Mark Twain: Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn

[abecedarian]

I've never understood the logic behind banning this book. It simply cannot be because it used the word 'nigger' when the whole thrust of the novel is anti-bigotry. Utter folly!

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

For one thing, Samuel Clements was speaking out against racism, bigotry, and other social injustice long before the modern civil rights movement. As a white man, he was siding with "them" and using common, ordinary characters to do so. The use of southern dialect was to allow the non-southern reader to 'live' in the shoes of these folks for just a time.

Ok, so it was a ground-breaking novel - but does this also grant it the title of "The Great American Novel"? I'm sure that many other books have been ground-breaking, and yet Huck Finn is considered to be greatest of all - something which I do not get at all. Perhaps it is something to do with our difference in history and culture, but I just don't think that it deserves this title at all. It's not overly enjoyable, the style isn't reader-friendly (apart from Southern readers) - in short, it isn't "Great", IMHO. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[veggiedog]

But why? Why is it derserving if this title, and what seperates it from every other book out there that deals with racism and prejudice? In what ways is it timeless? I personally felt that To Kill A Mockingbird dealt with the whole racism concept much more effectively and believeably, as well as far outdoing Huck Finn in terms of pure enjoyment. So why does this book not deserve the title of "The Great American Novel" more than the mediocre Huck Finn?

I'm brushing my teeth as I write this, so please excuse any typos.
While I thoroughly enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, and perhaps even liked it better, I felt that it couldn't quite reach the same level as Huck Finn in certain aspects:

1. Twain was speaking out against racism in a time when there were no such things as rights for freed slaves. They were, in actuality, barely freer than whilst enslaved.
2. Huck Finn himself addressed the issue of racism more confidently and directly than Scout (probably because he was older).
3. Huck Finn has become that symbol of "Americanism"--he epitomizes the man vs. society issue that has been constant over time throughout American literature.
4. He gained experience through life lessons by witnessing firsthand the social injustices throughout the southern U.S. and showed us through his eyes what it was like, and he was able to explain his feelings about it (Scout was not able to do this as much because she didn't quite understand the concept of racism).
5. Mark Twain was able to incorporate the attitudes, lifestyle, and dialogue of the people of the time, and used humor to express his views (TKAM did this as well, to an extent).

Okay, gotta spit. These are just a few reasons why Huck Finn is considered a great novel. Not that To Kill a Mockingbird isn't, but I felt that I learned more through The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I've never understood the logic behind banning this book. It simply cannot be because it used the word 'nigger' when the whole thrust of the novel is anti-bigotry. Utter folly!

That's political correctness for you

 

[abecedarian]

Ok, so it was a ground-breaking novel - but does this also grant it the title of "The Great American Novel"? I'm sure that many other books have been ground-breaking, and yet Huck Finn is considered to be greatest of all - something which I do not get at all. Perhaps it is something to do with our difference in history and culture, but I just don't think that it deserves this title at all. It's not overly enjoyable, the style isn't reader-friendly (apart from Southern readers) - in short, it isn't "Great", IMHO. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I think part of the reason devotees love Huck Finn is the whole idea of the persona of Huckie himself. Who in this life hasn't wished, just once, they could leave their troubles behind and sail away on a grand adventure like Huck? Let's face it, he made a grand trip out of it.
Since you mentioned To Kil a Mockingbird, I have to agree it deserves at least equal footing with Huck. It still speaks to modern readers and has much to teach us about ourselves.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Twain was speaking out against racism in a time when there were no such things as rights for freed slaves. They were, in actuality, barely freer than whilst enslaved.

I addressed this point in a post above - I can see why this would make a novel ground-breaking, not great. I feel that for a novel to be great, it must fulfill other aspects of an outstanding read, such as a high level of enjoyment.

Huck Finn himself addressed the issue of racism more confidently and directly than Scout (probably because he was older).

That's true, but I think that overall TKAM addressed racism much more directly and effectively than Huck Finn ever did. There are numerous quotes in which Atticus outrightly denounces the pure bigotry and ignorance that encompasses racism, whereas it is only touched on in a verbal way by Huck.

Huck Finn has become that symbol of "Americanism"--he epitomizes the man vs. society issue that has been constant over time throughout American literature.

Yes, which is something that I don't fully understand.

He gained experience through life lessons by witnessing firsthand the social injustices throughout the southern U.S. and showed us through his eyes what it was like, and he was able to explain his feelings about it (Scout was not able to do this as much because she didn't quite understand the concept of racism).

But that's one of the things that was great about TKAM - the narrator was naiive and not fully aware of the racism that covered her area, yet the injustice and foolishness of racism was strongly conveyed throughout the novel.

I appreciate your repsonse, as well as the others that try to explain the (what is to me) confounding attatchment to this novel. Please keep them coming

 

[abecedarian]

I addressed this point in a post above - I can see why this would make a novel ground-breaking, not great. I feel that for a novel to be great, it must fulfill other aspects of an outstanding read, such as a high level of enjoyment.


That's true, but I think that overall TKAM addressed racism much more directly and effectively than Huck Finn ever did. There are numerous quotes in which Atticus outrightly denounces the pure bigotry and ignorance that encompasses racism, whereas it is only touched on in a verbal way by Huck.


Yes, which is something that I don't fully understand.


But that's one of the things that was great about TKAM - the narrator was naiive and not fully aware of the racism that covered her area, yet the injustice and foolishness of racism was strongly conveyed throughout the novel.

I appreciate your repsonse, as well as the others that try to explain the (what is to me) confounding attatchment to this novel. Please keep them coming

Whether we ever see eye to eye on this book, or any other, I'm so glad you and Veggiedog are posting your thoughts and comments. It means both of these books still hold a valid place in the 'curricula' of literary life. Keep up the great work, both of you!

 

[veggiedog]

I addressed this point in a post above - I can see why this would make a novel ground-breaking, not great. I feel that for a novel to be great, it must fulfill other aspects of an outstanding read, such as a high level of enjoyment.

That's true, but I think that overall TKAM addressed racism much more directly and effectively than Huck Finn ever did. There are numerous quotes in which Atticus outrightly denounces the pure bigotry and ignorance that encompasses racism, whereas it is only touched on in a verbal way by Huck.

Yes, which is something that I don't fully understand.

But that's one of the things that was great about TKAM - the narrator was naiive and not fully aware of the racism that covered her area, yet the injustice and foolishness of racism was strongly conveyed throughout the novel.

