Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV

The novel beings with "you don't know me" - would it be considered second person, or is this incidental? 70.255.1.78 06:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the line you quote above is a comment made by the first-person narrator, Huck. A second-person narrator would involve the entire novel being written so that "you" are the point of view. "You wake up, feeling slightly congested. You get up, go to the mirror, and look at your klkjl--68.158.4.189 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

---

kl^{_{Superscript textSubscript text}} arguments Leo Marx is most correct because he takes in to account human elements, and the powerful need for freedom into account, while T.S. Elliots and Lionel Trilling are more concerned with literary atmosphere and the geography of the great river. The ending to Huck Finn is a betrayal of Mark twain’s vision because instead of mocking the evils of society it mocks the noble truths it has attempted to reveal.

The ending of Huckleberry Finn suggests that the growth that Huck has made throughout the river voyage has been meaningless.

` In the final scenes of Huck Finn, Jim becomes the black face comedy act that blacks traditionally heled in literature and theater during this time period, abandoning his growth as a human being.

Throughout Huck Finn Mark Twain attacked and revealed the evils and cruelities of Southern society, at the end of the novel however Huck and Jim are saved by the same society Twain has spent the whole novel condemining.

--Gary123 11:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page one

Ironically, reading this book was the single biggest factor in my life that made me, a middle-class white, an anti-racist. I won't get into details here of how I suffered for my principled stand, suffice it to say that my family and I rarely lost an opportunity to oppose discrimination and prejudice against blacks and other races. User:Ed Poor

• An excellent argument for keeping the book in US schools! :) -- April

Yes, I think opposition to Huck was primarily a straw man -- any non-black using the term nigger must be a racist; the use must be hate speech. The Disney Channel made a movie called "Return to Hannibal" and made a publiticy point of quoting the actor portraying Jim as saying that he refused to take the part if the word nigger appeared in the screenplay.

My take on taboo words is: if you use a word to hurt, that is teasing (which is generally wrong, or at least impolite). However, the mere use of a word does not IMHO imply the intent to hurt; nor does the mere expression of an opinion. Which is why I think hate speech rules are silly at best and actually an infringement on free speech probably aimed at enforcing political correctness.

But I digress . . .

It could also be that some black racists (i.e., they hate whites) don't want anyone to know about prominent whites who oppose racism. Suppressing Huck (while branding it racist) keeps people from realizing just how prevalent anti-racism is among whites. Sheer speculation, of course; how could I be so cynical?

User:Ed Poor

---

Moved from Toboo word
A friend, a father figure, and a silent mentor; these three traits portray Jim from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in more ways then one. Jim is a symbol of equality that shows Huck that in truth, blacks and whites can be equal. The bizarre part of it is, that Jim has no idea that he is such an influence on Huck. Take this quote for example, “Huck; you’s de bes’ fren’ Jim’s ever had; en you’s de only fren’ old Jim’s got now. -Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on’y white genlman dat ever up’ his promise to ole Jim.” (Twain 87). Huck realizes that he means something to Jim, he is a friend, and in turn he takes a closer look at what Jim really stands for. In the quote, “He was thinking about his wife and his children, away up yonder, and he was low and homesick; because he hadn’t ever been away from home before in his life; and I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their’n.” (Twain 150). Huck is changing his whole perspective of Jim and taking it into consideration that the way he was brought up was unethical and entirely racist towards good people, like Jim. Huck recognizes that Jim has a family of his own that he has to be parted with, and like a sincere man, this dismays him. Whether Huck perceives it, or not, Jim is a fatherly icon whose advice needs to be taken advantage of and this reference validates this point, “Jim whispered and said he was feeling powerful sick, and told me to come along.” (Twain 66). This particular incident happens when Huck wants to explore a sinking ship, and like a troubled father, Jim was late to provide an answer. Seeing that Huck keeps nagging, Jim agrees, but soon after he pretends to be ill to con Huck off the ship, given that he is worried about him. Jim does not see his impact on Huck and an example of this is the turning part in the story when Huck proceeds to yell, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell” (Twain 206). for Jim’s sake of not turning him in. Jim was a silent mentor to Huck, but just the same, he was a good one. (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn).

This needs to be cleaned up a bit to be encyclopedic and perhaps shortened, but can and should be included in this article. --maveric149

---

I haven't read the book, but this article clearly propagates the opinion that it is definitely not racist, in spite of its numerous bannings. I think the article should be rewritten to remove this bias. Jheijmans 05:42 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

There's far too much about racism and far too little about the first great American novel in this article. Ortolan88 08:53 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks for taking this up, but the new sentence in the first section, the quote from Hemingway doesn't look very encyclopedic to me either, since this is one man's opinion (I assume), and not the general truth (again, I assume). So maybe something like this is a little better: "Some, like Hemingway, claim that "<quote>".

Even then I'm not too pleased with adding quotes to articles, but that's my personal opinion. Jheijmans 10:14 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

I, on the other hand, the old reporter, am a sucker for a quote, and if the greatest American novelist of the 20th century tips his hat to the greatest American novelist of the 19th century, and also summarizes a widely held position, then it seems okay to me. I just looked at it. I think the Hemingway quote supports the previous sentence, "commonly accounted the first great American novel", which isn't just my opinion or Hemingway's. Oh, what the heck, I'll change it as you suggest! It reads better as a separate paragraph, and Hemingway was talking about the vernacular as well as the literary impact. As for the utility of quotes, see what two Miles Davis quotes at the beginning and end contribute to the Louis Armstrong article. Ortolan88 10:29 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

What about the rest of the Hemingway quote, which says to ignore the end of the book, since it's cheating? Koyaanis Qatsi 11:49 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

Well, if I put that in (which I had forgotten), then the quote definitely wouldn't go at the top. On the other had, I do deal with the issue in a more broad way, when I talk about whether the beginning and end with Tom Sawyer are as good as the middle without him. Article is a work in progress.Ortolan88 12:48 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT) PS - I found several more versions of the quote, but none with the "cheat" part. Do you have?Ortolan88 12:57 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

I encountered that quote in class about 5 years ago, I'll look for it but make no guarantees. I'm sure I don't have the notes any more. Koyaanis Qatsi

...

