Huck Finn challenged AGAIN???

The BBQ Pit
41

This is total tripe. If you want people to change their behaviour in race relations, then they have to understand the whole history behind it. Reading southern literature of the time is an excellent introduction to the mindset of the slave owners, and the slaves themselves.
We can’t expect a cirriculum along the lines of: " Well children, a long time ago there were some very naughty people, who treated another group of people in a very mean and derogatory manner. We all know that was silly, and terrible way to behave, and isn’t it nice that we all treat each other equally today?"; to do an adequate job of explaining to children the intricacies of post slavery America.

Secondly, there is a urgent need to encourage and require reading on the part of junior high and high school students. If you think that offering them purely safe, soft, and clean fare is going to hold their attention, you’ve got another thing coming. This is the time where they are learning to make MORAL choices. If they don’t have reading to make them think about such things, then all they’ll have to judge on is what their friends tell them. This reading provides an oppourtunity to make an objective choice about a sensitive issue.
The world can be a nasty place and often is far worse that ANY book can ever exhibit. If you want to censor something, don’t let them watch the news.

42

Whoops sorry for the double post. :slight_smile:

43

People have been trying to get rid of Mark Twain for one reason or another for a long, long time. This most recent spasm of PC is merely the latest.

Twain was among the first, some say the first, to write in a purely American dialect. (If I win the lottery, I will commission a detailed annotated Roughing It.) The language of Huck is regional, somewhat ignorant, and entirely American, devoid of the slavish devotion to flowery British literary style. (MT is alleged to have said of a library devoid of books that it had not a single volume by Jane Austen, and was hence a splendid library…)

Twain’s popularity suffered due to his fierce opposition to the burgeoning America imperialism which he regarded as a disgusting betrayal of the American Revolution and the human progress it promised. Though ferociously attacked for his “unAmericanism” (sound familiar?), he refused to back down and started to spend more and more of his time abroad.

For years, far more of his books were sold in England than America, and it was fashionable for snotty Angolphile literary critics to sneer at Twain as unsophisticated and rustic. Somewhere along about the 30’s, in one of those inexplicable reversals of literary fashion, he was “rediscovered.” Naturally, his use of “nigger” didn’t enter into it. He was strongly championed by Communist/Marxist writers, who were at the very forefront of the nascent civil rights movement. Clearly, his use of the word had no bearing, since nobody much cared if black people were offended or not.

Critics and “political prudes” avoided the moral and racial implications of Huck, and pretended to be offended by Huck’s “trashy” and ignorant language. (Maybe some genuinely were, but fuck 'em anyway…)

Mr. Twain will weather this little tempest as well. Because he’s funny. And if you can make people laugh, they will forgive you damned near anything.

44

So, amarinth, just what should be taught in a literature class? “Dick and Jane” books? Or could we stretch as high as the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew?

45

A snooty retired school marm response in observance of Samuel Clemens’s 168th birthday:

Do you honestly believe that Huckleberry Finn was designed without motive, moral or plot? This masterpiece that Ernest Hemingway referred to as “the great American novel” is lacking in these literary fundamentals? Please keep in mind when reading that particular preface that the author was, above all, a humorist. Of course the novel was written with motives in mind, a plot line and a moral to the story! And Huck was irrevocably changed by his experience. It opened his eyes!

Ignoring the author’s politics when the subject matter itself is a political and social issue would be foolish. He had the extraordinary ability to write from a perspective of great affection for America while pointing our what was wrong with it. And still his words were optimistic! Those were gifts not to be ignored!

I can’t believe that educated people still insist that the narrator of a story is the voice of the author. Writers know better.

Regarding the views of the author on matters of race, I offer for your consideration the following excerpt from the website of the Mark Twain Circle of New York: http://salwen.com/mtahome.html

46

Why don’t books simply come with a disclaimer (like cigarettes do)?

WARNING: While reading is in many ways good, if you automatically adopt the morals and language of every main character you read about you will be an idiot, offensive to many people, and have missed the point entirely.

47

I don’t, I was just repeating Twain’s joke.

Not a lot, though. Although Huck articulates some views better by the end of the novel, his behaviour doesn’t change significantly.

You misunderstand. I said judging a book by its author’s politics, as in, “I like the politics, so the book must be good”, or “I dislike the politics, so the book is bad”.

Thank you.
Note that I don’t insist on such a thing in general-- I claim that such is the case in a particular instance. I support this claim by drawing a parallel with the plot(see previous post), as well as demonstrating other quotes from the same book where it seems clear to me that the voice of a character is the voice of the author.

First, this is more about Bessie Wherry Noe than it is about Mark Twain. That being said, I don’t disagree with Noe. Mark Twain did show his distaste for mid-19thC race relations in Huck Finn, and more so in Pudd’nhead Wilson, no argument there. This doesn’t align him automatically with the present-day left-wing racial politics, is all I’m saying.

48

They don’t give you cigarettes in school, do they? :wink:

49

:slight_smile:

OK, like sulphuric acid in the chemistry lab.

50

First, a question - did anyone here who is speaking in appreciation of Huckleberry Finn only read the book because it was assigned reading in a literature class? Is it that you would not have been introduced the book and never read the book had it not been assigned?

Zoe,
In my school, it was part of American Literature which students had to take once between their sophomore and senior years. I only was required to read it once. However, as has been said many other times in this thread, it’s been protested for years - even when I was in HS, and the teachers would work that in. And then tell the students to talk to the Black students about what they thought about it and why Black people thought books should be banned and what was wrong with them that they thought that way.
And since there was a very large chance that there were no Black students in class to answer (there were about 20-something in a school of 1300), they’d ask students outside of class. So I had to deal with it even when I wasn’t being taught the book.