I appreciate your repsonse, as well as the others that try to explain the (what is to me) confounding attatchment to this novel. Please keep them coming

Hello MonkeyCatcher,

You have to admit that Huck Finn made a bigger societal impact than did TKAM. It may have partially been because of the time in which it was written, but Huck Finn was more forceful in making people see what America was becoming--many of us didn't even realize what was going on in the south, or refused to acknowledge it. And let me tell you, society was outraged. I wouldn't hesitate to say that it has become the most frequently banned book in American history, because it forced people to see what they denied or did not want to see. See?

A book is not necessarily great because it is well-written or has a good plot--it needs to capture the essence of humanity, the culture, the nuances and underlying tones of the setting. Great literature instigates change in the people, and while I agree that TKAM certainly did this, I think that Huck Finn was able to do it better. It's matter of opinion, of course, but I think that Huck Finn gives a full, rounded picture of America of the time, at its best and at its worst.

Also, Scout grew up in an environment (as in her home life) where racism was not tolerated. She never really learned throughout the course of the novel that racism was a terrible thing, since she had been somewhat aware of this from the very beginning. Huck had to realize, through a series of experiences, how ghastly racism is. He had grown up in an environment where racism was not only allowed, but advocated. He had something of a racist mentality. But by the end of the novel, he had changed his views of racial prejudice. Scout learned that racism was a bad thing, but she wasn't forced to change in the way that Huck was.

Huck Finn addresses other issues besides racism. Twain mocks romanticism (Grangerford, Tom), he brings to light the nature of society (Duke & Dauphin), and the influence of society/conscience over the individual. The book is not just anti-slavery, but supports freedom from society in general (remember, this is why Huck is running away) and ridicules society's cruel attempts to enslave the individual's mind. Huck pushes against society, establishing him as symbol of freedom. All of these things also played roles in making Huck Finn "The Great American Novel." These issues were not present so much in TKAM, so I don't think it is comparable on the these levels.

That's my $0.02. I have a feeling I'll hear from you again.

Veggiedog

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

You have to admit that Huck Finn made a bigger societal impact than did TKAM.

Coming from NZ and (obviously) from generations outside of those in which these books were written, I have absolutely no idea of the societal impact of either of these books. I understand that both are almost idolised by Americans in general, but have before now had no real idea as to why. I could understand that the themes and ideas presented in Huck Finn would have caused a storm of controversy, but then again so did The Da Vinci Code, and I don't think that that is going to be toted as "Great" anytime soon (and again Dan Brown manages to weasel his way into yet another thread).
By impact do you mean that it increased knowledge of goings-on in the South, or that it caused a change in the general public? You stated further on in your post that "society was outraged" which leads me to believe that the latter is out of the question - obviously people were very set in their ways.

many of us didn't even realize what was going on in the south, or refused to acknowledge it.

I'm not sure how true this statement really is. My copy of Huck Finn is the annotated addition, and it mentions that all of the Southern states were granted permission to continue slavery by Parliament. This would therefore indicate that the North was fully aware of the situation, and even sanctioned it. Although many of the Northern states were indeed "free states", my copy also mentions that this was in name only, with many (such as Ohio) still condoning the practice of slavery. If this information is true, then Huck Finn did not cause as great an epiphany as you are suggesting.

See?

It's still a bit hazy

A book is not necessarily great because it is well-written or has a good plot--it needs to capture the essence of humanity, the culture, the nuances and underlying tones of the setting.

I fully agree and did not mean to insinuate anything to the contrary, although I believe that the quality of writing has a huge impact on whether the book should be considered "great" or not. A book, no matter how influential or ground-breaking it may be, cannot be considered "great" without decent prose, in my opinion.

Great literature instigates change in the people, and while I agree that TKAM certainly did this, I think that Huck Finn was able to do it better.

I disagree, and your previous statement about it being banned from general circulation supports this. These people did not change by reading this book, but found the content so unsettling as to entertain the idea of barring others from reading it. This wasn't an example of people who had changed or in whom the book had caused a great realisation, but people who profoundly disagreed with what was conatined in the book, and went to great lengths to ensure that it would not infulence the radicals in the population.

It's matter of opinion, of course, but I think that Huck Finn gives a full, rounded picture of America of the time, at its best and at its worst.

As you have stated above, both the definition of a "great" novel and our interpretations of both of these books are highly subjective; for this reason we may never agree, but I enjoy seeing the views from someone so obviously passionate about a book that I was seriously considering giving up on. TKAM, however, managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained while at the same time addressing numerous major issues and prejudices in a way vastly superior to that of Huck Finn. Again this is only my opinion.

Also, Scout grew up in an environment (as in her home life) where racism was not tolerated.

I firmly disagree with this statement. The town of Maycomb was a highly racist one, Atticus being one of the few people in the area who detested predujice of any form. The extreme degree of racism was apparent during the meeting of Scout's aunt Alexandra and her friends (named the "Missionary Circle" or something to that effect), where they said such things as "the nigger always comes out in 'em" (about Tom's accused rape of Mayella) and "just like a nigger to cut and run" (referring to

Spoiler

the murder of Tom as he tried to escape from prison

). Atticus was constantly referred to as a "nigger-lover" by the townspeople while representing Tom. The fact that Tom was even

Spoiler

convicted

shows the extreme racism of the town and its inhibitants.

She never really learned throughout the course of the novel that racism was a terrible thing, since she had been somewhat aware of this from the very beginning.

Again I disagree. Throughout the entire novel Scout is learning about the idiocy of not only racism, but also of prejudice in general through the use of several characters, including Walter Cunningham (the poor) and "Boo" Radley (the different). Numerous times in the book Atticus makes references to and lectures Scout on the bigotry of prejudice, including the instance in which the now-famous mockingbird quote is found.

Scout learned that racism was a bad thing, but she wasn't forced to change in the way that Huck was.

I would argue that it was Huck who did not fully understand even the idea of racism by the end of the novel. Scout shows a noticeable difference at the end of the novel, no longer displaying the inclination towards stereotypes or the prejudice which she showed at the beginning of the novel. Even Jem changed, shown by the way that he stops Scout from squishing the bug in their room because "it isn't doing any harm".
Huck, however, did not display a very great change in opinion. Sure, he decided not to turn Jim in, but he stated just after this decision that although he was entertaining the idea of turning him in, he never really would have done it. I believe that TKAM addressed the idea of prejudice much more openly and effectively, clearly displaying distain towards any behaviour of that kind.