I looked in the Norton Anthology of American Lit, but they just mention Hemingway's praise, not the other half. So to find the quote I'll have to email my former professor, which means that first I'll have to remember his name. Funny, I can remember what he looks like and that he was a big fan of Saul Bellow. Koyaanis Qatsi

---

I never expected to find it, but I did--just after finding a paper with the professor's name on it and just before giving up to email him.

"All American literature comes from Huck Finn. But don't read the last 11 chapters; that's just cheating."

I cited it as Green Hills of Africa p.22, 1935. Oh, and also that T. S. Eliot apparently loved even the ending. No quote on that, though. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:59 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

One of us is going to have to look at The Green Hills of Africa because the starting quote is extended elsewhere, but without that phrase. (I like a dubious character like Hemingway complaining about cheating.) At any rate, the quote will lose its pride of place in the article when we get it right, and appear somewhere closer to the bottom, just above the censorship maybe.Ortolan88 17:53 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

Well, I don't have a personal copy of Green Hills, though I could get one from any number of local libraries. And so far as the cheating goes--yes, Hemingway himself had a dubious character, but I don't think any of his novels suffered such a blatant deus ex machina as what I recall from the end of Huck Finn--and it has been five years since I read it, so please forgive me if I don't elaborate--I just recall agreeing completely with Hemingway that it was a form of literary "cheating." It is a fine story anyay ... peace in the literary camps, to each his own, onward with the wiki-pedia, huh?  :-) And if we want unqualified praise from a respected author, we might look up Eliot. Koyaanis Qatsi

---

I think I must have written the quote wrong--perhaps I was paraphrasing, or perhaps the prof got the meaning right but the words wrong, and mentioned the source. I will look it up. Meanwhile, here's this: http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/campbell/enl311/huckquot.html

Hemingway deus ex machina: the mangled body part in A Farewell to Arms is left totally ambiguous as to its effect on performance, and this in a love story.

The quote link is excellent, and I trust the Hemingway quote better than anything else I've seen. The last time I read Huck I really reconciled myself to the final chapters as an inevitable return to the "real", that is to say false, world. In Twain's notes he has the idea that Tom and Huck end up with an elephant! Now that would have been cheating.

What mangled body part in A Farewell to Arms?

So far as The Sun Also Rises goes, there's a part that amuses me a lot where Brett and Jake are in the hotel together; Brett's man has gone to get wine or something and it says "Then later:" and Brett asks Jake if he feels any better. But my theory on that is that book is not in fact a tragedy, but a cynical comedy. Refresh my memory on A Farewell to Arms, please (and I just read it over Christmas break!) Koyaanis Qatsi

Trip to library. May be confused. Ortolan88 16:46 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

---

User:Ed Poor, I don't have any problems with the edit you made about racism (although I am going to try to address the issue in more detail later), but I do object to the summary comment that went along with it:

"mere usage of word 'nigger' justifies labeling the book as racist"

Since you didn't actually label the book as racist, the following is theoretical. Are Niggaz With Attitude racist? Is the scene in Blazing Saddles ("I'm going to kill the nigger") racist? Is Dick Gregory's autobiography Nigger racist? (Gregory said, "Momma, every time you hear that word, you'll know they're advertising my book.") The word nigger appears 215 times in the book, including one of the most powerful scenes in the book, in which Huck apologizes to Jim for fooling him and says, in effect, "It was hard to humble myself to a nigger, but I done it and I was better for it". If anything, the word needs to be demythologized and Huckleberry Finn is the book to do it. Ortolan88 19:21 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)

Ortolan, what I meant by the "mere usage" thing is that some advocates automatically assume (or at least see an excellent opportunity to claim) that any non-black author who uses the term nigger is a racist. I guess they reason that only a racist would print such a derogatory term. They possibility that Twain was a non-racist or even an anti-racist does not seem to enter these advocates' minds.

I think the novel would have seemed inauthentic if Twain had cleaned up the language, as Disney did with "Return to Hannibal". People back then, black and white, used the term nigger a lot.

Another question is to what extent Twain used Huck's narration as an ironic way of expressing his own views on race relations. He has Huck, a rebellious young man, say (in effect) "I don't care if society says freeing a slave is wrong. I think it's right, and I'm going to do it even if they say I'm going to hell." Could this be what the author wanted to say outright? Could it that he wants the reader, who has learned to sympathize with Huck, to agree with Huck's sentiments? Ed Poor

---

About the Hemingway quote--sorry for the delay; work has been kicking me around a bit.

Ordinarily I would preface this with the usual "yes, this book is in the first-person singular, but please do not mistake the narrator for the author," etc. speech, but note Hemingway's Foreword:

Unlike many novels, none of the characters or incidents in this book is imaginary. Any one not finding sufficient love interest is at liberty, while reading it, to insert whatever love interest he or she may have at the time. The writer has attempted to write an absolutely true book to see whether the shape of a country and the pattern of a month's action can, if truly presented, compete with a work of the imagination.

Then, on page 22 (in a conversation about American authors that has already lasted for four pages):

"But what about Thoreau?"

"You'll have to read him. Maybe I'll be able to later. I can do nearly everything later."

"Better have some more beer, Papa."

"All right."

"What about the good writers?"

