Introduction to Huck Finn

...

It would be easy to say that Smith is an “abolitionist” and against slavery, but it is more important to consider that he comes from a modern viewpoint. In 1984, nearly a century after Twain first set his pen to the task of authoring Huckleberry Finn, slavery had been outlawed for nearly one hundred and twenty years. Racism, undoubtedly, still existed, but for most of the literary intelligentsia, people, such as Smith, the subject of the “right and wrong” in slavery was not a matter of debate. The debate surrounding the essay is in judging Twain’s depiction of the “negro” Jim and its relation to past and present racial discourse. Smith is writing at a time where most respectable circles condemn the practice of slavery, yet many still blindly accuse Twain of being a racist out of a lack of understanding of the novel.

According to Smith, Twain adopts a strategy of subversion in his attack on race. That is, he focuses on a number of commonplaces associated with ‘ The Negro’ and then systematically dramatizes their inadequacy. He uses the term “nigger” and he shows Jim engaging in superstitious behavour. Yet he portrays Jim as a compassionate, shrewd, thoughtful, self-sacrificing, and even wise man.. Ultimately, Huckleberry Finn renders a harsh judgement on American society. freedom from slavery, the novel implies, is not freedom from gratitious cruelty; and racism, like romanticism, is finally just an elaborate justification which the adult counterparts of Tom Sawyer use to facilitate their exploitation and abuse of other human beings.. And this is the point of Huck’s final remark rejecting the prospect of civilisation. To become civilized is not just to become aunt Sally. More immediately, it is to become like Tom Sawyer.

The last essay I’m going to talk about is Toni Morrison’s This Amazing, Troubling Book. At the beginning of her essay Morisson expalins, that Leslie Fiedler’s and Lionel Trilling’s criticisms helped her to understand the book better because they helped him to see many things he had been unaware of. Although she was far from happy with the word "nigger" that is repeated numerous times in the book, she realizes. Morrison explores Huck’s character and his being "frequently suicidal," accompanied by a morose obsession with death in which, I disagree with her, Huck is one of the most alive, cheerful and full of life, character that I know. In Morrison’s interpretation, Huck is running away from the chaos of Southern antebellum society. She sees Jim as Huck’s way of escaping society. Jim fills a very important role in Huck’s life as he becomes a replacement for the loving and protective father that Huck never had. Jim plays a very important role in Huck’s life because Huck can have power over Jim, while he could never have power over any white father figure. “Huck desires for a father who is adviser and trustworthy companion in universal, but he also needs something more: a father whom, unlike his own, he can control”.

Whether or not he does it intentionally, as Morrison claims Twain uses this effect throughout the book of leaving silences that hint things to the reader or force the reader to imagine parts of the story for themselves. The most prominent silence is the description, or lack thereof, of Huck’s apology to Jim after he lies to him in order to trick him. Much of this silence relates to the Huck’s inability to show his emotions, especially those for Jim. Another awkward-seeming muted moment in the story is after Jim tells Huck about his children and his deaf and dumb daughter. In this episode, I would like to underline the similarity between the ideas of Morrison and Eliot. As Eliot says, Huck has no imagination like Tom, but he has vision, He sees the real world and he doesn’t judge it: "he allows it to judge itself". Then he adds, that Huck is the impassive observer but yet he is the victim of events.

There is one more similaruty between Morrison’s and Eliot’s ideas. They both agree that there would be no advantures without Jim. As Eliot explains, Huck would be incomplete without Jim. He thinks that, Huck is the passive observer of men and events, Jim the submissive sufferer from them, and they are equal in dignity. But Morrison goes further, saying that even though Huck and Jim were so close to each other, Huck leaves him, he cannot have an enduring relationship with Jim and he also refuses to have one with Tom, as in Morrison’s opinion, Huck has always been subservient to Tom Sawyer and His cooperation to in Jim’s dehumanization is not total.

As Morrison says, The book ends with a final, awkward silence, leaving the reader to hope that Huck (and his slightly reformed view of slaves) will continue to be able to thrive in society even without Jim’s fatherly support.

In conclusion, I’d like to say, that reading these critical essays about Twain’s all time masterpiece gave me enormous pleasure. But I must also mention, that only three of these four author’s ideas were acceptable for me. In my opinion, Smiley’s attempts to destroy this novel’s reputation is useless. I can accept neither her ideas about how “failure” this book was, nor how “weak” was its ending. Because, In my opinion, this is one of the best books I have ever read, and, as David L. Smith said, ” “If we, a century later, continue to be confused about Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, perhaps it is because we remain more deeply committed to both racial discourse and a self-deluding optimism than we care to admit.”

Bibliography:

- T.S. Eliot "Introduction"

- Jane Smiley "Say It Ain't So, Huck”

- David L. Smith "Huck, Jim, and American Racial Discourse"

- Toni Morrison "This Amazing, Troubling Book."

-

-