I think that while Huckleberry Finn is a blatantly racist novel, it was not written with the intent of condoning racism or slavery. In my essay, I want to talk about the whole "racism VS. realism" issue. I believe that the very act of trying to write a realistic story based in the 1840's South is inherently racist. You cannot write a true tale of the south in that timeperiod without mentioning slavery or including racism. However, I don't believe Mark Twain was racist. I think, if anything, he was mocking racism, its cruelty, and its prevalence in the story's society; Huckleberry Finn is a satire, not a book written to encourage or discourage racism. I also don't think this book should be taught in school. I believe that since the book's publication, its audience has taken the novel way too seriosly. I mean, come on, this book is a satire, a joke, about a couple of guys floating down a river, not some epic novel that was written to change lives. I believe this book has little literary value other than an interesting and informative view of Southern culture and vernacular in the 1840's. I can understand using this book in school to teach about racism and such, and to see where we come from, but I think that subject would be better suited to a humanities class of some sort. It seems strange to me that so many English teachers use this book in their curriculum when its literary value is pretty, well, nonexistant.
I'm not sure what passages in the book I want to use to encourage this argument. There are plenty of passages that are outrageous enough that I can use them to highlight the satirical side of this book. And, of course, the examples of racism within the novel are almost limitless - the entire novel is comprised of racial slurs. It's these slurs and other examples that I can use to show how the book is not some literary jewel and is completely overrated.
For critics, I think I'll use Shelly Fishkin from that documentary to show that the book was not written to condone racism. While, due to the use of the n word and other racial slurs, that book is wraught with racism in the writing, I don't believe the sentiment behind the novel is racist. I think I will also quote Langston Hughes, who said that (I paraphrase) "Before Mark Twain's Huck Finn, there was no unromantisized view of the South, or the view of slaves in the South." This quote highlights the realism of the novel; it's the realism that gives the novel it's value, in my opinion. I will also be quoting the documentary when it says that "great writers should be causing trouble and asking controversial questions" to note that while the book is on a very touchy subject, it can be used to teach (however, it's that controversial topic that should be taught in schools, not the litereary value of the book). I will also use a few quotes form T.S. Elliot. However, I will be relying most heavily on Leo Marx for my quotes. He agrees with me that the book is a satire and should not be taken too seriously. One of my favorite quotes from his essay is "...Clemens certainly did not intend us to read [Huck Finn] solemnly. Surely the tone...is familar to readers of Mark Twain."
I'm not so sure on the logistics of the essay, and how I want to construct it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Meghan,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great start, but I'm a little confused about your overall argument. On the one hand, you want to applaud Twain's satire (which seems a distinctly 'literary' virtue), but on the other you seem to feel that it has little literary merit (and therefore shouldn't be taught). I think that you're on more solid ground with the latter point; and one approach might be to begin by dismissing the issue of racism altogether (by acknowledging that it is inherently racist, but pointing out that it couldn't be otherwise given the setting and time period), then proceed argue that the book has flashes of brilliant satire (the description of the Grangerford household, some of the bits with the King and the Duke), but that these set pieces are just that, nice moments strung together with ridiculous (and often repetitious) plot developments. In other words, your job is to trash the book AS a book. Use some of Trilling and Eliot's more grandiose claims about the book being a 'masterpiece' to set yourself up for a thorough debunking of the book which, as you say here, is more of an extended (and at times) very lame joke than a shining exemplar of American Literature to which students everywhere should be exposed.