"The good writers are Henry James, Stephen Crane, and Mark Twain. That's not the order they're good in. There is no order for good writers."

"Mark Twain is a humorist. The others I do not know."

"All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating. But it's the best book we've had. All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since."

"What about the others?"

"Crane wrote two fine stories. The Open Boat and The Blue Hotel. The last one is the best."

"And what happened to him?"

"He died. That's simple. He was dying from the start."

etc.

--KQ 15:53 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

I reckon that "All modern American literature" quote belongs in the Hemingway article, with a link back here to ol' Huck. Ed Poor

---

Why isn't the information at the end, on censorship, put in it's place? -- Octothorn

And what is it is place? --Brion

In censorship -- Octothorn

I disagree. I think it's relevant to the book that the final reaction of some people is to try to prevent other people from reading it. Koyaanis Qatsi

---

Although the Concord, Massachusetts library banned the book shortly after its publication because of its tawdry subject manner and the coarse, ignorant language in which it was narrated, the San Francisco Chronicle came quickly to its defense on March 29, 1885:

This seemed (either intentionally or not) heavily POV. I added quotes around the claims of tawdry subject and ignorant language but someone may want to clean it up further. 65.116.19.243 14:28, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

• The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn → Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, over a redirect page – The latter is the book's actual title (see [1]). --Calton | Talk 01:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

• I am for "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". -- Darwinek 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The cover of the first United States edition (shown here) did not contain the initial The, though some later editions do. Jonathunder 05:16, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Support I've seen numerous copies of the book and they all seem to say "The". Also the seems to sound more appropriate. So I'm gonna have to go with support.
• I also believe that including 'The' makes the title sound better.

Oppose

• I'm afraid I'm going to oppose this one. Although it seems that you are correct in some instances other sources do include The in the title - the image in the article and numerous links, for example. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• VR is correct. "The" does seem to be in the title. - UtherSRG 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I've seen numerous copies of the book and they all seem to say "The". Also the seems to sound more appropriate. So I'm gonna have to go with support.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

When will this vote be closed, and what % of supporting votes will be considered a mandate? Kingturtle 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to vote please do it quickly - I'll be closing the vote later on today and, as it stands, will be moving it. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really think you need to let this vote stay open for a 5 to 7 days. Kingturtle 20:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Jim "wise"?

"the main black character, Jim, who is depicted as wise and unselfish, albeit uneducated and superstitious."

My recollection of Jim's character is that he is, though good-hearted and loyal, not what I would call "wise". Comments?

I would have to say that he would not be fit for the word "wise" for the fact that most of his smarts are common sense. das feuer

It's not as much common sense as it is a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge doesn't necessarily mean unwise, but I think Jim only appears to be wise because he has such a simple view on life. --EHoffman 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's certainly something where a source could (and should) be cited; many, many essays on Huckleberry Finn (and Jim in particular) are available in academic journals. --LostLeviathan 13:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim isn't exactly wise. If anything he is foolish. But loyal and good-hearted, yes. The only time he ever demands anything is when Tom is shot, that's it. No one in the book is wise really and it especially applies to Huck and Jim, but perhaps, the fact that they are morally founded and focused on their "feelings" they could be seen as some sort of wise. But the truth is that both Jim and Huck are naive and the only way they can be seen as wise is because they have a moral sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.220.203 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See, this is why you can't use WIKIPEDIA as a source

The author of the original entry says that the Duke and the King tried to swindle four orphan girls, when there were only three:

It's a pretty long journey. But it'll be lovely; wisht I was a-going. Is Mary Jane the oldest? How old is the others?"

"Mary Jane's nineteen, Susan's fifteen, and Joanna's about fourteen -- that's the one that gives herself to good works and has a hare-lip."

It's not a major plot point, but if you've read the book you should know this.

Always verify anything you read on WIKIPEDIA through another source.

I deleted the bit about Jim being the best man in the story

Jim may be better than many of the people portrayed in Huckleberry Finn, but he isn't therefore the best man, unless there's something I'm missing about Judge Thatcher, who protected and fought for Huck as best he could within the parameters of the law.

(Present tense, this is a book not a history. It is true that Judge Thatcher comes across as canny and virtuous, as, in fact, does the doctor who tries to alert the townspeople that King and Duke are frauds. Are these not minor characters, men who apepar for a moment? I see that the Note on Character that I inserted has been deleted by some well-intentioned person who is unaware of the depth and ubiquity of the problem and has replaced it with an unsupported statement attributing the entire problem to a single biographer. It could have been let remain. I am new to this, as you can see. S Filler 8-10-06)

Racism

The book labels almost every white character as stupid, racist and ignorant while the main black character is wise and kind hearted. It stereotypes white people and is therefore racist. Just because the victim of this racism isnt seen as some sort of 'underdog' it doesnt mean it isnt racism.

• Kindly explain how portraying American society as it was in the 1840s is racism. Most white people across the United States during this period held racist views, as practically every historical source from that time verifies. Twain is fictionalizing the very real world that he lived in. That's not racism.--Pinko1977 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Besides, Mark Twain was white himself, so it can't be "anti-white" racist. Self-critical, perhaps. Kind of amusing, really - a basically anti-racist book being blamed "racist" in both directions! --Illythr 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

yes one of the greatest books ever written... serioulsy, it rocks, read it now!

I disagree, I don't like it very much.