Huck Finn addresses other issues besides racism.

As did TKAM. It addressed many other issues, including the idea of morality in society (or lack thereof) by the use of a child as a narrator. This enabled Lee to highlight the idea of naturally Good vs naturally Evil from an extremely effective viewpoint, that of a naiive and innocent youngster who had no prior concept of evil and whom is disillusioned throughout the course of the novel in their previously unassuming belief in the kindness of human nature.

These issues were not present so much in TKAM, so I don't think it is comparable on the these levels.

Not exactly those issues, no, but others were addressed in the novel (and more effectively, in my opinion).

 

[veggiedog]

I could understand that the themes and ideas presented in Huck Finn would have caused a storm of controversy, but then again so did The Da Vinci Code, and I don't think that that is going to be toted as "Great" anytime soon (and again Dan Brown manages to weasel his way into yet another thread).

Okay, you are from New Zealand so it would make sense what you do not know much about American history (I know next to nothing about New Zealand's history ) so I'll try to explain a little bit in my post. You probably know more than the average, ignorant American anyway.

The controversy caused by Huck Finn led changes in the views of the Northerners, at least, whereas Dan Brown has not. TKAM also caused its share of controversy, but it did not result in as much change politically as Huck Finn.

By impact do you mean that it increased knowledge of goings-on in the South, or that it caused a change in the general public? You stated further on in your post that "society was outraged" which leads me to believe that the latter is out of the question - obviously people were very set in their ways.

When I stated that society was outraged, I meant Southern society. It was an eye-opener for Northerners. People in the south were set in their ways, I agree, and would not be changed. However, the majority of the population of the nation was in the North, so the North had more influence over government, politics, etc.

My copy of Huck Finn...mentions that all of the Southern states were granted permission to continue slavery by [Congress?]. This would therefore indicate that the North was fully aware of the situation, and even sanctioned it. Although many of the Northern states were indeed "free states", my copy also mentions that this was in name only, with many (such as Ohio) still condoning the practice of slavery. If this information is true, then Huck Finn did not cause as great an epiphany as you are suggesting.

Of course Northern Congressmen and other government officials were aware of the racism in the Southern states. They wanted to appease the South after the Civil War. To them, banning slavery was a huge step in itself. It would take time for people to overcome their racism. They didn't want the South to get any ideas about leaving again. But the majority of the Northern common people had never experienced the South, and were not aware or did want to be aware of the prejudice there. They thought they could just ignore it, and it wouldn't be there. Huck Finn showed them that this was not the case, and many Congressmen were forced take a more proactive approach to increasing rights for former slaves. While the treatment of former slaves was still appalling, they were granted freer voting rights and public education. I am not attributing these changes entirely to Huck Finn, but Huck Finn certainly showed many Northerners what life was like in the South. At the time the book was published, slavery was already abolished in all of the states (including Ohio) by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. While a few people continued practicing slavery, it was mostly erased. Even today, slaves exist in America.

A book, no matter how influential or ground-breaking it may be, cannot be considered "great" without decent prose, in my opinion.

Huck Finn was a fairly accurate representation of the the typical rural boy in the South, as was his prose. True, it did not follow the standards of classic literature, but Twain was showing us the dialects and the way people spoke at the time. I thought it added character. The story would not have been the same otherwise.

I disagree, and your previous statement about it being banned from general circulation supports this. These people did not change by reading this book, but found the content so unsettling as to entertain the idea of barring others from reading it. This wasn't an example of people who had changed or in whom the book had caused a great realisation, but people who profoundly disagreed with what was conatined in the book, and went to great lengths to ensure that it would not infulence the radicals in the population.

To Kill a Mockingbird is also one of the most frequently banned books, and faced severe Southern opposition upon publication. Did it also make no impact? The book was banned because Southern politicians did not want anti-racism messages spread throughout their territory. This did not always prevent people from reading it. It is still banned today, and yet I was forced to read it in my English class. The fact that it was banned also does not mean that it was universally banned. The banning of the book is usually determined by a community, not a nation. The majority of the communities that did ban Huck Finn were in the South. The residents of these small, rural towns would not have changed their opinions had they read it anyway. Censorship is a conservative value, and the North was quite liberal and fought more for the protection of rights. The book was not banned so frequently there. It is banned in many Northern places today because it contains the word "nigger," but that is obviously long after racism had largely diminished.

As you have stated above, both the definition of a "great" novel and our interpretations of both of these books are highly subjective; for this reason we may never agree, but I enjoy seeing the views from someone so obviously passionate about a book that I was seriously considering giving up on. TKAM, however, managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained while at the same time addressing numerous major issues and prejudices in a way vastly superior to that of Huck Finn. Again this is only my opinion.

I also liked To Kill a Mockingbird better as a book meant to entertain and maybe teach us a lesson or two. I just believe that the criteria for "The Great American Novel" goes beyond being well-written, entertaining, and having an important message. So I suppose, to be cliche, we will agree to disagree.

I firmly disagree with this statement. The town of Maycomb was a highly racist one, Atticus being one of the few people in the area who detested predujice of any form. The extreme degree of racism was apparent during the meeting of Scout's aunt Alexandra and her friends (named the "Missionary Circle" or something to that effect), where they said such things as "the nigger always comes out in 'em" (about Tom's accused rape of Mayella) and "just like a nigger to cut and run" (referring to

Spoiler

the murder of Tom as he tried to escape from prison

). Atticus was constantly referred to as a "nigger-lover" by the townspeople while representing Tom. The fact that Tom was even

Spoiler

convicted

shows the extreme racism of the town and its inhibitants.

While Scout's community may have shown great racism, so did Huck's to an equal degree. At least Scout was brought up by a man who was not racist. Huck did not have that advantage. You can see that his Pap isn't exactly a model citizen, and is severely racist. The Widow Douglas and the other one (I can't recall her name) owned Jim, and while they were not openly racist in the way that Pap was, they were slave owners. Also, since slavery was not banned yet in Huck Finn's time, the Dred Scott case upheld that slaves were property, not people. This sentiment is quite clearly shown throughout the book. In TKAM, Scout was brought up in an environment where slaves were free and could live on their own, at the very least. (I know this is not a fair argument, because the two books were written in different times and meant to support different points; I just felt the need to add some more background.)

Again I disagree. Throughout the entire novel Scout is learning about the idiocy of not only racism, but also of prejudice in general through the use of several characters, including Walter Cunningham (the poor) and "Boo" Radley (the different). Numerous times in the book Atticus makes references to and lectures Scout on the bigotry of prejudice, including the instance in which the now-famous mockingbird quote is found.

