Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

N-word

This sentence is curiously phrased: "At the same time, readers should understand that this book was made during the mid 19th century during the Civil War so the term 'nigger' was used quite often without punishment."

I would suggest finding a good secondary source to quote regarding the changing connotations of this term. It is of course true that the word was in much more common usage, and in some respects was not as aggressive a slur as it is today. However, that doesn't mean it was a neutral term, free of racist connotations. Given its importance to the reception of Twain's book, I think this article can devote some space to capturing the nuance.

Is there a difference between the word and its connotation when the book was written versus how it is used today? Or is it just the fact that there is more punishment for using the word today? Tkennedy9 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The "cover artist" in the infobox says "TAYLOR". I'm not familar with the original cover artist, so I was wondering if it was vandalism.--Glimmer721 ^talk 17:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The McGuffin

The "McGuffin" that propels the novel along is: Huck and Jim float down the river to free Jim. That's it. That's what keeps the narrative moving. Along the way we have a bunch of character sketches that make fun of white people and then the Tom Sawyer ending. The book is mostly about white trash, not black people. "Huckleberry Finn" is a genre type, like "Don Quixote", Voltaire's "Candide" or Homer's "The Odyssey". A travel tale. It has it's roots in the classical literature of antiquity. And the use of the word "nigger" back then did not have the inflammatory rhetoric connotation that it has now, instead the word loosely meant "servant", nor did the word provoke violent reactions. So the "n" word in the book has to be read with regard for the Zeitgeist of the times. In the Vietnam War, for example, North Vietnamese were called "gooks" or "zipperheads", while now the terms are frowned upon. Yet we are free to use these terms in our war novels about Vietnam because it's "literature". So the use of nigger in "Huckleberry Finn" is not a unique situation, nor is it cause for censorship. 209.77.229.70 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what this has to do with improving the article? Could you please clarify? Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Huckleberry Finn" was my favorite book growing up--I read it four times. What disturbs me is all the emphasis on some perceived, misconstrued "racial" issue. "Race" did not occur to me at all when reading it--to me it was a series of great character sketches, mostly dealing with white trash folk, propelled on its way by the McGuffin. The novel is about white people, not black people. If Jim was deleted from the novel it would be a fanastic novel about a bunch of white folks (like "Tobacco Road" or "God's Little Acre")--and depicting these white folks in their natural habitat is where the genius of the novel lies. (To me, the King of France and the Duke of Bilgewater are the highpoint of the novel.) The current emphasis on race detracts from the novel's genuine literary merit. I don't want to see the novel hijacked to promote some racial agenda. The article could be improved by concentrating on its outstanding literary merits, leaving the race issue as a sidebar. Hope that clarifies it. And the novel is about freedom, all right, but it's about Huck's freedom--getting away from the Widow Douglas and Miss Watson, running away from home, not having to go to school and instead having a great time floating down the river on a raft--every boy's dream. Have any of us ever experienced this real freedom? Probably not, we're indoctrinated to be mindless automatons in a large corporation called the USA, Inc. We're all slaves from the cradle to the grave. 209.77.229.70 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Although 209 might be right about saying nigger it remains that post 1960s readers especially take offense at it. They judge any use of the word by whites as necessarily racist, i.e., as clear evidence of racist meaning and intent, a sort of hate speech. (My own POV is that they are expecting too much purity from a friend who exposed the petty selfishness and ignorance of the white Southerner while elevating the essential humanity of the black man; Jim is far and above the most noble and mature character in the book. But I'm not a source, so I can't put my POV in the book. I wonder if any verifiable source has ever said what I just said: if not, forget it.)

The objection to Twain's use of nigger in the mouths of the white trash (including his own hero Huck) parallels the objection to the title of the short illustrated children's book Little Black Sambo which impressed me as a child, because of the hero's bravery and ingenuity. If he was an Indian boy, then that explains why there were tigers. If he was a black boy of the US South, it's even more anti-racist, as courage and ingenuity are human qualities antithetical to the notion of the "sub-human" African who deserves no better treatment than slavery.