• Twain is satirizing the period he lived in. That was the whole point of him writing the book.Gotmesomepants 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Besides, Mark Twain was white himself, so it can't be "anti-white" racist." Who says a white person can't be racist against white people? Seems to me that any person who is opposed to a group of people based on race is racist, regardless of their own race. I'm not saying Mark Twain suffered from racism, just pointing out that this statement is untrue. Applejuicefool 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, This book isnt racist? In case you did not know, Mark Twain was a realist, meaning he portrayed the REALITY of the South. He uses satire, which I dont think most of you understood, to show that a young kid named Huck Finn has more sensibility and brains than most of the South. He doesnt truly hate white people, he just despises the lifestyle they live in, since this book was written after slaves were all freed.Idacoolboy 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the whole one paragraph introduction in the very front of the book about whoever takes the books seriously shall be hanged explains the whole satire concept of the book. Mark Twain used this book to point out how stupid racism was and is, also how stupid it looks. It's simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.119.253 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trivial here, but Twain never used the term "Realism" yet alone attributed it to himself. Though he was great friends with Howells, who you can say became the 'face' of realism, not in one case does he say he is realist. Twain actually criticizes Henry James, who is arguably the best American Realist. The work itself is satirical in nature, on many levels, but it is mostly a reaction against American Romantics, like Walter Scott or Cooper, and as Twain's catchphrase, "The Damn Human Race." So, is the book racist? Yes, very much so. But it's a good thing. The book, as Twain's explains, is a sound heart versus a deformed conscience. The heart is natural while the conscience is a moral guideline that's socially derived. Hence why Huck is a runaway, he finds himself most comfortable away from society because his true moral obligations lie in his heart and they contradict his conscience, which is socially constructed. Huck doesn't see racism as bad, he sees it as normal, so when he makes his decisions about helping Jim he does it because Jim is his friend not because he is an abolitionist. Huck's naivety allows for Twain to contrast social norms and personal, perhaps innate, beliefs. So, is it bad it's racist? I think not. If anything, it makes it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.220.203 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Themes

The section about themes of the book could use a lot more work. There are too many paragraphs that just say "A major theme of the book is...." with very little discussion. --Phoenix Hacker 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Themes need citations too, and these don't have them. While many listed here are recognized by critics and scholars, and a few, like this one, appear to simply be the editor's opinion:

"Family is one of the most important themes in the book [...]"

I don't find this 'theme' persuasive -- families exist in the book because families exist in life and are an inescapable social grouping, particularly for the period and setting. You might as well say that "gravity is one of the important themes of the book, because in the book everyone sticks to the ground, things fall when they're dropped and no-one floats off into space." Themes given here should be sourced like anything else. P.T.isfirst 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

White Trash angle

I think the real reason people may find this book offensive is not only because of the frequent use of the N word, but also because it basically points out how evil and base white trash can become. There are a few "good" white characters in the book, though at times you may be able to point out their hypocrisy, but when they are evil they are downright nasty, for example Huck's Pap who is just about the epitome of the very definition of what one could define white trash as. So there's plenty o' reason for white folks t' hate this book too, I reckon, which explains why it's so banned. Basically, blacks don't like it, whites don't like it, the only ones who can possibly like it are the literary free-thinkers, but a body has to be a might educated for that, don' he? Actually, upon reflection even the free-thinkers can hate it too because they should be free to love and hate whatever they like. It looks like Huck Finn just can't get a break. It just crosses too many people and definitely has the house stacked against it.

_______________________ I agree, that its offensive, but I think its the reader's fault in finding the book offense in anyway. If Twain intended to offend anybody, then it would have been racists in the south after the Civil War, since thats when he wrote the book. And the people that dont like it like you mentioned are uneducated. The fact that we learn this book in high school and yet, many people are afraid of controversy and thinking freely about such themes and topics from this book shows the decline of American education, and the "dumbness" which is gaining in the nation. Idacoolboy 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^^

"The fact that we learn this book in high school...."

My American Literature instructor said that it was cruel and unusual punishment to force teenagers to read Huck Finn. I would argue that the book belongs in the high school honors American lit. class. Ideally -- I believe -- it would also be taught alongside a survey of the Jim Crow South.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Time of the book

In the article, it says the book probably took place in the 1820's. However, At the neginning of the book it says that it takes place "forty to fiftey years ago" and it was released in 1884. This means it took place between 1834-1844.

Censorship?

One of the listed examples of censorship is "excluded from the juvenile sections of the Brooklyn Public library and other libraries." How is it censorship to categorize this book as adult literature? I would suggest removing this example, and instead adding a bit on the arguments about whether or not it is children's literature. --LostLeviathan 13:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary should probably be expanded to an actual plot summary. Right now it doesn't say all that much about the story. I'm probably not the best person to do it as I haven't read it in almost 2 years (and honestly I'm not a huge fan), but if nobody else does it I might try (with the aid of sparknotes I guess, purely for summary, not analysis, purposes).--Derco 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

J'Accuse

The paucity of this article, on the novel sometimes called the greatest in American literature, and included on almost every list of the top half-dozen, should be a source of great shame for the Wikipedia. -- Writtenonsand 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it a source of great shame for Wikipedia? I guess I've missed the point of this comment... 76.121.205.7 (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

reference without precedent

Albert Bigelow Paine's 1912 Twain biography marks the first use of the term "Nigger Jim," a phrase not attributed to Clemens, causing its rise in usage in short-hand descriptions of the character in critical essays.

"Clemens" would be who, or what exactly? 87.112.94.111 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe that that was Mark Twain's real name. --YankeeDoodle14 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh. John LeCarré 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

Am I reading this right? In the controversy section, from what I understood, the article declares "well then I'll go to hell" the greates line in american literature. Great line, but the POV is still there (if I read it right).

[edit] Okay, I read it wrong. But why is this even in the controversy section?

The paragraph under that not only needs it's sources, but is also way too POV, calling it the "most boring and least tasteful". I say we just strike these parts.

Nancymc edit apparently linkning to user's own play production.

I yanked an edit by user Nancymc that links to a "new play version of Huck Finn". Presumably this is the user's own production. I did not feel it was approriate to be using Wikipedia for self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.228.122 (talk • contribs).