But Scout never had to change her ways. She was never racist in the first place, or at least, not in the way that Huck was. I think that Huck, character-wise, made a greater improvement than Scout. But that is not necessarily criteria for a great novel.

I would argue that it was Huck who did not fully understand even the idea of racism by the end of the novel. Scout shows a noticeable difference at the end of the novel, no longer displaying the inclination towards stereotypes or the prejudice which she showed at the beginning of the novel...Sure, he decided not to turn Jim in, but he stated just after this decision that although he was entertaining the idea of turning him in, he never really would have done it. I believe that TKAM addressed the idea of prejudice much more openly and effectively, clearly displaying distain towards any behaviour of that kind.

You have to remember the time that each was written, and the sentitments of the people of the South. There was much more racism, in my opinion, during Huck Finn's time than during Scout's. I don't think it can really be expected of him to be liberated from all racist sentiments, as that would just not be realistic for his background. That fact that he did finally, and adamantly, decide that he would not turn Jim in shows that he has moved forward.

On another note, do you think that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is literature at all, just not "The Great American Novel," or that it should not even qualify as literature for the the reasons you have stated above?

Veggiedog

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

TKAM also caused its share of controversy, but it did not result in as much change politically as Huck Finn.

But was it Huck Finn that caused the change? You have said that it offered insight for the Northerners into the conditions in the South, yet you also stated that the Congressmen already knew what was going on. Surely then Huck Finn would not have shocked the politicians who already knew what was happeneing, but the general public who had little to no power to change things. I just can't really believe that Huck Finn had any impact other than to show the people in the North the conditions in the South - I find it extremely hard to believe that this book was a major step to abolishing slavery totally.
Also, although Twain published the book in 1884 (1885 in America), it was set in the 1840s. Would that not lead people to believe that perhaps conditions had been bad back then, but that things had improved by now? That people did treat the blacks right after following the trend of the fairly liberal North?

They didn't want the South to get any ideas about leaving again.

I apologise for the ignorance, but leaving again? At one point in time did the Southern states split from the Northern?

While the treatment of former slaves was still appalling, they were granted freer voting rights and public education.

You say that the freed slaves were granted freer voting rights - they were granted them, sure, but can you really say that they received what was promised to them? We did a study on Black Civil Rights, and from what I can remember blacks were still struggling to have the true right to vote in the 1950's-60's.

At the time the book was published, slavery was already abolished in all of the states (including Ohio) by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Abolished in law, not in practice in some cases. Although Illinois was at that time a "free state", it points out in my annotated version of Huck Finn that Jim did not even entertain the idea of merely crossing the river to reach this free state, and therefore safety, because the further South you went in these states to more racist a likely to hand him back to slavers. From this it would show that although slavery had been abolished there, they still fully condoned the practice.

Huck Finn was a fairly accurate representation of the the typical rural boy in the South, as was his prose. True, it did not follow the standards of classic literature, but Twain was showing us the dialects and the way people spoke at the time. I thought it added character. The story would not have been the same otherwise.

I understand what Twain was doing, but to be honest the dialects annoyed me. At times I just could not figure out what Jim was saying and just decided to go on without knowing. I guess it has to do with our different locations, but I found it extremely difficult to interpret the dialect, something which really slowed down the read for me.

To Kill a Mockingbird is also one of the most frequently banned books, and faced severe Southern opposition upon publication. Did it also make no impact?

I wasn't aware of it being banned - thanks for that little tidbit! And I have absolutely no idea if it made an impact in America or not. Did it?

It is banned in many Northern places today because it contains the word "nigger," but that is obviously long after racism had largely diminished.

That's something that I really don't get. How can they ban the book for being 'racist' when the entire novel is about how terrible it is? Political correctness really peeves me off sometimes, and NZ is absolutely rampant with it

I just believe that the criteria for "The Great American Novel" goes beyond being well-written, entertaining, and having an important message.

Buthow does Huck Finn go past this criteria? As far as I can see, all you have been arguing is that Huck Finn is well-written, it is (to you) entertaining, and it had an extremely imporant message which made an impact on society. TKAM fits all of these things, as well as executing the message more effectively and being more accesible to people from all over the world.

So I suppose, to be cliche, we will agree to disagree.

Agreed

At least Scout was brought up by a man who was not racist.

Why 'at least'? I think that the fact that Scout was brought up by someone with good morals was one of the reasons that the whole message of racism was delivered more effectively. Whereas in Huck Finn the message is a bit ambiguous as Huck does not really change his ways and you can still see that he remains a bit racist, any man and his dog (to excuse the cliche) can see from reading TKAM that racism is bad.

The Widow Douglas and the other one (I can't recall her name) owned Jim, and while they were not openly racist in the way that Pap was, they were slave owners.

And yet I wouldn't say that the Widow was overly racist. At the end she

Spoiler

released Jim as part of her will, remember?

. Obviously this shows that she thought of slavery as a bad thing and realised that he would be much happier free.

But Scout never had to change her ways. She was never racist in the first place, or at least, not in the way that Huck was.

I disagree with the above statement, and would add that you can't really compare the level of racism between the two. As you have mentioned, they were brought up in completely different times and it would not be fair to compare Huck (who lived in a time where blacks were thought of as property with absolutely no rights) to Scout (who lived in a time where blacks were thought of as humans by all, just sub-par humans by most in her community). I would also say that Scout did hold various forms of prejudice at the start, shown by her ridicule of Walter because he was poor, and her torment of Boo because he was different. Although Scout may not have held racist views herself, Jem certainly showed a few signs of racism which were erased completely by the end of the novel.

I think that Huck, character-wise, made a greater improvement than Scout.

I disagree. Huck did not really change by the end of the novel - his choice to not turn in Jim wasn't an improvement as he stated that he never would have handed him in all along. His views didn't really change that much either; at the end of the novel he still made a few racist comments which showed that he was still tainted by the prejudice all around him. He was friends with Jim by the end, but he didn't exactly detest Jim at the start or he would have had nothing to do with him when he found him on the island with him.

That fact that he did finally, and adamantly, decide that he would not turn Jim in shows that he has moved forward.

As I have stated numerous times, this wasn't a step forward. He acknowledged after making this decision that he would never have turned Jim in, even if his thoughts told him otherwise.