I understand the objections of modern critics, but contrariwise I found Twain's book (plus Sambo) the two most accessible and impressive anti-racist tracts I've ever come across. Each puts life into the idea of human equality, even more than Abraham Lincoln's saying: "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Film 1985

Link for add. info. : http://www.answers.com/topic/the-adventures-of-huckleberry-finn-tv-episode 1985's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the only filmed version of the Mark Twain classic to cover every episode in the original novel and not merely such familiar vignettes as the "King and the Duke" business. Presented in four parts, Finn opens in 1844, with young Huck (Patrick Day) being kidnapped from the home of the Widow Douglas (Sada Thompson) by his brutal, drink-sodden Pap (Frederic Forest). Huck escapes by faking his own death and rafting down the river in the company of escaped slave Jim (Samm-Art Williams). Part two offers the seldom-dramatized scene in the novel wherein an abolitionist is lynched; part three recounts the Shepardson/Grangerford feud; and part four culminates with the chicanery of the King (Barnard Hughes) and the Duke (Jim Dale) and the capture of Jim. Featured in the huge cast are Lillian Gish, Geraldine Page, Butterfly McQueen, Richard Kiley, and Eugene Oakes as Tom Sawyer. Originally clocking in at 240 minutes, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was first telecast in February and March of 1986 on PBS' American Playhouse; it is currently available in a 105-minute videocassette version. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.249.73 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hipster Huck Finn?

Why are we dedicating a sentence of this article (probably very high view by schoolchildren) to discussion of the "Hipster Huck Finn". Self-published as a gag in pdf form, by a known gagster, via "East Flatbush University Press, a division of Dumbo Books" (entities known only via a blog)?

http://who-will-kiss-the-pig.blogspot.com/

TCO (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have attracted third-party notice, as established by the citation. I'll leave it to others to rule on whether it should be removed regardless. Doniago (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the gagster, and I don't think the mention is appropriate here, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.140.199 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Spielberg

I added information to this page's Film section about Steven Spielberg's interest in making a Huckleberry Finn film (http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?Article_ID=5231&p=y), but somebody deleted it. I believe this is important information because Spielberg may someday make the film. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamzanzie (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Plot Summary - In Missouri" - time period in which novel was set

I've removed the remark about the novel being set sometime between 1835 and 1845. The beginning year of this time frame in conjunction with its reference is contrary to the historical record (see the Wikipedia article "Steamboats of the Mississippi", especially the parts about the "Enterprise" and the "Washington" and following). The reference for the first of the now-removed dates in the article at hand also returns a 404 error i.e. it's a dead link, and an 1845 end-date is not substantiated at all. So I changed the text to say that the novel is set sometime before the Civil War, about which there can be no dispute. If someone can substantiate a more specific time-frame setting, I'm open to changing the text to fit that setting.

Clearly the novel was set sometime after 1811 when the first commercial steamship ascended the Mississippi (a more noteworthy navigational achievement than going downriver). There's the fact of Samuel Clemens's birth in 1835 to be considered. Perhaps the statehood dates of the states referenced in Huck and Jim's journey can be of use. In the meantime I think the text should just say the novel is set "sometime in the later decades preceding the American Civil War", so I'm changing it to say that. It's not clear to me that Mark Twain wrote "... Huckleberry Finn" with any specific dates in mind, instead drawing only very generally on the atmosphere of his childhood. BLZebubba (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a good catch, and I've removed the same (similarly unsourced) material over at Huckleberry Finn.Eniagrom (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the book was written in 1885 and the time is stated right at the beginning as being "forty to fifty years ago" so 1835-45 was correct. Mezigue (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. To my mind, this kind of deduction is synthesis and thus OR. Mark Twain saying "forty to fifty years ago" in the novel doesn't really mean anything; he's establishing a vague timeframe, that's all. Extrapolating from the publication date of the novel that this is the same thing as 1835-1845 is not a deduction we can make. As BLZebubba notes, these particular dates would make some elements of the novel anachronistic. Had Twain meant to specify a date he would have done so, but he did not.Eniagrom (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not extrapolation or deduction. The book is fiction therefore it is set when the author says it is set! Hunting anachronisms on the other hand is original research. Mezigue (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"40 or 50 years ago" becoming "1835-1845" is extrapolation and deduction. And the anachronisms would be OR if they were put into the article, but they haven't been, so that's irrelevant. They're just there to point out that the choice of dates -- unspecified by Twain -- don't make sense anyway.Eniagrom (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is a simple substraction. These are the dates he provides, whether they make sense or not. Mezigue (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't provide any date whatsoever. He says "40 or 50 years ago". You then assume that fifty years ago is relative to the date the book was published, and perform the subtraction. Your assumption here is what's not allowed. You don't know when Mark Twain intended the present to be. It is reasonable to take the publication date, but what we're interested in is not what's reasonable, but what's verifiable. Unless an authoritative source makes the claim -- and in this case, an authoritative source would be Twain himself -- there's no reason to assume that "40 or 50 years ago" is relative to the 1880s (and not the 1870s, or the 1890s, or just some vague idea of "the present time").

