Mark Twain's satirical masterpiece, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, has, over time, manifested itself as a novel controversial, commensurate with its formidable literary value. The story of an "uncivilized" Southern boy and the intrigues involved as he helps Jim, a runaway slave, reach freedom by sailing up the Mississippi River, Huckleberry Finn is, in the American literary world, most paradoxical because of the extreme controversy it generates. than for the subtleties of the novel itself. Since its first publication, its detractors have called Huckleberry Finn a most vile offensive work, while its supporters, such as Ernest Hemingway, have hailed it as the book from which "all modern American literature comes" (Hemingway, cited in Strauss ). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayAt first glance, opponents of Samuel Clemens' novel appear to be engaging in simplistic discourse. Parents, teachers, and like-minded people have consistently protested the novel against the racism inherent in the material presented. Those interested in issues of race find reason to ban the book because of the word "negro," which appears in the text more than 200 times. These critics claim that because of the overt racism presented, the novel heightens racial tensions, makes black students uncomfortable, and can corrupt impressionable minds. Additionally, some found the book to be simply crude history. Crusaders involved in one of the first bans of Huck Finn, undertaken by the Concord [Massachusetts] Public Library Committee, called the book "crude, crude and inelegant, dealing with a series of low-level experiments " and "the biggest trash can" ("Concord"). Such fundamental criticism of Huck Finn generally draws on a one-dimensional reading of the work. Jim's character is most immediately depicted as a stereotypical grotesque and unintelligent character, and the novel itself ends with his capture and re-enslavement. Huck, a naive boy with no morals other than the imperfect, inculcated Southern mores he takes for granted, tells the story from an almost unwaveringly simple perspective. It is no surprise that this novel has been taken literally as a dark commentary on race relations in the 1800s, with extremely racist overtones. Even the most stubborn or obtuse of Twain's critics, however, are able to grasp the fundamental elements of satire: sarcasm and irony apparent in Huck Finn. Twain, an ardent abolitionist and humanitarian despite his temporal atmosphere deeply rooted in Southern culture and beliefs, clearly did not intend to dehumanize black people by depicting a sardonic reality, any more than Jonathan Swift had the intention to advocate infanticide. The controversy surrounding Twain's novel does not simply lie in an objection leveled against such an incredibly basic and cynical view of the work. There is a much stronger intellectual concern that lies at the heart of a modern controversy over how we, as students, educators, and individuals, should view, read, revere, or not revere works of literature. Furthermore, the debate extends to what should be considered part of the distinguished canon of "great literature", a distinction that even most modern detractors would grant to Huck Finn. On one side of this conflict are the traditionalists, or formalists, who argue that the purpose ofLiterature, as Gerald Graff anecdotally paraphrases, "is to rise above these local and transient problems by transmuting them into universal structures of language and image" (Graff). These individuals reject subjective criticism of a literary work based on its ethical message. Instead, they believe that a work's value and literary merit are based on an objective analysis of the work's value as "art", which relates to a work's ability to describe , consider or illuminate the human condition and the compositional value of a work. By this criterion, a literary work cannot be evaluated for the limitations of the period from which it derives, any more than "King Kong" could be considered an inferior film because of its lack of computer-generated special effects or “Casablanca” for its lack of special effects. of color. Traditionalists totally reject ethical deliberation in literature and in particular ethical censorship. For them, it is unfair to simply judge the Iliad for its reliance on myth, Lolita for its overt sexual situations, or the “Communist Manifesto” for its embrace of radical doctrine. According to traditionalists, these works have merit entirely independent of the incorrect, anachronistic, or "unacceptable" beliefs or themes that the works appear to advocate. Instead, their value depends on their ability to transcend these temporal constraints, an ability that proves extremely questionable for any work of poetry or prose. Traditionalists, for the most part, believe in a separation of literature and its physical effects. Since words have a value distinct from one's reaction to their meaning and, ultimately, distinct from their effect on the world, a demarcation between words and their "real" consequences must exist. Wayne Booth of the University of California summed up this position: "We had been trained to treat a 'poem as a poem and not as