On another note, do you think that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is literature at all, just not "The Great American Novel," or that it should not even qualify as literature for the the reasons you have stated above?

I'm not really sure if I would count it as literature, as I'm not really sure what that is. I'll have a think about it and answer that at a later date

 

[veggiedog]

Hi MC,

But was it Huck Finn that caused the change? You have said that it offered insight for the Northerners into the conditions in the South, yet you also stated that the Congressmen already knew what was going on. Surely then Huck Finn would not have shocked the politicians who already knew what was happeneing, but the general public who had little to no power to change things. I just can't really believe that Huck Finn had any impact other than to show the people in the North the conditions in the South...Would [the time change] not lead people to believe that perhaps conditions had been bad back then, but that things had improved by now? That people did treat the blacks right after following the trend of the fairly liberal North?

The politicians know what was going on, but many of the people did not. The people are the ones who really give Congress its power. If Congressmen do not follow the demands of the constituents, they can easily be voted out. The people became more inclined to vote for Congressmen who at least fought for black rights. There were even a couple of black Congressmen elected. Of course, this change cannot all be attributed to Huck Finn, but it was at least in part. Slavery was already abolished by the time Twain published, but people could see the way that 'free' slaves were also treated. Jim was virtually a free slave, or at least masqueraded as such, but obviously he was still looked down upon. Much of the same was happening to freed slaves during Twain's time.

I apologise for the ignorance, but leaving again? At one point in time did the Southern states split from the Northern?

That was what the Civil War was about--nothing to do with slavery, in reality. The South had declared independence and seceded. The North won the war and was doing everything in its power to keep them from leaving again.

You say that the freed slaves were granted freer voting rights - they were granted them, sure, but can you really say that they received what was promised to them?

Blacks were often forced to pay poll taxes and pass literacy tests before being able to vote, if at all. The poll tax wasn't universally banned until the 24th amendment, I believe. But having these restrictions on voting was a big step from not being able to vite at all. Black voting rights did not improve at all, really, until at least a decade after TKAM. Neither Huck Finn nor TKAM can take credit for increasing these rights. That was the choice of the people. But books such as these educated people, and showed them how things really were. There was an improvement, at least, following Huck Finn.

Abolished in law, not in practice in some cases. Although Illinois was at that time a "free state", it points out in my annotated version of Huck Finn that Jim did not even entertain the idea of merely crossing the river to reach this free state, and therefore safety, because the further South you went in these states to more racist a likely to hand him back to slavers. From this it would show that although slavery had been abolished there, they still fully condoned the practice.

Almost all slaves were free. Huck and Jim were living in a time when slavery was legal, as the book was set before the abolishment of slavery. However, slavery was abolished in the 1860s, so by the time the book was published in the 1880s, slavery was wiped out for the most part. I can't argue that slavery no longer existed, though. While slavery was not practiced in the free states, there were rewards for runaway slaves that escaped to the North. Some Northerners turned these slaves back into the South for the money. This practice ended after the banning of slavery.

I understand what Twain was doing, but to be honest the dialects annoyed me. At times I just could not figure out what Jim was saying and just decided to go on without knowing. I guess it has to do with our different locations, but I found it extremely difficult to interpret the dialect, something which really slowed down the read for me.

Yes, that makes sense. I suppose that Twain was specifically targeting an American audience, and people of the time who would be able to more easily understand the dialects. I personally found the dialects very easy to skim through, and I agree it is probably because of our environments that we see it differently. I could even imagine Jim speaking like that, hearing his voice in my head...I thought they enhanced the novel, but I can see why it would be annoying for some readers.

I wasn't aware of it being banned - thanks for that little tidbit! And I have absolutely no idea if it made an impact in America or not. Did it?

I am not quite certain of what kind of impact TKAM had. All that I can say is that it spread a new wave of awareness of the conditions of the South. It may have resulted from the first few sparks of the Civil Rights Movement, and possibly caused some African-Americans to begin to stand up for their rights?

That's something that I really don't get. How can they ban the book for being 'racist' when the entire novel is about how terrible it is? Political correctness really peeves me off sometimes, and NZ is absolutely rampant with it

I know. It's really stupid . That's the same reason why TKAM is banned. America is arguably both the most politically correct and the least politcally correct country in the world. Somehow to be racist against African-Americans is practically blasphemous, while to be racist against whites and Muslims is perfectly acceptable by society's standards. There is so much reverse discrimination here.

Buthow does Huck Finn go past this criteria? As far as I can see, all you have been arguing is that Huck Finn is well-written, it is (to you) entertaining, and it had an extremely imporant message which made an impact on society. TKAM fits all of these things, as well as executing the message more effectively and being more accesible to people from all over the world.

Huck Finn was groundbreaking. While you said that a novel being groundbreaking is not a reason for it be a classic, it is one of the criteria, in my opinion. Twain tried things that no one in American literature history had ever tried before, or at least not so directly: he stood up to established American values of racism. Most of American literature comes from the 20th century, from To Kill a Mockingbird to Beloved. It can't be argued that Huck Finn was one of the first pieces of American literature. During the time that TKAM was written, there were fewer restrictions of the freedom of peace, and the entire nation had developed a more liberal attitude. This left Lee freer to pursue issues of racism more directly.

Why 'at least'? I think that the fact that Scout was brought up by someone with good morals was one of the reasons that the whole message of racism was delivered more effectively. Whereas in Huck Finn the message is a bit ambiguous as Huck does not really change his ways and you can still see that he remains a bit racist...[and] from reading TKAM that racism is bad.

As I said, Scout and Lee come from a time and place where racism was becoming less acceptable, at least compared to Twain's time. While the prejudice was still appalling, Scout was raised from the very beginning that racism was bad. It is not surprising that she came to the same conclusion at the end. However, to end up in the same position as Scout, Huck was have to go through a total reversal of all the values he had been brought up with, which is not realitic.

And yet I wouldn't say that the Widow was overly racist. At the end she

Spoiler

released Jim as part of her will, remember?

. Obviously this shows that she thought of slavery as a bad thing and realised that he would be much happier free.

I doubt she thought of slavery as a bad thing. More likely she was just fed up and decided to let him go. And Huck had only been living with her for a short time anyway. He was more influenced by his Pap, and the way he was brought up by him.

Jem certainly showed a few signs of racism which were erased completely by the end of the novel.

Jem was nowhere near as racist as Huck was (Huck never stated his racism, but it shows through his mannerisms and his views of blacks as having lower intelligence, etc.) and therefore the changes in Jem cannot really be compared to the changes in Huck, in my opinion.

