Speak for yourself. I’m just here for the mindless invective.
This. It’s really valuable to see both.
I’ll skip this fan fiction.
Emphasis added. Twain absolutely did not do this. Quite the opposite. If someone thinks he condemns racism clumsily, or with a certain blind spot, I suppose an argument could be made. But he was absolutely condemning slavery and racism.
Who shows more agency in the book–the white child, or the black man? Who’s the star of the book? Whose moral quandaries and decisions are at the heart of the book?
I don’t think Twain consciously chose to put the white child at the book’s center, rather than the black man–or at least he didn’t consciously intend to privilege the white point of view. But he did so, and in so doing, made the black man a foil for the white child’s moral growth.
Does that count as “endorsing” a racial system? Not explicitly; but perhaps implicitly.
And this doesn’t make it a bad book. It makes it a flawed book, like every other book. Discussing its flaws doesn’t mean I want to kick Twain’s ass.
Perhaps “depicts” and “takes for granted” would have been a better choice of words than “endorses.”
In depicting Huck’s moral growth, he is making Huck a proxy for the reader. Twain did not ignore white privilege. And he did not implicitly endorse it. Rather, he highlighted the hypocrisy of that privilege.
An example: Early in the novel, Huck is kidnapped by Pap, and is imprisoned and basically enslaved. He may only do what his father directs him to do, and he is locked away and abused. Any agency he once had is lost—right up until Huck orchestrates his escape. As readers we are thrilled with his success, his suffering ended.
Shortly thereafter, Huck discovers Jim on Jackson’s Island, where Jim confesses that he is running away—to Huck’s horror! How could Jim do such a terrible thing!
Twain is a literary genius, so his thematic points can be subtle, but he is showing Huck’s privilege here, and not in a way that casts Huck in a favorable light.
Second example: Huck dresses as a girl to do some recon and ends up in the cabin of the kindly woman who sees through Huck’s disguise and guesses that he must be a runaway indentured servant, escaping terrible suffering and abuse. This is not permitted by society, but she reacts with nothing but sympathy, kindness and support. Yes, the same woman who casually mentions that her husband is out helping to track down some runaway slaves.
The dissonance is not accidental. Twain challenges the reader, and what a challenge it would have been for his southern contemporaries, to ask how “civilized” people could simultaneously hold such disparate beliefs. He tells it from a white boy’s perspective in large part so he can shine a light on the beliefs that were held without question. It’s Twain who questions them.
Twain absolutely described the privilege that whites possessed, even lowly Huck, and did so with disdain. That was his point. Huck’s transformation—his moral redemption—is critical to his point. There is no person in the book so decent as Jim, a smart, loyal, loving, selfless man. His humanity is clear to the reader and ultimately to Huck.
This is critical to the resolution of the conflict, and it’s a critical point to the reader (especially white readers) who Twain cleverly makes proxies for Huck. Huck decides that if the moral code of the universe demands that he go to hell for helping Jim escape, then fuck the universe. He will save Jim and go to hell.
It is Huck’s redemption story, for sure, and in that sense Jim is a foil to Huck’s protagonist. But Huck’s redemption is in his rejection of the racist rules of his time. There may have been other ways to make his points, but this particular choice is not tone deaf, it’s brilliant.
So, say what one will about how artfully Twain accomplished all this, but his point is crystal clear. He does not endorse white privilege, not directly or indirectly—he rejects it utterly. Huck Finn is a masterpiece that transformed the form of the novel. But more than that, as far as progressive beliefs in literature can be tracked, this book is a vital link in the chain.
You know, that’s an amazing post. And I’ve not read the novel in decades, so I’ve got nothing to say that can shed any light on that analysis, except to thank you for it. Gives me a new way to think about the book.
Thank you for your kind words. I’m smiling!
Really was a great post.
Also a great reply from @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness.
Well I think it was fucking shit.
I don’t really - in fact it was brilliant and I hadn’t previously twigged some of the parallels highlighted. That said, this is the Pit and
I too am blown away by that post - to the extent that I’m going to track down a copy of Huck Finn and re-read it as soon as possible.
ETA: here is a free on-line source.
And in light of this discussion, the “notice” at the beginning is worth savoring:
PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
Twain was so fucking amazing. Whenever there is one of those “what famous person from history would you like to have dinner with” type questions, he’s always at the top of my list.
Are all these kind words permitted in the Pit? I just don’t want anyone to be fined or something! (Thanks to all!)
Wow. That was brilliant. One of the best and most interesting posts I’ve read for a long time. I read the book decades ago…but might need to read it again.
Thanks for this. Mind you, we are in the pit, so fuck someone or something…
How about… DrDeth
I feel partially responsible for getting this hijack going by trying to speculate what DrDeth might have meant about Huckleberry Finn, so I apologize for all the civility that might have resulted.
In my own defense, my individual contributions toward that were limited, and people far greater than I are mostly to blame.
Add me to the list who think that was an amazing post and is now thinking of giving the book another read, I haven’t read since, hmm, probably junior high school.
I agree with this.
But that was exactly what I thought @ASL_v2.0 was recommending against, so I was pushing back. He was asking why anyone should even consider the historical or authorial intent lenses. I was not saying the opposite, that we should ignore the modernity lens. I think that’s extremely important.
I’m fine with “here is how Huckleberry Finn pushed forward progressivism and anti-racism, but here is where it fell short.” But I also think “Here is how it pushed things forward, and here’s how we can learn from it how to push things forward even more.”
If you can stand one more, that was outstanding. And we have DrD to thank
You guys are awesome. In case it’s not obvious, none of that analysis originated with me; I’m sure I first heard some it in high school. I’m just a decent collector and summarizer, who adores Twain and has read Huck Finn probably ten times. 