# Literary Criticism criticism, anyone?  (Huck Finn)



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm reading a few literary criticisms on _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ for a class, and I've come across some interesting views and opinions.  I thought discussing them here might help me to better understand where the authors of the criticisms are coming from, and whether or not I share their views.

This might be a rather difficult conversation to keep organized, so I think I'll number/label the pieces I found worth discussing, and you can respond to whichever of them interests you.
If you've come across any other _Huck Finn_ criticisms you'd like to talk about, please feel free to bring them up.  Just make sure you include what essay they are from, in case anyone wants to read it.  

Well, here goes.





*"Huckleberry Finn: An Overview"*
Unfortunately, this essay was provided by my professor, and only an excerpt is available here: http://www.enotes.com/finn/1938

1a.


> Watching the King and Duke "work" small-town crowds, Huck is more offended by the credulity of the dupes than by the duplicity of the con artists.  As the mountebanks pull the wool over the family and neighbors of the later Peter Wilks, it is the responses of the victims, their slavish willingness to believe, that Huck finds disconcerting, declaring that, "it was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race" (p.137).


I _could_ be wrong, but I could have sworn that when we discussed it in class, it was assumed that _the King and Duke_ were "enough to make a body ashamed of the human race."  I'm about to go read through that part again, but let me know what you think of that.



1b.
At one point, Moore discusses the difference between Huck's idea of freedom and Jim's idea of freedom.


> In contrast to Jim, who conceives freedom in positive terms, feeling "trembly and feverish" as they approach the free northern state of Illinois, Huck sees freedom in terms of the absence of external compulsion.


I can see, vaguely, Moore's point here... but I can't quite manifest it in words.  Especially that last underlined part.  Does anyone know a simpler way to state that?  I don't quite understand what he means....



1c.
At the close of the essay, Moore states an opinion that the views stated in _Huck Finn_ are not those of Mark Twain.  I've heard that this is a popular debate among literary critics.  What do you think?


> Plainly, Twain's purpose in _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ was not to present his opinion about broad social issues that continued to confound people in his day, but to entertain them with an amusing, picaresque tale that touches upon timeless subjects such as freedom as  seen through the eyes of a highly particularized character.




I will add more as I come across them.  I really hope I'm not boring you all to death here. :-k


Disclaimer: All quotes cited thus far in this post were originally written by Roger Moore in "Huckleberry Finn: An Overview", which can be found on enotes.com.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

This irks me a little, yes, but not NEARLY as much as Jane Smiley's essay on Huck Finn.  I find it trite, superficial, vague, and, in some instances, flat out ignorant.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> This irks me a little, yes, but not NEARLY as much as Jane Smiley's essay on Huck Finn.  I find it trite, superficial, vague, and, in some instances, flat out ignorant.



I'm sorry... which part irks you?
First off, is it me or Roger Moore? :???:

I shall look up that essay... is it available for free?  I'm writing a paper and I want to include at least one essay that I absolutely do not agree with.  Just for fun.  So I'll see how I feel about that one.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

Haha, Roger Moore, don't worry.

There's a lot of fallacious, and nigh on BAD, criticism out there on Huck Finn.

EDIT:  Didn't Roger Moore play James Bond?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

krazyklassykat said:
			
		

> I shall look up that essay... is it available for free?  I'm writing a paper and I want to include at least one essay that I absolutely do not agree with.  Just for fun.  So I'll see how I feel about that one.


Free I'm not sure of.  I found it in the Second Edition Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, edited by Gerald Graff and James Phelan.


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

Yes. And he was BETTER than Sean connery, dammit! And both are better than the last three... Bleh.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> Haha, Roger Moore, don't worry.
> 
> There's a lot of fallacious, and nigh on BAD, criticism out there on Huck Finn.
> 
> EDIT:  Didn't Roger Moore play James Bond?



Haha yeah.  No wonder it sounded familiar... I don't think it's the same guy though.  0_o  But you never know.


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

> At the close of the essay, Moore states an opinion that the views stated in Huck Finn are not those of Mark Twain. I've heard that this is a popular debate among literary critics. What do you think?



Ack! I hate this one! Twain clearly states in the beginning of _Huck Finn_ that he doesn't want this, but is he telling the truth? He tells the reader not to look for any deeper meaning, which, of course, causes us to think about what the deeper meaning could be. Not to mention it's Mark Twain who says this, not Samuel Clemens. So there's already a deeper layer right there.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Yes. And he was BETTER than Sean connery, dammit! And both are better than the last three... Bleh.


WHOA WHOA WHOA...

Better than Connery!?

Moore was always winking at the camera like an idiot.  That Sean Connery, though.  What a Bond.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> WHOA WHOA WHOA...
> 
> Better than Connery!?
> 
> Moore was always winking at the camera like an idiot.  That Sean Connery, though.  What a Bond.