I disagree. Huck did not really change by the end of the novel - his choice to not turn in Jim wasn't an improvement as he stated that he never would have handed him in all along. His views didn't really change that much either; at the end of the novel he still made a few racist comments which showed that he was still tainted by the prejudice all around him. He was friends with Jim by the end, but he didn't exactly detest Jim at the start...

The fact that Huck was able to fight against society, and what he had been brought up thinking and believing, is a very big change, in my opinion. It shows that he was a very strong person. He was constantly tormented by his conscience. His mind told him to turn Jim in, but his heart couldn't do it because he had learned to appreciate Jim as person. He was still mildly racist at the end, but he at least no longer viewed slaves as inhuman and property. He didn't detest Jim, but he only stuck with him because he wanted company, if you recall. Later, he developed a friendship with Jim and saw that he was a true human being after all.

I'm not really sure if I would count it as literature, as I'm not really sure what that is. I'll have a think about it and answer that at a later date

Okay, I'll look forward to your next post.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Jim was virtually a free slave, or at least masqueraded as such, but obviously he was still looked down upon. Much of the same was happening to freed slaves during Twain's time.

I was under the impression that Jim was a runaway slave

Spoiler

until the end of the novel when he is set free

. This means that he was in no way a free slave, and readers could have believed that the way in which he was treated was no longer the norm since the abolition of slavery. As slavery was wiped out in the 1860's, I fail to see how Huck Finn made that much of an impact, as it deals mainly with the horrible way in which slaves were treated in the 1840's. I was under the impression that it was after Huck Finn was published that the slaves were freed, but upon learning that that is not the case I can't see that it made much of an impact at all. The freed slaves had virtually no rights and were arguably worse off after having been freed, so I don't see what Huck Finn could have done to improve the white people's attitude towards the blacks.

But books such as these educated people, and showed them how things really were. There was an improvement, at least, following Huck Finn.

But if the book (set in the 1840s with slavery) was published in the 1880s once slavery had been abolished, did it really show the Northeners what was happening in the South? I mean, slavery (which was one of the focuses of the book) was no longer lawful, and therefore it seems logical that people would have come to the conclusion that things like that didn't happen anymore. If slavery was no longer occuring in the South, then how did it show the Northerners a window into what was happening there?

Somehow to be racist against African-Americans is practically blasphemous, while to be racist against whites and Muslims is perfectly acceptable by society's standards. There is so much reverse discrimination here.

Tell me about it Somehow it is ok to have a seperate set of rules for what is considered racism against whites and racism against blacks. Our country is absolutely full of reverse-racism. We have a national sports team that you have to be Maori (that's a native NZer) to enter; schools for Maoris only; scholarships that only Maoris can go for; a special voting roll just for Maoris; and places reserved for Maoris in tertiary institutions (such as medical school) regardless of marks (this means that a white person can score higher than a Maori, but the Maori person can get into the next year over the white just because of the colour of their skin). Now if that isn't racist, I don't know what is! And the real clincher is that the Maoris have never been oppressed in NZ. There was no attempt at genocide, no segregation - nothing! At yet they keep saying that we somehow owe them something Why can't we just have true equality??

As I said, Scout and Lee come from a time and place where racism was becoming less acceptable, at least compared to Twain's time.

I don't think that that is completely true. Nationally racism was becoming less acceptable, but in Maycomb it was unacceptable to view blacks as anything but dirt. People spat on Atticus just for representing Tom, and people were all ready to lynch him. I would argue that the same basic levels of racism still occured.

While the prejudice was still appalling, Scout was raised from the very beginning that racism was bad. It is not surprising that she came to the same conclusion at the end. However, to end up in the same position as Scout, Huck was have to go through a total reversal of all the values he had been brought up with, which is not realitic.

It's true that it was inevitable that Scout would drop all her prejudices, but that doesn't change the fact that she did while Huck hardly changed at all. We're arguing for nothing really, though. This has absolutely nothing to do with a book being "great". I'm still right, though

I doubt she thought of slavery as a bad thing. More likely she was just fed up and decided to let him go. And Huck had only been living with her for a short time anyway. He was more influenced by his Pap, and the way he was brought up by him.

I re-read that part of the book and it said that she let him go free because she was ashamed that she was ever going to sell him down the river. This shows that she did see blacks as something more than propety and did have reservations regarding slavery.

Jem was nowhere near as racist as Huck was (Huck never stated his racism, but it shows through his mannerisms and his views of blacks as having lower intelligence, etc.) and therefore the changes in Jem cannot really be compared to the changes in Huck, in my opinion.

But I think that they can. The fact is that Jem started off slightly racist and at the end he realised that everyone should be treated equally. Huck retained his level of racism throughout the entire book. I don't think that he changed at all, to be honest. At the start of the book he didn't really have any bad feelings towards the blacks and didn't mind Jim at all, he just had it set in his mind that they were slightly more stupid and clumsy than him. At the end of the book I got the feeling that he still had these views.

The fact that Huck was able to fight against society, and what he had been brought up thinking and believing, is a very big change, in my opinion.

For reasons stated above, I wouldn't really call it a change. He was certainly strong for acting indifferently to blacks fromt he start, something which would not have been normal back then, but I don't believe that any changed occured throughout the novel. He most definitely was less racist than a majority of the people in his life, though.

He didn't detest Jim, but he only stuck with him because he wanted company, if you recall. Later, he developed a friendship with Jim and saw that he was a true human being after all.

But the fact that he even thought of him as company showed that he wasn't adverse to the idea of spending time with a black person. He never once showed that he was put off by Jim being black, but treated him as a true human being all along. He never shunned nor ridiculed Jim for being black, and had absolutely no reservations in having a black man as a friend.

 

[Mari]

I was under the impression that Jim was a runaway slave

Spoiler

until the end of the novel when he is set free

.

Spoiler

Tom looks at me very grave, and says:

"Didn't you just tell me he was all right? Hasn't he got away?"

"HIM?" says Aunt Sally; "the runaway nigger? 'Deed he hasn't. They've
got him back, safe and sound, and he's in that cabin again, on bread and
water, and loaded down with chains, till he's claimed or sold!"

Tom rose square up in bed, with his eye hot, and his nostrils opening and
shutting like gills, and sings out to me:

"They hain't no RIGHT to shut him up! SHOVE!--and don't you lose a
minute. Turn him loose! he ain't no slave; he's as free as any cretur
that walks this earth!"

