Literary Criticism criticism, anyone? (Huck Finn) - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Jolly McJollyson · 01-03-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolly McJollyson

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.

Now that you mention it, though, I agree. I don't think I could have said it better.

Hodge · 01-03-2007, 03:06 PM

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:07 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:10 PM

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:15 PM

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:32 PM

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

krazyklassykat · 01-03-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolly McJollyson

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

And disagreed, I presume?

Jolly McJollyson · 01-03-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krazyklassykat

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolly McJollyson

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..

Quote:

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 · 01-03-2007, 03:59 PM

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 · 01-03-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolly McJollyson

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...

Quote:

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 · 01-03-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krazyklassykat

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.