First, as has been noted, the book is told through Huck’s eyes. And though his opinion on Jim slowly changes through the book, the picture he gives of blacks in general is not positive and the initial portayal of Jim is very much less than flattering. Yes, the overall message of the book is anti-racist. But it takes a long while to get to that part. And in the meantime it’s awful to have to sit through that every day.
Second, I can not explain to you the pain behind that word. Having to listen to that repeatedly grinds on me.

Stratocaster

You cannot have an open, honest, intelligent discussion on racism when there is a power differential such as the one in a teacher-class relationship, when the people having the discussion are forced to be there and have no choice as to whether they can end the discussion, and when the people having the discussion are being graded on their participation. Especially at HS age.

Today, you and I might be able to have a discussion on racism - but I also know that in that discussion, we have both chosen to have the discussion, I can say what I want to or need to say. I can leave the discussion if I want to, and decide whether I’m going to return to it or never speak to you again. And finally, there’s a shot I’m mature enough to handle such a discussion.
I wasn’t at 14. Plus, I wanted to get an A in class, I was going to have to be with those same people for the next few years. So, my part was to say what I thought the teacher wanted me to say and what I thought wouldn’t make me a complete social outcast. That isn’t an intelligent discussion about anything.

MEBuckner,
I don’t know. Which is one of the many reasons why I don’t teach literature. I do certainly remember reading many other books in lit classes (some that I liked, some that I didn’t) that didn’t single out students in the room for humiliation. Whatever, I should hope that at least one deals with the concept of empathy.

51

OK, I’ll bite one more time, using the particular passage you’re so enamored with. Why is calling Jim a “mighty good nigger” equivalent to saying all other slaves are unworthy creatures?

What reading produces this conclusion? If I say Jim is a mighty good man, does that imply I think all other men are jerks? If I say Barry Bonds is a might good baseball player, should you infer that I mean all other baseball players stink? After all, I’m singling out Bonds for praise in saying this.

Your interpretation is silly. Sorry, but it is.

52

Having had a look at the list, I have to ask…

What kind of moronic school administrator would put Sex by Madonna on ANY reading list? I’m sure it gets challenged based on the depictions of sex in it, but I’d challenge it because it’s a worthless piece of self-indulgent tripe that is an insult to the paper it’s printed on. It’s an affront to literature made worse by its ‘artistic’ pretensions.

53

Just for a point of comparison, Uncle Tom’s Cabin uses the word “nigger” 13 times in the first chapter, and no one’s crying about banning it.

This whole row about *** Huckleberry Finn***seems a bit silly in light of that.

54

I guess we’ll just have to disagree. I wouldn’t argue with the notion that there still exists to this day a racial tension that can be an undercurrent to a class teaching Huck Finn. The existence of that racial tension is all the more reason we need to discuss works like Twain’s. If there had never been any discomfort associated with the words and attitudes Twain depicts, there would never have been the need for this masterpiece.

You experience doesn’t lead me to think we shouldn’t teach Twain. Quite the contrary. Our schools should challenge students. A good class should contain a degree of taking us outside of our comfort zone, IMO. I cannot believe our schools’ collective curricula is improved by removing Huckleberyy Finn.

55

I believe he’s mentally inserting a 2 word qualifier that doesn’t really exist, i.e., “mighty good [for a] nigger”. That phrase is more obviously objectionable but that’s not what is written so I see no reason to assume that was Twain’s intent.

56
  1. I’m not “enamored” with the passage - it’s just the first one that I remembered in this connection. Like I noticed after I posted it, the plot also can be said to single out Jim, so I was lucky to remember this quote.
  2. I didn’t say “unworthy creatures”, or anything to this effect. The statement, however, can be very plausible read like

1. Jim misses his family
2. Hence, Jim is a "mighty good nigger"
3. Most "niggers" are not "mighty good", else the designation is meaningless.
4. Hence most "niggers" wouldn't miss their family

You think it’s silly, fine, whatever.

57

And Flowers for Algernon??? What could possibly be offensive about that? It’s one of my favorite books.

58

Then I can assume you also agree with my “Barry Bonds” analogy. Saying that Barry Bonds is a mighty good baseball player is equivalent to saying other baseball players are bad. Am I getting this right?

BTW, you needn’t torture logic by using this passage to demonstrate that Huck starts out thinking of slaves as somewhat sub-human. It’s essential to the the work that he thinks in this manner; it’s the social custom he is most challenged to overcome. But to assign this belief to Twain is basically to ignore the primary conflict and themes he developed in this novel. It’s to ignore the central message of the book.

59

It’s called irony, mic.

At the beginning of the book, Huck has been enculturated to believe that blacks are subhuman. When he begins to see Jim’s humanity his initial perception is that Jim is somehow an exception to the rule. That’s the irony. He doesn’t quite grasp that he was wrong about blacks but just thinks that Jim is special. He is still somewhat blinded by his own ignorance and ingrained prejudice. Twain’s point was not that Jim was “better” than other blacks but that Huck perceived him differently after getting to know him.

60

OK, then, so we agree here.

(As a side note:You claim that this thinking changes. I don’t remember anything that indicates this.)

As to whether it’s irony on Twain’s part or not - I addressed this already as best as I could in previous posts. No point bringing this up unless you’d like to address the specific points I already raised about this.