something else' and to believe that the value of a great work of fiction was something much more subtle than any derivative idea or proposition. of it or used to paraphrase its “meaning”. We knew that knowledgeable critics never judge fiction based on the effect it might have on readers. “Poetry”, we liked to quote ourselves, “makes nothing happen”, and we have placed under “poetry” all the works in prose qualified as “true literature”. (Stand 4) Opponents of the traditional view focus in their analyzes on specific thematic and ethical messages contained in literary works. Among them are Marxist critics, who evaluate a work based on the class statuses and socioeconomic motivations of various characters; feminist critics, who analyze in depth gender roles and conditions in literature; and racial critiques, which typically examine a work's treatment of racial boundaries. These individuals actively examine the ethical messages of novels and think about how literary works affect readers through this message. Certainly, this controversy is at the heart of the controversy surrounding Huckleberry Finn. If all readers viewed this book solely from a traditionalist's point of view, there would be no objection, because Jim's debasement has no bearing on the literary value of the novel. However, considering Huck Finn on the basis of its ethical message places it, to the racially sensitive reader, on roughly the same level as Mein Kampf. Despite Mark Twain's own beliefs and intentions, the character of Jim is nevertheless nothing more than a function of the era from which he comes. This is a figurepolarizing race, whose fate and existence in history recall the outdated and stereotypical roles of black people. Despite his position as Huck's friend, Jim fails to transcend this racial boundary, his position as an unfree human being only serving to help qualify Huck's own freedom and cultivate his own morality and sense of civilization. Various writings serve to reinforce this idea. evaluation of Jim's character. Famous black author Ralph Ellison recognized that Jim was a human character with a strong sense of morality and dignity, but he compared him to a blackface minstrel, noting that "Jim's friendship for Huck appears like that of a boy for another boy” (Ellison 422). Ethnic author Toni Morrison attests to the necessity of Jim's position of inferiority: The representation of Jim as the visible other can be read as white people's desire for forgiveness and love, but this desire is not reciprocated. possible only when it is understood that Jim has recognized his inferiority (not as a slave, but as a black) and despises him. Jim allows his tormentors to torment him and responds to the torment and humiliation with boundless love. The humiliation to which Huck and Tom subject Jim is baroque, endless, senseless, softening - and it comes after we have experienced Jim as an adult, a caring father, and a sensitive man. [...] Jim's slave status makes play and reprieve possible - but he also dramatizes, in style and mode of narration, the connection between slavery and obtaining (in real and imagined terms ) of freedom. Jim seems unassertive, loving, irrational, passionate, dependent, inarticulate[.] It is not what Jim seems that merits investigation, but what Mark Twain, Huck, and especially Tom expect of him that should seek our attention. (Morrison 56-57) It is on this basis that the strongest and firmest reaction against Huck Finn is formed. Wayne Booth paraphrases Paul Moses, a black arts professor at the University of Chicago, who expressed the anger some feel about the novel's underpinnings: I don't think it's fair to subject students, black or white people, with many distorted views of race. on which this book is based. No, it's not the word "nigger" that I object to, it's a whole range of assumptions about slavery and its consequences, and how white people should treat freed slaves, and how freed slaves should or will behave towards white people, well. the good and the bad. This book is just bad education, and the fact that it's so cleverly written makes it even more embarrassing for me. (Booth, 3) The fundamental controversy presented is one that will not be definitively resolved at any time in the foreseeable future; both parties have a strong position that will in no way be overturned by intellectual squabbling. For this reason alone, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should most definitely be required reading in an 11th grade American literature class. Indeed, it is ironic and perhaps paradoxical that the very controversy over whether or not a novel should be taught is the reason it should be taught. Yet it is absurd to pass up the opportunity to introduce students to such an engaging and modern discussion of literature. The controversy between traditionalists and non-traditionalists rages at universities around the world, and all higher literature students delve into it at some point in their studies. Both traditional and non-traditional interpretations constitute strong pillars of modern literary criticism. Students should be introduced to it during their final years of high school. This obviously raises the question of why we should. 1995.