• I see that Nancy has re-added it. I will re-delete, on the following grounds: (1) Per WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, editors should not add external links to sites they own or control; (2) Nancymc is apparently Nancy McClernan, (see here) the author of the new Huck Finn play advertised by the link. (See here). I think it's great that Ms. McClernan wrote a Huck Finn play and I wish her a lot of success, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. (I question whether the link would be appropriate even if added by a neutral party.) TheronJ 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not appropriate? CITE THE RULE!

And WHY would it be inappropriate even if added by a neutral party? External links such as that are done all the time.

And while you're at it, you can go and police other people doing the same thing, like Edward Einhorn, AKA DrMajestico, adding links to his own production company web site (untitletheatrecompany61) from the Vaclav Havel page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel

Go ahead, link stormtroopers - go to work. I check the Havel page in a little while to see if you removed his links, to make sure you aren't just targeting me personally.

And BTW - it isn't just MY play production. My play was SELECTED to be part of the Metropolitan Theatre's Twainathon.

You people should really get lives.

Nancymc 15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Added link to Twainathon - my play happens to be part of it. I hope you don't reach for your smelling salts at the utter vulgarity! Nancymc 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it again.

1. I think there's a conflict of interest, because Nancy has a personal interest in driving traffic to the Met Theatre's performance of her play. (For relevant guidelines, see here and here and here).
2. In general, a link to a page advertising January 2007 performances of Twain-related plays is not appropriate because (1) it's not encyclopedic, and (2) it will become irrelevant in two months. See here, here, items 1, 3, and 4 and here.
3. Assuming that you've described them accurately, the Havel play links should go too, and I will try to take a look at them. In the meantime, if you want to remove them, I will support you.
4. I'm open to any kind of dispute resolution you would find helpful. I also think it's great that you wrote a Huck Finn adaptation and that the Met Theatre is performing it.
5. Please try to stay civil. "Link Nazis" isn't helpful.

Thanks, TheronJ 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

--Wow. Ms. McClernan's comments do not make me want to see her play, as the way she handled this makes her appear utterly juvenile. Please think before posting comments like, "You people should really get lives." It's just not polite. 76.121.205.7 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Time magazine

The article mentions that Time ranked the book fifth in its poll of the greatest books of all-time, but that list is actually not Time's. It is from the book "The Top Ten" by J. Peder Zane. The link provided was really only an article about Zane's book. Jrs044 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why are there two articles about Huckleberry Finn? There's both Huckleberry finn and 'Huckleberry Finn'. Somebody should at least change the title on the articles.

• Technically, there are two articles: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which is about the book, and Huckleberry Finn, about the character. I've changed Huckleberry finn so that it redirects to the character, not the book. TheronJ 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a date

Worth mentioning it was first published in Canada? (First U.S. edition 1885.) Or was it an English ed 1884, released in Canada...? Trekphiler 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

literature?

What was the motivation for removing the link to Jon Clinch's "Finn"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.230.171.223 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Intro

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) is commonly accounted as one of the first Great American Novels. - actually, the gist of the concept of the Great American Novel, as with Highlander, is that There Can Be Only One. And since time immemorial it has been debated whether it has been written yet and if so, by whom. --Janneman 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Top Ten

The following book review in Time Magazine is being inappropriately inserted into a lot of articles: Book review in Time Magazine. It is being claimed that this is Time Magazine's list of the ten greatest books of all time. Hardly. This is a book review about a book that asks a lot of authors what their favorite books were and at one point in the book lists the most popular picks. The reviewer in Time Magazine actually goes so far as to say that such lists are "an obscenity." I've removed the note. --JayHenry 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Also?

Thinking that the "see also" link is just a little bit creepy. Appropriate or inappropriate? -- [[User:MaybeDynamit}} 20:24 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. Thank you for catching it. It is creepy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

There is this text which runs like anyone who ... will be hanged ... I am not entirely sure about it but unless it is purely for humor reasons, could we include that in the article? --Multipleidentitynumberthree 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one

Yes, it's basicly a satirical introduction to the satire in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.129.152 (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Character list?

Should this article not have a character list of both the major and minor characters? Irish Plusle 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yes this page shoulkd have a character list, it would greatly benefit students with research an dsuch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.38.22 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs work

While the article's Lead is eloquently written, much of its content lacks the requisite support in the Body as outlined in WP:LEAD. It must "summarize" the article, however, the references to "Local Color Regionalism", first person perspective, "innocent young protagonist", "colorful description of people", "most enduring images of escape and freedom", immediate popularity, and sequel nature, are not supported by sourced statements in the other sections of the article. These references make up most of the Lead and will have to be removed if supporting copy isn't appropriately added to the article and sourced. Consequently, I added a maintenance tag to the article to alert other editors to the need for improvement.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Themes and Controversy sections need sources

The Major Themes and Controversy sections have been tagged to alert editors that they are almost completely unsourced. A case could be made that the Themes section especially appears to be original research and editorial analysis and risks mass deletion. This would be unfortunate since Huck Finn has to be one of the most analyzed works in American literature and there should be no shortage of material to place here. New material and cited sources need to be located.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure of the WP protocol but I'd recommend removing everything from that section and replacing it with a few cited quotes of commonly-accepted themes from well-regarded sources. A great deal of very solid work has been done on this subject over the past century and it'd be a shame for this article to continue with nothing but this collection of off-the-cuff stuff (to put it more politely than it deserves) from random contributors. P.T.isfirst (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Random contributors" seems offensive to me. But what I came to the talk page to find out is why the "cite doesn't support the statement" as Jim Dunning put it in his recent edit. I thought it was okay to use another WP article if it was to a direct quote within that article, so since that wasn't okay, it was right that Jim reverted it. But wouldn't it be sufficient sourcing to reference the book by Hemingway? Regards, Rich (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Green Hills article does contain the un-sourced "quote"

"If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating."