I want to be very clear here: I don't think your claim is wrong, I think it is OR, and if you cannot find a source giving the dates -- the dates themselves, not something else in which other things must be assumed in order to arrive at them -- you should not put them in the article. Eniagrom (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Have to chime in here - and in favour of Mezigue. The longer I edit Wiki, the more strongly I agree (in general terms) with verifiability - but there is a point where reason and common sense MUST kick in, or you can make a case for calling pretty well anything "OR" that doesn't involve a direct transcription of a source. With all respect to Eniagrom "You don't know when Mark Twain intended the present to be" verges on being plain silly. To assume it is even possible that he somehow meant a "present" that was really the past or the future really WOULD be.. well honestly I don't know what we could call it. We are "straining at the gnat to swallow the camel" here, avoiding a reasonable assumption by making a totally UNreasonable one. The likelihood, based on evidence that would need citing, that Twain was not overly concerned with historical exactitude is of course another question altogether, but "40 or 50 years ago" is hardly intended to fix a precise date anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

I'm actually not suggesting that he had an alternative date in mind, I'm suggesting that he had no date in mind. Authors often situate a story relative to the reader's present. "In the near future" or "five years ago" are common in both fiction and film. An author could easily say "in 2019" or "back in 2010" but those don't mean the same thing, even if the math works out. That's because "In the near future" or "five years ago" are both relative to the reader's experience, not the writer's.

When Twain wrote his novel, he wasn't thinking about readers a hundred and fifty years later. "Forty or fifty years ago" would situate the novel in the vague time of the average reader's childhood or just before it for at least the entirety of his generation. My take is that this is what he meant. He did not say "40 or 50 years ago" to mean "1835 to 1845", because if he'd meant that, he would have said so.

And this is the crux of it. You say "'40 or 50 years ago' is hardly intended to fix a precise date" and that is precisely my point. Because it was not meant to fix a precise date, none should be given, unless we can somehow demonstrate that despite not giving a precise date, Twain intended one. And no source of such is forthcoming that I'm aware of.Eniagrom (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Mezigue, in my opinion, your recent edit does not improve on the article at all. Besides being cumbersome stylistically, it also doesn't satisfy the "pedants" (I can only assume you mean me).

What exactly do you want, here? Imagine for a second that you could find perfect sources for all your claims and I weren't here berating you about OR and such. Can you explain to me why you think saying "1835-1845" is better for the article than "sometime in the later decades prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War"?

Besides the fact that I think the latter is more accurate (in the sense that the exact dates were not important to the story), I think that it also does a better job of accurately providing context to readers. Very few Americans (or anyone else) could reliably tell you anything about the social climate in 1835-1845. What's special about those dates? But when you say, "before the Civil War", you immediately paint a picture of the antebellum South, which is important, particularly in the context of Huck Finn, which focuses a great deal on the moral issues surrounding the institution of slavery. And when you say "in the later decades prior to the American Civil War", you paint a 19th century picture of the antebellum South before the coming war loomed too large. To me this is a much more approachable description of the timeframe than specific dates, which can invite a reader to wonder what thing of particular importance happened in those years to merit that degree of accuracy.

Incidentally, I am not prepared to edit war over this. I do not think consensus exists for your changes, but if you are going to obstinately force me to choose between "unsourced claims" and "sourced claims juxtaposed in such a way as to invite the reader to deduce the same unsourced claim I have been asked not to include in the article", I can only say that you care more about this than I do and should just go ahead and do what you want.Eniagrom (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Eniagrom - are you just having us on? An author just might have readers in the distant future (or even notional readers in the past?) in mind when he writes an introduction or preface to a newly published book. But to imagine that such a supposition is not OR (given the absense of any evidence, internal, external, or even logical, that he meant anything at all other than the readers of the introduction of the time) is stark daft. As is any idea he meant past or future when he said present. What is meant (if it wasn't what was said) is purest conjecture, and need not even be in the back of our minds for a moment. "All else confusion", for heaven's sake!