-______-


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Ack! I hate this one! Twain clearly states in the beginning of _Huck Finn_ that he doesn't want this, but is he telling the truth? He tells the reader not to look for any deeper meaning, which, of course, causes us to think about what the deeper meaning could be. Not to mention it's Mark Twain who says this, not Samuel Clemens. So there's already a deeper layer right there.



So, do you think Twain _does_ use Huck Finn as a device for his opinions?  Or do you think _Clemens_ does...?


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

Moore was suave and British. Connery was rough and Scottish. 

Of course, I don't really like James Bond.


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

krazyklassykat said:
			
		

> So, do you think Twain _does_ use Huck Finn as a device for his opinions?  Or do you think _Clemens_ does...?



Clemens uses his works as a device for his opinions, and he puts Twain in between himself to make him seem more credible. If he isn't writing about how the south sucks, then if anyone gets that from the piece it's not his fault, right? But if he says that, he's being dishonest and loses his credibility if word gets out he lied. Solution? He writes as Twain, who isn't lying when he says there's nothing deeper or satirical in his story.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Of course, I don't really like James Bond.


*Waits for a million invisible people to appear and begin brandishing torches and pitchforks at Hodge*

Please keep your torches away from my essay, people...


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Clemens uses his works as a device for his opinions, and he puts Twain in between himself to make him seem more credible. If he isn't writing about how the south sucks, then if anyone gets that from the piece it's not his fault, right? But if he says that, he's being dishonest and loses his credibility if word gets out he lied. Solution? He writes as Twain, who isn't lying when he says there's nothing deeper or satirical in his story.



Ahhh... I see.  I'd never really thought about that before..


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Clemens uses his works as a device for his opinions, and he puts Twain in between himself to make him seem more credible. If he isn't writing about how the south sucks, then if anyone gets that from the piece it's not his fault, right? But if he says that, he's being dishonest and loses his credibility if word gets out he lied. Solution? He writes as Twain, who isn't lying when he says there's nothing deeper or satirical in his story.


EXACTLY!

Not to mention the "disclaimer" at the beginning only makes the reader wonder about and look harder for the underlying message.  (Though you don't have to look that hard in Huck Finn).

The one thing I REALLY disagree about with most critics is the accusation that Huck Finn, as a novel, falters and collapses during, I believe, the last twelve chapters.  But NONE of the advocates of this idea takes into account that Tom Sawyer reappears in the text at this point.  His childlike, romantic, fantasy-driven mind drags the text down after such an adult story.  It's Clemens's own acknowledgement of the end of the time for such child-like mentalities.  But I've yet to see a SINGLE critic take that into account.  It really bothers me.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> EXACTLY!
> 
> Not to mention the "disclaimer" at the beginning only makes the reader wonder about and look harder for the underlying message.  (Though you don't have to look that hard in Huck Finn).
> 
> The one thing I REALLY disagree about with most critics is the accusation that Huck Finn, as a novel, falters and collapses during, I believe, the last twelve chapters.  But NONE of the advocates of this idea takes into account that Tom Sawyer reappears in the text at this point.  His childlike, romantic, fantasy-driven mind drags the text down after such an adult story.  It's Clemens's own acknowledgement of the end of the time for such child-like mentalities.  But I've yet to see a SINGLE critic take that into account.  It really bothers me.



Wow.  I'd never really thought about that before, either.  Gee I sure hope the ability to pick out these minute connections comes with time. ale:
Now that you mention it, though, I agree.  I don't think I could have said it better.


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

Well, it's juxtaposition. You have all this harsh reality that Huck fixes using ingenuity and some luck (and the classic, _classic_ dressing up as a girl bit), then you have Tom Sawyer who looks at a real problem as if it were a game and treats it as such. Freeing poor Jim isn't the object; having an adventure is. It's definitely comedic, but sad at the same time. I don't think it breaks down at the end. There's a marked shift in the book where Twain starts writing again after like a decade (right after the scene where they lose the raft, I think), but that's all.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Revisiting something, though...
I still really don't understand what Moore means here:


> In contrast to Jim, who conceives freedom in positive terms, feeling "trembly and feverish" as they approach the free northern state of Illinois, Huck sees freedom in terms of the absence of external compulsion.


----------



## Hodge (Jan 3, 2007)

He means that Jim sees freedom as the ability to do anything, while Huck sees freedom as the ability to not have to do anything.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Well, it's juxtaposition. You have all this harsh reality that Huck fixes using ingenuity and some luck (and the classic, _classic_ dressing up as a girl bit), then you have Tom Sawyer who looks at a real problem as if it were a game and treats it as such. Freeing poor Jim isn't the object; having an adventure is. It's definitely comedic, but sad at the same time. I don't think it breaks down at the end. There's a marked shift in the book where Twain starts writing again after like a decade (right after the scene where they lose the raft, I think), but that's all.