This "quote" appears to make a statement about the ending of Huck Finn relative to the rest of the novel, but is it fair to say the ending "detracts"? I don't know, since the quote just mentions something about "cheating", and the context of the quote is missing. For this article to say the ending "detracts", Hemingway would have to clearly say "detract" (or a synonym), or, alternatively, a credible source interprets Hemingway's comments to mean that. However, all of my searching has found neither such a credible source's analysis or enough of the passage to see if Hemingway clearly intends that meaning.

My other problem with just citing the WP article (other than Jimmy Wales says you can't), is that the quote in the Green Hills article is itself unreferenced. And although there are a million statements on the Internet attributing the quote to Hemingway, not a one says where in Green Hills it appears. Not saying it definitely isn't there, but it would be nice to know for sure. But that's why I'm hesitant to say the statement is supported as is.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the passage and added enough cites to support assertion that "many critics" have problems with the book's ending. This passage actually should be moved to a Criticism section when it is started (which should be soon).
Jim Dunning | talk 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The way it looks to me, Jim, is that although you are genuinely a very fine editor(you've already improved the article),it is hard for you to admit mistakes. You have made a minor tweak in the sentence about Hemingway, so you can say now, yes the quote does support the claim(as if it didn't before.) Also, it seems you have said a lot of other things in the above paragraphs as a distraction or dilution of {whether this Hemingway reference supported the claim or not}, which was my only issue. (Kind of like how your body induces a protective swelling around your finger after you inadvertently cut yourself?) I wanted to help edit this article, Jim. If you want to edit it all by yourself, emphasizing the errors of others to drive them off and to hide your own (very small) error, that is more surely a violation of Wikipedia policy. I think a group of editors who are willing to discuss and hash things out are likely to elicit more ideas and come up with a better article than even Brittanica can with one expert writing alone.Rich (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relocating unsourced Themes and Reception material to Talk page

The material below is unsourced copy from the article's Major Themes and Reception sections. It has been removed from the article to enhance its integrity for readers. Editors should find reliable sources for the material moved here, amend (as needed), cite and return it to the appropriate place in the article. All of this copy has been unsourced for well over eight months, and presents unverified and potentially inaccurate information to readers. This is crucial due to the significance of the book to American literature.

Strike through material as it is sourced and moved, or removed.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Major themes

• Family is one of the most important themes in the book. The attempt by Huck's father to gain custody of him in order to steal the money that Huck and Tom had found in the previous book precipitates his flight, Huck stages his own murder to get away. One of the major plot devices in the book is Jim's hiding the death of Huck's father from him. As they travel the river, Huck is frequently involved with families who attempt to adopt him.

• Another theme is the life on the Mississippi River, alternately idyllic and threatening. In true picaresque fashion, Huck and Jim encounter all the varieties of humanity as they travel: murderers, thieves, confidence men, good people and hypocrites. The river also represents the passage of time, and helps to move the story.

• In the middle of the story, Mark Twain comments on the irrationality of pride and honor, as Huck sees brutal, cold-blooded murders committed by two feuding families. Later on, a Southern aristocrat coldly kills a drunken man who has been yelling empty threats at him, and the village turns the incident into a sort of circus, ignoring the dead man's daughter while trying to start a lynch mob, which quickly disintegrates after being mocked by the murderer himself. The "Dauphin" and the "Duke", two seemingly-innocuous (in some ways) confidence men are infamous characters of the novel who attempt to con three orphaned girls out of their late father's life savings. Towards the end of the book, they are tarred and feathered, and carried out of town on a rail, symbolizing how equally or more evil a village of people can be, given the magnitude of the response relative to that of the suspected crime.

• Most critics say much of the section detailing the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons can be interpreted as an attack on exaggerated or melodramatic romanticism. Some critics note that there is a tight symmetry between this section of the book and Shakespeare's Play "Romeo and Juliet". The poem "Ode to Stephen Dowling Bots" by Emmeline Grangerford, two-thirds of which details what Stephen Dowling Bots did not die of, is an example. The whole Grangerford parlor was filled with kitsch. Also, Emmeline Grangerford's paintings, which had titles that all ended in "Alas", were also a parody of this. Emmeline Grangerford was modeled after Julia A. Moore, a notoriously bad poet known as "The Sweet Singer of Michigan".

• Another theme is Huck's gradual acceptance of Jim as a man, strong, brave, generous, and wise (though realistically portrayed as imperfect).

• Its themes on religion are almost as strong as its race theme. Huck himself comes across as religious but having trouble believing in God: although he tries to pray, he finds it to be a waste of time. Later in the book, he encounters the dilemma of whether or not to "steal" Jim out of slavery; he is forced to reckon with the fact that, according to his society, helping a slave escape will condemn him to Hell. His famous quote "All right, then, I'll GO to hell", is a direct attack by Twain on the religious support of slavery in the U.S. Huck comes across as one of the most unbiased, open-minded characters of popular literature as he continually questions his own motivation and life in general throughout the book. While he may not be pious, he does have a strong sense of right and wrong and often acts out of moral conviction. But since shortly afterwards, in conversation with Mrs. Phelps, Huck and Mrs. Phelps are exceedingly callous towards African-Americans, the contention by Hemingway that the story "really" ended when Jim was captured and Huck decided to steal Jim back is supported: When telling Mrs. Phelps a lie about a steamboat accident, Mrs. Phelps asked Huck if anyone was hurt. Huck (incredibly) answered No'm. Killed a nigger. Mrs. Phelps replied Well it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.