On the other hand, I do take your point that a general description of the period the novel is set (such as "Not long before the American Civil War, at a time when the institution of negro slavery remained firmly fixed at the core of the culture of the Southern States") may be more enlightening, especially for younger readers, than the rather cryptic statement of the dates, which may not mean much to people who have not specifically studied the history of the period. But such a description actually involves MORE synthesis rather than less. In this case I would say it is justifiable and useful synthesis - but there you are. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw this on the OR message board and gave an opinion there. I do think it's original research to interpret "40 or 50 years ago" as 1835-1845. According to WP:SYNTH, simple arithmetic is not original research if there is only one interpretation. But that's not the case here. I don't think it's terribly illogical to assume that "40 or 50 years ago" means relative to 1884 or 1885, but it is an assumption. It's also an assumption that "40 or 50 years ago" means between 40 and 50; it could mean 38 or 55.

On the other hand, I don't think it's inappropriate synthesis to state that the novel is set before the American Civil War, because there is no other conclusion that can be made. It's possible for an author to include anachronistic clothing or expressions or technology, and dating the story based on those things (including steamboats) would be OR. It's OR unless the editor's logical steps are the same ones every reader would take. Roches (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, I respect that you view this differently than I do, but please, I urge you to read WP:AGF. "Are you having us on" flies rather blatently in the face of that policy. I assure you that my objections here are entirely serious. This goes equally well for Mezigue, incidentally -- accusations of needless pedantry are not constructive. We are all of us long-standing editors and all of us here to improve the article.

There are as currently stands three ways that have been suggested to establish the timeframe for the reader. These are:

1. in the later decades prior to the American Civil War
2. 1835-1845
3. "forty to fifty years ago" (the novel having been published in 1884)

Absent OR concerns, which of these three is your preference, and why? Please explain not only why your preference is your preference, but the shortcomings of the other alternatives. That way, we can move forward by finding some common ground.

I've already indicated my preference, but just to be clear: I think situating the story relative to a major historical event relevant to the story is the clearest way, which is why I favor 1. 2 is problematic policy-wise because of OR, but to be clear, even if that were not the case, I would be against it, because, as I said, the dates are obscure and somewhat irrelevant. 3 does not have OR problems, but I think it is a) stylistically inferior to either 1 or 2, and b) obscures the importance of the antebellum timeframe by providing a date after the civil war and forcing the reader to perform a subtraction in order to arrive at that crucial information.

I would very much appreciate it if other involved editors (i.e. you and Mezigue) could state your preferences in a similar way.Eniagrom (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What about something like "Not long before the American Civil War, at a time when the institution of negro slavery remained firmly fixed at the core of the culture of the Southern States" (or another, perhaps more succinct wording giving the full meaning of this). I already suggested this as a good "descriptive" time setting. If we are to describe, rather than enumerate the admittedly rather vague time description given by Twain himself, then it is important that the description gives a complete description. The bare dates (according to Twain) could well be added to this, but I agree there is little if anything to be gained by doing so, as I think I have already made more than clear.

I would like to be able to apologise for doubting the seriousness of remarks like "You don't know when Mark Twain intended the present to be" or for that matter Mezigue's remark that "It's also an assumption that "40 or 50 years ago" means between 40 and 50; it could mean 38 or 55", but statements like these are on the face of them quite funny. At best they are illogical and unreasonable without evidence (which would need to be sourced) that a reliable source has stated that Twain/Clemens actually meant something other than the plain meaning of what he said. Otherwise how can anything be verified - if we can turn round and say (as we might) that the reliable source on which we are relying may have actually meant something other than what s/he actually says! People (especially satirists like Twain) often make ironical remarks or otherwise say things other than those they mean - but we need a source before we can make any assumption other than the plain one that they mean exactly what they say. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your rewording of "in the later decades prior to the American Civil War" is needlessly lengthy, honestly, and the use of the term "negro" in almost any context is today very much frowned upon; I personally find it quite offensive. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "complete description", please? Also, just to reiterate, Twain did not give any bare dates (this is why we are having this discussion in the first place, if you'll recall). If you agree that they add "little if anything" anyway then I'm confused as to why you were apparently arguing in favor of them being in the article in the first place. Eniagrom (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok everyone, lets calm down a little bit. Here are my thoughts.