"What DOES the child mean?"

"I mean every word I SAY, Aunt Sally, and if somebody don't go, I'LL go.
I've knowed him all his life. Old Miss Watson
died two months ago, and she was ashamed she ever was going to sell him
down the river, and SAID so; and she set him free in her will."

"Then what on earth did YOU want to set him free for, seeing he was
already free?"

"Well, that IS a question, I must say; and just like women! Why, I
wanted the ADVENTURE of it.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Spoiler

Tom looks at me very grave, and says:

"Didn't you just tell me he was all right? Hasn't he got away?"

"HIM?" says Aunt Sally; "the runaway nigger? 'Deed he hasn't. They've
got him back, safe and sound, and he's in that cabin again, on bread and
water, and loaded down with chains, till he's claimed or sold!"

Tom rose square up in bed, with his eye hot, and his nostrils opening and
shutting like gills, and sings out to me:

"They hain't no RIGHT to shut him up! SHOVE!--and don't you lose a
minute. Turn him loose! he ain't no slave; he's as free as any cretur
that walks this earth!"

"What DOES the child mean?"

"I mean every word I SAY, Aunt Sally, and if somebody don't go, I'LL go.
I've knowed him all his life. Old Miss Watson
died two months ago, and she was ashamed she ever was going to sell him
down the river, and SAID so; and she set him free in her will."

"Then what on earth did YOU want to set him free for, seeing he was
already free?"

"Well, that IS a question, I must say; and just like women! Why, I
wanted the ADVENTURE of it.

Thanks for that exert (I was too lazy to type it out ). So it seems that

Spoiler

although Jim and Huck believed Jim to be a runaway slave, he truely wasn't. However, I still believe the comment made by Veggie that stated that he "masqueraded" that he was free is incorrect. He hid throughout the novel to aviod people finding out that he was a runaway slave (which I guess he technically was at the beginning of the book).

 

[veggiedog]

Hello again, MC,

I was under the impression that it was after Huck Finn was published that the slaves were freed, but upon learning that that is not the case I can't see that it made much of an impact at all. The freed slaves had virtually no rights and were arguably worse off after having been freed, so I don't see what Huck Finn could have done to improve the white people's attitude towards the blacks.

Just because slavery had been abolished didn't mean that conditions were wonderfully improved for former slaves. Many of them were forced into sharecropping when unable to find other occupations, a practice that is comparable to slavery. So many of those set free remained virtually slaves to white supremecists. Huck Finn was, firstly, showing how the abolishment of slavery had not changed the lives of many former slaves, and secondly, that they were still being treated horribly in the South, just as in times of slavery.

But if the book (set in the 1840s with slavery) was published in the 1880s once slavery had been abolished, did it really show the Northeners what was happening in the South? [...] If slavery was no longer occuring in the South, then how did it show the Northerners a window into what was happening there?

Slavery was not abolished because Northerners viewed it as evil and immoral. It was abolished by President Lincoln during the Civil War in attempt to destroy the Southern economy. I would not hesitate to say that most Northerners did not comprehend the magnitude of slavery in the South. Even after slavery became unlawful, the conditions remained abhorrent for former slaves.

Tell me about it Somehow it is ok to have a seperate set of rules for what is considered racism against whites and racism against blacks. Our country is absolutely full of reverse-racism. We have a national sports team that you have to be Maori (that's a native NZer) to enter; schools for Maoris only; scholarships that only Maoris can go for; a special voting roll just for Maoris; and places reserved for Maoris in tertiary institutions (such as medical school) regardless of marks (this means that a white person can score higher than a Maori, but the Maori person can get into the next year over the white just because of the colour of their skin). Now if that isn't racist, I don't know what is! And the real clincher is that the Maoris have never been oppressed in NZ. There was no attempt at genocide, no segregation - nothing! At yet they keep saying that we somehow owe them something Why can't we just have true equality??

Oh, I know! In the US, there are all kinds of scholarships for Native Americans. There are students who get into colleges based on their ethnicity alone! I understand that Native Americans were oppressed in America, but so were Asians, and we get any special treatment. We're expected to be able to be accepted without any additional privileges. Some colleges here support a point system, in which if you earn 100 points, you are accepted. So, your GPA may get you, say, 40 points. Test scores will get you 20 points. Excurriculars and your essay, 10 points apiece if they are fabulous. If you are Hispanic, African American, or Native American, you get an additonal 20 points. Caucasions (sp?) get no additional points, and Asians are sometimes deducted points. So if you are black and completely bomb your SATs you may still be guaranteed a place at these universities, while an Asian with a perfect 2400 may not.

I don't think that that is completely true. Nationally racism was becoming less acceptable, but in Maycomb it was unacceptable to view blacks as anything but dirt. People spat on Atticus just for representing Tom, and people were all ready to lynch him. I would argue that the same basic levels of racism still occured.

True, racism was still strong in the South. But at least blacks were not forced to work to death under the hand of a plantation owner. They were not slaves or sharecroppers. Even if they lived in the slums of Maycomb, I don't think it is the same thing to compare the racism then to the racism of slavery.

It's true that it was inevitable that Scout would drop all her prejudices, but that doesn't change the fact that she did while Huck hardly changed at all. We're arguing for nothing really, though. This has absolutely nothing to do with a book being "great". I'm still right, though

Well, as I have said before, I saw a change in Huck. Not a complete change, but a change. I'm right, so there

I re-read that part of the book and it said that she let him go free because she was ashamed that she was ever going to sell him down the river. This shows that she did see blacks as something more than propety and did have reservations regarding slavery.

Well then, that shows that at least someone in the book changed. The fact that she owned Jim in the first place, and was considering selling him down South, shows that she was racist. By the end, her racism had diminshed, or at least she had let her more humane side take control. The book should have been called The Adventures of the Widow Douglas and whatever the other one's name was

But I think that they can. The fact is that Jem started off slightly racist and at the end he realised that everyone should be treated equally. Huck retained his level of racism throughout the entire book. I don't think that he changed at all, to be honest. At the start of the book he didn't really have any bad feelings towards the blacks and didn't mind Jim at all, he just had it set in his mind that they were slightly more stupid and clumsy than him. At the end of the book I got the feeling that he still had these views.