• In another amusing commentary on 19th century society, Twain includes the "Dauphin" character, a deluded, unemployed drunkard who insists upon being addressed as "Your Majesty" and claims to be the "Lost Dauphin", the long-lost son of Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette, who were both executed by French republicans in 1793. Their son, Louis XVII, actually died in a republican jail in 1795, but many pretenders appeared all over the world claiming to have been the young boy-king of France. By the middle of the century their claims were becoming increasingly absurd and unbelievable.

• Another theme is belonging. Huck does not feel as though he belongs. This is shown at both the beginning of the book and at the end. One of the reasons that Huck initially runs away, is because he feels that he doesn't belong in civilized society. We also see this play into the end of the book when Huck says that he doesn't want Aunt Sally to "sivilize" him.

Reception

• Although the Concord, Massachusetts library banned the book immediately after its publication because of its "tawdry subject matter" and "the coarse, ignorant language in which it was narrated", the San Francisco Chronicle came quickly to its defense on March 29 1884: "Running all through the book is the sharpest satire on the ante-bellum estimate of the slave. Huckleberry Finn, the son of a worthless, drunken, poor white man, is troubled with many qualms of conscience because of the part he is taking in helping the negro to gain his freedom. This has been called exaggerated by some critics, but there is nothing truer in the book."

• There have been countless attempts to "clean up" the language in the book — all dismal failures. CBS Television went so far as to produce a made-for-TV version of Huck Finn that included no black cast members, no mention of slavery, and without the critical character Jim.

• In the United States, occasional efforts have been made to restrict the reading of the book. In addition to its Concord ban, it has, at various times, also been:

• excluded from the juvenile sections of the Brooklyn Public library and other libraries
• removed from reading lists due to alleged racism (e.g., in March of 1995 it was removed from the reading list of 10th grade English classes at National Cathedral School in Washington, DC, according to the Washington Post; and a New Haven, Connecticut correspondent to Banned Books Online reports it has been removed from a public school program there as well)
• removed from school programs at the behest of groups maintaining that its frequent use of the word nigger (212 times overall) implies that the book as a whole is racist, despite what defenders maintain is the overwhelmingly anti-racist plot of the book, its satirical nature, and the anachronism of applying current definitions of polite speech to past times.
• removed from public and school libraries because of its "racist" plot.

• Ralph Ellison was impressed with how clearly Twain allowed Jim's "dignity and human capacity" to emerge in the novel. According to Ellison, "Huckleberry Finn knew, as Mark Twain, that Jim was not only a slave but a human being [and] a symbol of humanity . . . and in freeing Jim, Huck makes a bid to free himself of the conventionalized evil [i.e., slavery] taken for civilization by the town."

Obscene Illustration

University of Virginia has a scanned image of the defaced illustration (see Publishing history section). The illustration is on page 283 of the first (American) edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.229.213 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Date Inconsistency

An inconsistency in the dates needs to be addressed. The true first edition was published by Chatto and Windus in 1884 (in London for copyright purposes). The first U.S edition was released by Webster in 1885 (as listed on the title page, although the copyright is still 1884). Images of these editions, including the title and copyright pages, may be found at: https://staging.airflowsciences.com/rkn/Twain/3400-3449/3414/index.html and https://staging.airflowsciences.com/rkn/Twain/3400-3449/3415/index.html It's incorrect to list the Webster edition as an 1884 book. Any objections to me taking care of this? Rknasc (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Year in which the book takes place - original research?

The section "Year in which the book takes place" is interesting and persuasive, but it consists of uncited and apparently original analysis: the occasional fact in it is cited, but the analysis itself that the facts are used to support is uncited. This may need to be flagged with {{Original research}} and published versions of the analysis found and citations provided. -- P.T.isfirst (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, except to add that the analysis is not persuasive at all. It takes several logical leaps to extract a specific date when Twain was clearly content with only a rough general time frame. The writer chooses to read Twain's dating of the events "forty to fifty years ago" as though he wrote "about forty-five years ago," but there's a difference in meaning. The suggested time lapse of two to three years after King William's death is apparently pulled at random, and the reasoning makes no sense. The harelip is surely just ignorant of England rather than Huck being privy to fresh news that hadn't yet reached her township (and if he died years before, it wasn't fresh and had plenty of time to percolate to anybody who cared). The bit about the 1840 presidential campaign is weak special pleading, but if pushed then 1841 or 1842 is just as likely. In fact, if you want to make silence about the 1840 campaign an issue then it militates against 1839 being the date of the novel, since it was an unusually long campaign that featured presidential nominating conventions for the Anti-Masonic Party in 1838 and the Whigs in 1839, both of which nominated the successful William Henry Harrison for president. 68.126.129.134 (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the arguments aren't as strong as they appear. More to the point is the fact that they are arguments at all: it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to advance a position not established as fact. A more suitable tag might be {{Synthesis}}: see WP:SYN. Even if citations were found that advance the section's conclusion, it would still not be a fact, merely an analysis which might or might not merit a mention in the article. As a work of fiction, Finn need not be ascribed to any precise year and arguably should not be unless the author explicitly provides one. In stating "forty to fifty years" ago, Twain pretty clearly declines to do so. P.T.isfirst (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I had it marked, but there seems to be some consensus that it should go (or be cited), so I've moved it here:

Year in which the book takes place

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn appears to take place in or about the year 1839. The author gives several indications of this. In the Foreword he describes the events as taking place "forty to fifty years ago" (i.e., about 45 years before the publication date of 1884), which would make the approximate year 1839. In Chapter 26, when Huck impersonates the servant of a supposed clergyman from England, he tells the harelipped kitchen girl that he has often seen King William the Fourth at church, while admitting to the reader that he is aware the King died "years ago" (Huckleberry Finn, Chapter 26). [William IV was succeeded by his niece, Queen Victoria in 1837]. Since the harelip does not know that King William IV is dead, and Huck does, the time lapse after William IV's death is probably 2–3 years. Since 1840 was a landmark Presidential election year with the election of the first Whig President, and there is no mention whatsoever of the political campaign, the novel most likely takes place right where Twain suggested—1839.

