symbolized rebirth through death. There was also a little girl who receives a scar on her neck at the age of 4, who then loses her mother and her sense of self. She symbolized crisis.
``In short, her literary sleuthing went on to reveal a mystical and rather byzantine puzzle, which, once explained, proved to be completely brilliant and precisely logical. . . . The truth is, I do indeed include images in my work, but I don't think of them as symbols, not in the Jungian sense. . . . If there are symbols in my work, they exist largely by accident, or in someone else's interpretive design. . . . If I wrote of an orange moon rising on a dark night, I would more likely ask myself later if the image was cliched, not whether it was the symbol of the feminine force rising in anger, as one master's thesis postulated.''
Still, Tan has learned her lesson, numerically speaking. ``I don't claim my use of the number four to be a brilliant symbolic device. In fact now that it's been pointed out to me in rather astonishing ways, I consider my overuse of the number four to be a flaw.''
Tan also tells an amusing if somewhat alarming story about the misleading conclusions readers draw from the ``lessons'' of her books. Not only does she not attempt to ``teach'' readers anything about China, Chinese Americans, mothers and daughters or Chinese cooking (that would be propaganda, she says; not fiction), Tan is taken aback by the way anthologies that excerpt her work sometimes attempt to use end-of-chapter quizzes as lessons for later life.
``One publisher wished to include an excerpt from `The Joy Luck Club,' a scene in which a woman invites her non-Chinese boyfriend to her parents' house for dinner. The boyfriend brings a bottle of wine as a gift and commits a number of social gaffes at the dinner table. Students were supposed to read this excerpt, then answer the following question: `If you were invited to a Chinese family's house for dinner, should you bring a bottle of wine?' ''
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
Fantastic Alias Reader!
I guess I come down in the middle somewhere. Even if an author's writing was unintentional, if I can demonstrate a meaningful connection to my world, I think that is valid. In fact, it adds a level of "creativity" to the work. On the other hand, counting the number of quarter notes in Mozart to stake a claim of what he "really" meant or using the number of syllables in Shakespeare to prove that someone else wrote the plays, strikes me as mental masturbation.
Twain was writing in the 1880's. We are reading in the 21st century. Our understanding of the intervening years has to contribute to our appreciation of the characters and scenes in the book. If all we do when we read is look for similarities in experience, I think we miss a good opportunity to understand ourselves.
I guess I come down in the middle somewhere. Even if an author's writing was unintentional, if I can demonstrate a meaningful connection to my world, I think that is valid. In fact, it adds a level of "creativity" to the work. On the other hand, counting the number of quarter notes in Mozart to stake a claim of what he "really" meant or using the number of syllables in Shakespeare to prove that someone else wrote the plays, strikes me as mental masturbation.
Twain was writing in the 1880's. We are reading in the 21st century. Our understanding of the intervening years has to contribute to our appreciation of the characters and scenes in the book. If all we do when we read is look for similarities in experience, I think we miss a good opportunity to understand ourselves.
Alias Reader wrote: "I love the way you phrased that. I may have to steal that from you. :)"
Well thank you! (And Patrice.) But the metaphor is Twain's, so be sure to cite him and not me. ;)
Many authors describe writing as an act of discovery. If both writing and interpretation are acts of discovery, then both the writer and the reader are participating in a similar experience. I've heard it said that a work of fiction is a kind of collaboration between writer and reader. Of course, the discovered meaning should be somehow intrinsic to the work itself - it should arise from the text itself and not be a separate set of ideas imposed on the work.
Zeke wrote: "Fantastic Alias Reader!I guess I come down in the middle somewhere. Even if an author's writing was unintentional, if I can demonstrate a meaningful connection to my world, I think that is valid...."
Many years ago I was at a Q & A session with the dean of St. John's College. An audience member criticized the Great Books program as lacking in creativity, because all students do in the program is read. The dean responded, "Reading is in and of itself a creative act."
That comment astonished me at first, but I think it's true. Any time we encounter a text we aren't only reading the words literally, we are interpreting, contextualizing, and finding meaning in terms of our own experience. Those are all creative acts. But like other art forms, it is possible to over do it. Part of learning to read is learning to exercise self-restraint. There is a "tasteful" way to read just as there is a tasteful way to practice other forms of art. (And for what it's worth, I think there are more tasteful readers in this group than there are in the average grad school class.)
Either Zeke or I will post, whenever he is ready for them, some threads for topics that merit closer attention as topics. If you have a thought for a topic you think merits deeper discussion, please PM Zeke or me about posting a thread for it.