I will address this comment and the rest of your comments here:
It's been a while since I have read this book, and I am assuming you have read it more recently than I have. Maybe then Huck was meant to be more of a model of who Southerners could improve to be. Huck may have had some traces of racism left, but he was a much more accepting person than truly racist people in the novel, such as Pap, Aunt Sally, etc. I don't know what Twain's intentions were, but you can see his disdain for romanticism and romantic characters like Tom and the Grangerfords, and his approval of the practical, realist character Huck. Huck's lack of severe racism, in contrast to his environment, was maybe an example of how a pure heart can't be influenced by the conscience. People of the South, who had been bred with racist values, were clearly not going to suddenly hold hands and skip with the freed slaves. But maybe Twain tried to convince them to be less brutal. Even if they were still racist, better to be racist like Huck rather than racist like Pap, if you ask me. I agree that the end was a letdown, after all that had been led up to it.

Thanks for that exert (I was too lazy to type it out ). So it seems that SPOILER: although Jim and Huck believed Jim to be a runaway slave, he truely wasn't. However, I still believe the comment made by Veggie that stated that he "masqueraded" that he was free is incorrect. He hid throughout the novel to aviod people finding out that he was a runaway slave (which I guess he technically was at the beginning of the book).

He may not have been masqueraded as a freed slave, but he certainly was dipicted as someone who was not a runaway slave at all. For example, when on the river, Huck was asked whether he had a black man with him, or a white man. It was too dark for the men to tell from the distance. Huck said Jim was a white man, and then concocted a story about how his family had the small pox or something like that. Also, the Duke and the Dauphin decided to make Jim look like that they thought of as an Arab so that people would not assume that he was a runaway.

Back to the literature thing: If the ending had been more satisfactory, would you consider The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to be literature? Or did the rest of the book also fail to meet your criteria?

 

[Mari]

So it seems that

Spoiler

although Jim and Huck believed Jim to be a runaway slave, he truely wasn't. However, I still believe the comment made by Veggie that stated that he "masqueraded" that he was free is incorrect. He hid throughout the novel to aviod people finding out that he was a runaway slave (which I guess he technically was at the beginning of the book).

Also, Huck sometimes tells people that Jim belongs to him. I can't think of a single scene in the book where Jim claims to be free. Historically, he would never have tried it, because free Blacks in the slave states had to carry proof with them that they were free.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Hello again, MC

Glad to see you again, Veggie

Just because slavery had been abolished didn't mean that conditions were wonderfully improved for former slaves. Many of them were forced into sharecropping when unable to find other occupations, a practice that is comparable to slavery. So many of those set free remained virtually slaves to white supremecists. Huck Finn was, firstly, showing how the abolishment of slavery had not changed the lives of many former slaves, and secondly, that they were still being treated horribly in the South, just as in times of slavery.

I understand that the blacks were still treated appallingly after the abolishment of slavery, but my point was that Huck Finn was set in a time where there was still slavery, and therefore did not reflect the true conditions in the South. Huck Finn offered no insight whatsoever to the life of blacks after the abolishing of slavery in the South, as that event hadn't occured yet in the life of Huck Finn - readers could have put the appalling treatment of Jim down to the slavery that occured back then but no longer occured now. This, therefore, leds me to believe that Huck Finn had no impact on the way that the whites treated the blacks.

If you are Hispanic, African American, or Native American, you get an additonal 20 points. Caucasions (sp?) get no additional points, and Asians are sometimes deducted points. So if you are black and completely bomb your SATs you may still be guaranteed a place at these universities, while an Asian with a perfect 2400 may not.

That is something that I completely disagree with - I really can't see why everything can't be equal, nor why others can't see this as racist! Try and bring it up in normal situations, however, and you are labelled a racist

True, racism was still strong in the South. But at least blacks were not forced to work to death under the hand of a plantation owner. They were not slaves or sharecroppers. Even if they lived in the slums of Maycomb, I don't think it is the same thing to compare the racism then to the racism of slavery.

I completely agree - there was a much higher degree of racism involved in slavery as the blacks were considered as mere property of the white owners. I was just trying to argue that racism was alive and well in the time of TKAM as well. As we have both previously mentioned, I believe that this is one aspect of the two novels that can't be compared nor argued over.

Well, as I have said before, I saw a change in Huck. Not a complete change, but a change. I'm right, so there

I believe seeing something which isn't there is one form of schizophrenia, is it not? You may want to see your psychiatrist

The book should have been called The Adventures of the Widow Douglas and whatever the other one's name was

Why not - it has a very nice ring to it

Maybe then Huck was meant to be more of a model of who Southerners could improve to be. Huck may have had some traces of racism left, but he was a much more accepting person than truly racist people in the novel, such as Pap, Aunt Sally, etc. I don't know what Twain's intentions were, but you can see his disdain for romanticism and romantic characters like Tom and the Grangerfords, and his approval of the practical, realist character Huck. Huck's lack of severe racism, in contrast to his environment, was maybe an example of how a pure heart can't be influenced by the conscience. People of the South, who had been bred with racist values, were clearly not going to suddenly hold hands and skip with the freed slaves. But maybe Twain tried to convince them to be less brutal. Even if they were still racist, better to be racist like Huck rather than racist like Pap, if you ask me. I agree that the end was a letdown, after all that had been led up to it.

Very nicely put - I completely agree.

He may not have been masqueraded as a freed slave, but he certainly was dipicted as someone who was not a runaway slave at all. For example, when on the river, Huck was asked whether he had a black man with him, or a white man. It was too dark for the men to tell from the distance. Huck said Jim was a white man, and then concocted a story about how his family had the small pox or something like that. Also, the Duke and the Dauphin decided to make Jim look like that they thought of as an Arab so that people would not assume that he was a runaway.

Huck lied only to save Jim's butt. I don't think that either of them saw Jim as anything but a runaway slave, which (at the beginning anyway) was the truth of it.

Back to the literature thing: If the ending had been more satisfactory, would you consider The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to be literature? Or did the rest of the book also fail to meet your criteria?

I don't think that the end had anything to do with weither or not Huck Finn is literature or not - I just don't believe that I am the best judge of what is literature and what is not.

By using the following defintion of Literature to help me:

"Literature", with emphasis on the uppercase L, is a subset of the more general "literature". "Literature" refers to written work of exceptional intellectual calibre, whereas "literature" can be anything written.

I probably would consider Huck Finn to be Literature. I'm not a big fan of the writing style for reasons already mentioned, but I believe that to someone familiar with the dialect used, the writing would be of a high calibre. I don't think that anyone would deny the intellectual calibre of the book, either. What are your thoughts on this?