(John User:Jwy talk) 20:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not "original research" if the author himself goes to the trouble of pinpointing the period. His stated approximate year would be 1839, as noted. Then there is the narrative itself which makes it clear that it occurs while the death of William IV was still in recent memory. So the year is 1837 (death of William IV) or within a few years thereafter, but of course no later than 1844. Perhaps this "original research" objection could be finessed by adding footnotes citing histories and biographies that establish William IV's death in 1837? Would that do? We shall see. This is not some obscure theoretical matter only of interest to Twain enthusiasts. This is an historical novel, set is a specific place and time, and Twain took some trouble to describe that place and time.

You say, 'As a work of fiction, Finn need not be ascribed to any precise year and arguably should not be unless the author explicitly provides one. In stating "forty to fifty years" ago, Twain pretty clearly declines to do so.' This remark is unsupportable, given the evidence provided.Sallieparker (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a reliable source go through this scenario to indicate suitability would be much preferred. Putting this information together when scholars have not can appear to be synthesis. Perhaps rewording the paragraph to report what was written about the date without drawing the conclusion so directly? (John User:Jwy talk) 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, "having a reliable source go through this scenario" isn't just "preferred", it is required. Read the Policy (not Guideline!) on Original Research and Synthesis. We need a Reliable Source to explicitly state the year (estimated or not), not WP editors doing it.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a gray area between copying the source per se and an original interpretation of the sources. I believe this one falls outside that space (i.e. IS original research), but someone might make a somewhat reasonable argument to the contrary. Since the text is not in the article now, I found no need to be forceful about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic

Anyone else think "Huckleberry Finn" should redirect here instead of the disambiguation page? (John User:Jwy talk) 05:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Racist criticism added to Major Themes section

A few weeks ago, I removed an addition to Major Themes by Bsimmons666 consisting of the following criticism:

However, others have criticized the novel as racist, citing the use of the word "nigger" and Jim' Sambo-like character.

I did so for two reasons: first, the identical criticism -- that the book is racist and contains offensive stereotyping -- already appears in two other places: in the article's introduction and in Reception. Second, because a criticism of a novel by others is not on the face of it a theme of that novel; it's hard to argue that Twain used the novel to express the idea that critics of the as yet unwritten novel would consider it racist.

As it was a good faith edit with cites, I noted it as such in the edit summary of my removal, and relocated the cites to the first instance of the criticism, in the article's introduction. The original editor evidently disagrees and has restored it. Rather than get into an edit war over this, I though I'd bring it here. I'll put the question to the community: does the essentially identical criticism belong in three locations in the article, and can the post-publication criticism of the novel really be called a theme of that novel? P.T.isfirst (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to know why there's a "major theme" section in the article at all. There is no theme, no intention, and no message. It's just a random story. Colonel Marksman (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer

Doniago, Do you intend to discuss your latest reverts? Huckleberry Finn was one amongst a group of friends of Tom Sawyer. That's why I changed 'best' to 'a'. Why did you revert this? David Tombe (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edits (note that I didn't touch earlier ones) because you began including quotations and otherwise making changes that in my opinion were taking the plot summary from a concise description to a thorough retelling, which isn't what the plot summaries should be.

I don't appreciate being called out by name on an article's talkspace, btw. You could have expressed your concerns without bringing me up by name, or used my own Talk page and received exactly the same response, without making me feel "called out".

I didn't see the need to discuss my changes because it was a simple reversion which you could undo if you felt strongly about it. If I in turn also felt strongly about your reversion, -that- would be the time to bring it up here, IMO. Doniago (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, it is important not to expand too much when doing a plot summary. I appreciate that. But I felt that an important aspect of that particular scene had been ommitted. As you know, at that stage, the Duke and the King had already succeeded in stealing a large amount by deception, and they could have easily escaped. But greed on the part of the King caused him to want to stay on for even more. The doctor in the town detected their phony accents and challenged them. That should have been enough to have scared them off. They could still at that point have easily escaped with a large amount. And even the Duke was somewhat unnerved by the fact that the doctor had suspected them. Hence this material which I put in is very important on a number of counts.

(1) It indicates the greed of the King.

(2) It indicates the recklessness nature of the King and the risks which he is prepared to take.

(3) It involves a classic piece of Mark Twain's irony.

So I'll revert it once more. Have a careful read of the whole paragraph and see if you think that it enriches the text. David Tombe (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would maintain that for a plot summary it's unneeded detail, particularly the quotation. That said, as nobody else has chimed in, I'm not going to touch it. Doniago (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference 18 - Nick Gillespie

It currently says "Nick, Gillespie", but isn't the format "last name, first name", as shown directly below (reference 19) by "Hemingway, Ernest"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwame (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Publication history

I'm surprised there isnt more written here about the books revisions by UC Berkeley, the repository of Mark Twain's papers.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception section needs balancing

The "Reception" section of this article needs more balanced coverage. There have been people who have defended Twain's use of the n-word. I can't remember where, but I have read defences of his use of the n-word. One such defence says something about the use of the n-word provides some historical context. The n-word was "no big deal" back then, and Twain's characters' use of the word helps illustrate that society was inherently racist. Since I can't provide sources, I'm not going to edit the article because it's obviously a controversial subject. Not citing sources would bring this into the realm of original research. But if anybody can find any sources, I'd be willing to help write a paragraph or so. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)