A) the wording "in the later decades prior to the American Civil War" is absolutely terrible, lets just get that clear. Factually accurate yes, but just god-awful wording.

B) Adding in "1835-1845" without any sources is WP:OR because the book was published in 1884, but Twain had started writing it (as the article says) in 1876. So are we to take it as being 40-50 years from 1876, placing it between 1826-1836, or from publication in 1885 (this is the date of publication in the US, which is where most academics place it, even though it was published in Britain late in 1884) meaning 1835-1845? Thus why you NEED sources.

C) Here are two sources that state 1835-1845: http://mizzoumag.missouri.edu/2013/05/the-flawed-greatness-of-huckleberry-finn/ , http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=facultypub . HOWEVER, Twain himself gives no specific date, and he is the authority on the matter, regardless of other RS's.

Now, I personally think that no date should be given. That the ambiguous "40 or 50 years ago" should stand on it's own, followed by the publication date, as that is what the creator of the work stated, very SPECIFICALLY giving no date whatsoever. But other RS's do give specific dates, and even if, as my question about when the date starts (i.e. writing or publication) suggests, the question is rendered unanswerable, they should be acknowledged. So, here is my proposal.

We keep the "40 to 50 years ago" and insert something along the lines of "commonly thought to be 1835-1845". That accomplishes everyone's objectives. It leaves the actual date indeterminate, as Twain wanted; it gives the dates most commonly thought as several editors want; using the two sources above removes it from the realm of WP:OR as other editors want; and it adds no terrible wording and is still accurate. Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your sources, particularly the second one, which was very much worth the read. (It seems too that the author of the second article has himself sourced the 1835-1844 dates, as he gives them, to another, older source.) Given this source, I retract any and all OR objections to the inclusion of dates.

As I mentioned earlier, I prefer some variation on "in the decades before the American Civil War" (although I agree this could be better phrased) because I think placing the book before the abolition of slavery is important. I'm also not sure this particular issue is important enough to warrant much more than a few passing words on it. With your source my major objections are satisfied; what's left is entirely stylistic.

Thanks a lot for your comments.Eniagrom (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim's "brains"

Almost everyone in the story (not least Huck himself) is ignorant and superstitious. Jim is far from an intellectual giant - but he is at the very least as smart as the generality of the "white folks", and in many ways less foolish and hampered in his thinking by prejudice than them. I think "not unintelligent" is a fairly succinct, NPOV way of expressing this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of nuanced published critiques about the character of "Jim". Perhaps references to some of them belong in the article's "Controversy" section. For example:

- 'Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination is a 1992 work of literary criticism by Toni Morrison. (I would cite from it into the article, but I gave my copy away to a professor friend, who used it in his teaching. He and I agreed that Morrison was restating earlier similar, but less famous, critiques about "Jim".)

(I myself consider Twain's "Jim" character to be internally inconsistent, and therefore not entirely credible. Unlike "Huck's" superstitious behavior, some of "Jim's" superstitious behavior doesn't gibe with the rest of his complex intelligent behavior, notably when Jim delays telling Huck that Huck's father was being threatened on the sinking steamboat. I personally suspect that Twain's was not aware of his own remaining unconscious racism, and was not yet able to imagine a fully intelligent black person, with "agency". I myself, a white man, cannot claim to be "nonracist", having grown up in a racist culture, but I try; therefore I instead call myself "antiracist".) Acwilson9 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Controversy" section should have two subsections: "Coarse language controversy" (or "N----- controversy") and "Characterization of "Jim" controversy", which are somewhat separate issues. (OTH, it's possible that early critiques of the book's "racism" were complaining about the latter as well as the former; I have not read them myself.) Acwilson9 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation of Reason.org for Hemingway quotes

One area of this page that I found sketchy was the way that Hemingway's quote on the ending of the novel is cited to Reason.org. This site is not exactly a literary journal, nor particularly well known for impartiality or reliability. Perhaps it should be considered that we find a new citation for the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.162.109 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. If you can do so then please do. Vyselink (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

