Mariam Chaladze, 2nd midterm

In his 1950 introduction to Huckleberry Finn (1884), T. S. Eliot highlights two elements which,
in his opinion, formed a great book the only masterpiece of Mark Twain, as he calls the book.
As he believes, these the two critical pieces of Huck Finn are The Boy and The River. It is
the River that, according to Eliot controls the voyage of Huck and Jim; that will not let them
land at Cairo, where Jim could have reached freedom; it is the River that separates them and
deposits Huck for a time in the Grangerford household; the River that re-unites them, and then
compels upon them the unwelcome company of the King and the Duke. Recurrently, we are
reminded of its presence and its power.

Eliot also provides a striking explanation for Mark Twains reversion to the mood of Tom
Sawyer in the novels final chapters. He explains that neither a tragic nor a happy ending would
be appropriate, Because Huck Finn must come from nowhere and be bound for nowhere. For
Eliot, Huck is a proto modernist, a nomadic vagabond shorn of personal history and local traits,
belonging to no particular place and inhabiting a time that has no beginning and no end.

Eliot argues that it is right Huck does give way to Tom. The style of the book comes from
Huck and the river provides form: we understand the river by seeing it through Huck, who is
himself also the spirit of the river and like a river, Huckleberry Finn has no beginning or end.
Therefore, Huck, logically, has no beginning or end: as such he can only disappear in a cloud
of whimsicalities. For Eliot this is the only way that the book can end. However, Eliot relies on
the fact that the River, Huck and Jim are symbolic, that they are allegorical. This suggests
that the later chapters of the book are Romantic in style. The entire book must be considered
in the context of the ending (however much it may disappoint), it is more a Romance; and to say
that Twain is nothing more and nothing less than a Realist is thus incorrect. Eliots
interpretation, when considered in this context, asserts that Twain was not in fact writing as a
Realist exclusively or, arguably, at all.

Jane Smileys analysis gives a very controversial view on The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn due to its subdued thoughts upon what is known to many as classical American
literature. Throughout her piece, Jane Smileys underlying purpose remains to criticize Twain
in his writing of Huckleberry Finn. She carries a skeptical and disapproving tone throughout her
essay. Her first argument is that the last twelve chapters of the book was a complete failure.
She supports this with the fact that the novel strayed from its central focus: the relationship
between Huck and Jim. She also argues that the novel had a weak beginning as well as a weak
ending and that the author did not really know the actual meaning of racism, and due to this,
the novel had no deep meaning. Lastly, her essay concerns other authors inspections about the
issues upon slavery, and how differently they are represented in other works of literature.
 Mariam Chaladze, 2nd midterm
Smiley makes her point known that although Huck Finn is what most view as a great novel; she
disagrees and states that Harriet Beecher Stowes novel Uncle Toms Cabin should be
considered a greater novel than Huckleberry Finn because it carries better propaganda and
holds better messages of racism. From the beginning to the end of the essay, Smileys initial
intention to bring Mark Twains novel into to spot light changes. Her essay that was supposed
to support Mark Twain moves more interest upon Uncle Toms Cabin, and seems to have replaced
the luster of Huck Finn completely. She thinks that the character Jim, the runaway slave also
Hucks companion in all of their misadventures was treated so poorly that the the novel as a
whole doesnt stand as an attack on racism at all. Perhaps, she must of read a different book
than I, because I totally dont agree with her. I wish she would have given examples on how
Hucks actions should have played out towards Jim that would make her feel like the novel did
suffice. The fact that Huck had several opportunities to turn Jim in and didnt, is a wonderful
action in itself. Although Huck did at one point feel guilt for harboring stolen property, he
also was a mere thirteen years old at the time and had grown up in the Southern America pre-
Civil War.

I can understand how living in this area during the development of who he is may influence his
thoughts because thats all he has ever known: Whites oppressing the Blacks. Im not trying to
say this is an excuse for thinking its okay to look at Jim as property, Im saying its his thoughts
based off the only thing hes ever witnessed. In the end, Huck describes Jim as being white
on the inside, which to me it translated that he sees Jim is a human just like himself, nothing
less, maybe even more than him. I could imagine Huck as an adolescent looking up to Jim in a
Fatherly way, due to the fact his Father was an abusive drunk, and hes a kid, he must feel love
for Jim as if he were family after all this time adventuring together.

