Kids Need Crap Too.

Is Huck Finn racist? Of course it is. It may not be a blatant sermon for white power, but the language and characterizations are plenty racially motivated. Is this the great American book? Of course not. The idea that any novel in which even it's most excited supporters cannot defend effectively the plot and development should never disgrace it's country by being declared a national classic. In short, Huck Finn is a racially insensitive, poorly written, indecisive, bewilderingly bad book. But we should teach it nonetheless.

The idea that children can flourish knowing only what to do is naive. We must know what not to do as well. If children were only taught how great condoms are but not how bad teen pregnancy is few would use protection. This is the dangerous path English education has taken. By teaching only the "great" books we have sabotaged the wide view of literature our children need. The preposterous reviews by Trilling and Elliot are a blessing in disguise, for they have sneaked a bad book into classrooms, and have given good teachers a chance to show kids all sides of literature; the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I will use the aforementioned essays to point out how children must learn not to be bought off too easily by cheap arguments. I will use the essays of Leo Marx and Smiley to show that they have good arguments about the lack of literary merits about this book, but had they not been taught it they would have skipped that important critical step. From the book I will take specific passages as well as the progression as a whole to use as examples of how children should not write.

Almost all of the books taught in English classrooms are "great." Yet they loose their respect because if all that is taught are great books children have nothing to compare them with. By teaching Huck Finn we can reinforce the value of good books, and encourage a healthy skepticism. If good examples were all we needed the dunce cap would never have been invented. Mark Twain would look good in one.