OTH, Reason (magazine), if not reason.org, is often quoted in other media, e.g. Chicago Tribune. (I personally usually don't agree with Reason, but that does not render it not notable.) Acwilson9 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Not unintelligent"

This means, in context, something like "quite smart", "possessed of his fair share of native wit", "nobody's fool", "unschooled, but far from silly". Someone went and changed it to "unintelligent", apparently on the grounds of "grammar" - more likely as an act of conscious or unconscious prejudice. But is there really a chance that a "not unintelligent" person would misread the original statement - reversing its intended meaning? If so perhaps we do need to think of an alternative wording here? Having said that - one cannot of course cover all possible misreadings by small children, congenital idiots, or people with a limited command of the language - these people are basically liable to misunderstand, willfully or otherwise, anything that is written! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

@Soundofmusicals: thank you for raising this. Someone, possibly you, changed it back to "not unintelligent". Small children and congenital idiots may not read very far through the article anyway. There is Simple Wikipedia which has a different aim to this current project, although Simple Wikipedia is not aimed at small children and congenital idiots either. My best guess is that a bright 12 year old or a slightly dull 16 year old would both readily understand what "not unintelligent" means. (Lots of variations are possible of course -- we do not need to complicate this with very bright 8 year olds and very dull 17 year olds). That is essentially the minimum readership level that Wikipedia is aimed at, so I agree that "not unintelligent" is an ideal way of phrasing how the sources view Jim. Changing it just for the sake of "more easily understood" is not justifiable when it is likely to conflict with "well written". That's my opinion, anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Initial paragraph of Major Themes misplaced and of questionable utility

This paragraph, inserted at the beginning of Major Themes, has several issues:

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn explores notions of race and identity. An obvious complexity exists concerning Jim's character. While some scholars point out that Jim is good-hearted, moral, and not unintelligent (in pointed contrast to several of the white characters), others have criticized the novel as racist, citing the use of the word "nigger" and emphasizing the stereotypically "comic" treatment of Jim's superstition and ignorance.[6][7]

The first two sentences are informationally nil and simply prefatory: they seem to exist to provide a pretext for the remainder, which refights the the fight regarding current racism charges that are adequately covered elsewhere in the article.

I would suggest removing this entire paragraph; modern charges of racism aren't a Major Theme of the novel as written, and the sentences which precede it aren't persuasive in placing it there. P.T.isfirst (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - this paragraph is an essential part of the section and it wold be emasculated without it. In the novel "as written" race does indeed loom very large, and in fact it raised racial hackles from the beginning - if they are not always the same ones it is more likely to raise today. The early sentences of a well written paragraph are very often preparatory. Perceived racism is indeed also mentioned in a different context elsewhere - this is perfectly proper - in fact it is good we have this impartial note to simply define the question before we mention what various people have said about it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

List of characters

Assuming we want to have this at all - it really shouldn't give away too much of the actual story - on the other hand without some description of what happens to the characters, and what they do, it would be pretty meaningless. Very hard to escape what would otherwise be pointless repetition. Do we still think it is useful? If it was to go - we'd need to totally rewrite the "Plot" section to replace any real loss of information. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Phelp's groin

"...which drew attention to Phelps' groin." Yeah it drew attention to his groin, by depicting a penis emerging from an opening in his trousers and being presented to little Huck. A small and misplaced penis, but inarguably a penis. Get over it. A genteel obfuscation almost worthy of Louisa May Alcott. Happy New Year 2020. And God help us all.137.70.164.228 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem very concerned about a very small portion of the article. Pun intended. Are you suggesting we make a change to the article, and if so, what change are you suggesting we make? DonIago (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not very concerned about this portion of the article, merely annoyed by its priggishness and opacity. If you want suggestions, here are a few: 1. Make it clear what was so objectionable about the alteration. In what manner did it draw attention to Phelps' groin? With a big arrow pointing to it, perhaps? 2. Put this portion where it belongs, i.e. in the "Illustrations" section, not in the one headed "Publication's effect on literary climate". 3. Provide something coherent on the recovery of the "lost manuscript" in the twentieth century and its significance, which is what I came to this site for in the first place. 4. Google "pun" and "half-baked double-entendre". Compare and contrast.137.70.164.228 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason you can't make these edits? DonIago (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"Good Satire" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Good Satire. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Good Satire until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)