In "Huck, Jim, and American Racial Discourse" David L. Smith describes racism in America
beginning with the words of Thomas Jefferson. He presents race as a social construct that is
used to denote superiority of one group in society over another, and shows how this defines
both attitudes and language. Smith writes "Most obviously, Twain uses 'nigger' throughout the
book as a synonym for 'slave'" and shows how this word has misled some modern readers to
charge Twain's novel with racism. Modern readers would be wise to remember that Twain was
not merely using this word to be authentic, nor to shock or offend, but instead to "demystify"
the concept of race, to present an American civilization where "real individual freedom, in this
land of the free, cannot be found." Smith asserts that Twain adopts a strategy of subversion
in his attack on race by focusing on a number of commonplaces associated with the Negro
 Mariam Chaladze, 2nd midterm
and then systematically dramatizing their inadequacy. The result, Smith states is a book almost
without peer among major Euro-American novels for its explicitly antiracist stance.

In his essay, David L. Smith is an apologist for Mark Twain, defending and even praising The
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He particularly highlights and appreciates the subtle jabs at
antebellum society that Twain delivers in his depiction of the negro Jim. The persona of the
speaker is clearly the author himself, stating his own defense of Twains work. The speaker
comes from a modern viewpoint, 1984, yet considers, in his argument, the overwhelming and
optimistic consensus that reigned in 1884. He defends and speaks for not only Twain but also
Melville, J. W. DeForest, and George Washington Carver, all other writers who did not
conform to the standard portrayal of blacks as the unintelligent, insensitive, inconsiderate
individuals Jefferson painted them to be.

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

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

The last essay Im going to talk about is Toni Morrisons This Amazing, Troubling Book. At the
beginning of her essay Morisson expalins, that Leslie Fiedlers and Lionel Trillings criticisms
helped her to understand the book better because they helped him to see many things he had
been unaware of. Although she was far from happy with the word "nigger" that is repeated
numerous times in the book, she realizes. Morrison explores Hucks character and his being
 Mariam Chaladze, 2nd midterm
"frequently suicidal," accompanied by a morose obsession with death in which, I disagree with
her, Huck is one of the most alive, cheerful and full of life, character that I know. In Morrisons
interpretation, Huck is running away from the chaos of Southern antebellum society. She sees
Jim as Hucks way of escaping society. Jim fills a very important role in Hucks life as he
becomes a replacement for the loving and protective father that Huck never had. Jim plays a
very important role in Hucks life because Huck can have power over Jim, while he could never
have power over any white father figure. Huck desires for a father who is adviser and
trustworthy companion in universal, but he also needs something more: a father whom, unlike
his own, he can control.

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

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

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

In conclusion, Id like to say, that reading these critical essays about Twains all time
masterpiece gave me enormous pleasure. But I must also mention, that only three of these four
authors ideas were acceptable for me. In my opinion, Smileys attempts to destroy this novels
reputation is useless. I can accept neither her ideas about how failure this book was, nor how
weak was its ending. Because, In my opinion, this is one of the best books I have ever read,
and, as David L. Smith said, If we, a century later, continue to be confused about Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn, perhaps it is because we remain more deeply committed to both racial
discourse and a self-deluding optimism than we care to admit.
 Mariam Chaladze, 2nd midterm

Bibliography:

1. T.S. Eliot "Introduction"

2. Jane Smiley "Say It Ain't So, Huck
3. David L. Smith "Huck, Jim, and American Racial Discourse"
4. Toni Morrison "This Amazing, Troubling Book."
5. https://books.google.ge/books?id=KQNsc27lTYwC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=David+L.+S
mith+Huck,+Jim+and+American+Racial+Discourse&source=bl&ots=NM7zNqtDX8&sig=Vz
8Zcrk3ahTdIElIWNhD7N6-
jcM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCWoVChMIrI3s17GPxgIVKZ9yCh3W5AH8#v=onep
age&q&f=false
6. https://books.google.ge/books?id=oP8WBlIrlUIC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=David+L.+
Smith+Huck,+Jim+and+American+Racial+Discourse&source=bl&ots=Q-
nWEr9oBz&sig=ZINrClZirhJl-7f3UX70p-
jUE5k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwidjLeltI_GAhUJA3MKHVPdAMo#v=
onepage&q=David%20L.%20Smith%20Huck%2C%20Jim%20and%20American%20Racial
%20Discourse&f=false