Precisely.

Let's not say Huck "fixes" it, though, we might totter on structuralism...


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

In contrast to Jim, who conceives freedom in positive terms, feeling "trembly and feverish" as they approach the free northern state of Illinois, Huck sees freedom in terms of the absence of external compulsion.

Funny that both reach different conclusions from the circumstance of having to do what they don't want to do.  Jim, of course, is the more oppressed and extreme case, though, and thus views freedom as choice, equality, and the ability to make his own destiny, rather than have it selected for him.  Huck has never been denied his humanity, so the oppression visited on him is not as intense.  Thus, Huck's focus is only on the fact that, when free, he won't have to do what other people tell him, while Jim, who has been treated as something less than a man, sees not only his freedom of choice, but also his freedom to be a human being.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Hodge said:
			
		

> He means that Jim sees freedom as the ability to do anything, while Huck sees freedom as the ability to not have to do anything.



Oooh.  Thanks, that helps a lot.  
In that case, I have to agree... with Moore and Huck. xD


So I just downloaded Smiley's criticism.  I had to buy it off BookRags.com.  Six whole pages of what I can already tell will be annoying and harsh criticism.  I'm imagining this lady with Randi Rhodes's voice.  I happen to like Randi Rhodes, but she's quite abrasive.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

There was another critic who responded to Smiley...  Seymour Chwast, I believe.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> There was another critic who responded to Smiley...  Seymour Chwast, I believe.



And disagreed, I presume?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

krazyklassykat said:
			
		

> And disagreed, I presume?


Yeah, he focused mostly on her invoking _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ as a valid comparison.  Smiley, I guess, doesn't seem to care that when Huck Finn was written, slavery had been abolished, and there was therefore no need for a call to end slavery in Twain's novel.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> Yeah, he focused mostly on her invoking _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ as a valid comparison.  Smiley, I guess, doesn't seem to care that when Huck Finn was written, slavery had been abolished, and there was therefore no need for a call to end slavery in Twain's novel.


Yeah.... whew this is a heavy read.  I sure hope I get a better grade for including this in my essay.  
So far what I've gathered is this Jane Smiley woman thinks that there were elements of Huck Finn that had to be forgiven or forgotten before it could be called "the Great American Novel."

That sound about right?

Edit:
This is what she says.. 


> The requirements of Huck's installation rapidly revealed themselves: the failure of the last twelve chapters had to be diminished, accounted for, or forgiven; after that, the novel's special qualities had to be placed in the context first of other American novels (to their detriment) and then of world literature.



I _think_ I understand what she means...  The first part about the last twelve chapters I get.  But when she talks about placing it in the context of other novels, is she trying to say that, since other works were needed to define Huck Finn, that it could not be a defining piece of literature?
Correct me if I'm way off.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

I'd say she's saying Huck Finn doesn't DESERVE its title, nor does it deserve to be forgiven for its shortcomings in order to earn that title.  She's arguing, I haven't read it in a while, that Huck Finn is NOT the Great American Novel, that those who believe so are deluding themselves, and that Uncle Tom's Cabin is far more deserving of such a title.  What she means in the passage you quoted is that anyone deluding himself into calling Huck Finn the Great American Novel has to justify _to himself_ it by writing off unforgivable shortcomings.


----------



## krazyklassykat (Jan 3, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> I'd say she's saying Huck Finn doesn't DESERVE its title, nor does it deserve to be forgiven for its shortcomings in order to earn that title.  She's arguing, I haven't read it in a while, that Huck Finn is NOT the Great American Novel, that those who believe so are deluding themselves, and that Uncle Tom's Cabin is far more deserving of such a title.  What she means in the passage you quoted is that anyone deluding himself into calling Huck Finn the Great American Novel has to justify _to himself_ it by writing off unforgivable shortcomings.


I gathered that, in so many words.  I do understand what her opinion is; now I'm just trying to understand _her_ justifications.  Maybe she plans on explaining later on, but so far I've found that all she's really done is quote admiring critics in a mocking tone and not even explain why they are wrong.

And this, here... 



> But, in fact, _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ has little to offer in the way of greatness.  There is more to be learned about the American character _from_ its canonization than _through_ its canonization.



Why do I get a _vague_ feeling that now she's not only insulting Huck Finn, but also the actual "American character"?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 3, 2007)

krazyklassykat said:
			
		

> I gathered that, in so many words.  I do understand what her opinion is; now I'm just trying to understand _her_ justifications.  Maybe she plans on explaining later on, but so far I've found that all she's really done is quote admiring critics in a mocking tone and not even explain why they are wrong.


She's pointing out their refusal to address the points she's brought up, or their simply dancing around them.  She feels the burden is on them.


----------

