Stanton Nesbit writes (excerpted):

>Obviously, without the dialect, _Huckleberry Finn_ would be as
>unrealistically romantic as one of Emmeline Grangerford's drawings. But it
>is more than that; realism IS morality in _Huck Finn_ because it shows
>truth. Contrast that to the romantic dreamings of Tom and his favorite
>authors, who may be entertaining, but whose fantasies are distortions of
>reality, and that take little notice of the condition of human beings.
>

This just released some jammed gears in my head.  Can we postulate Tom as the
precursor of the "entertainment industry" junkie -- the happy-faced
philistine who eagerly embraces ersatz adventure because his mind is just too
small to wrap around real concepts (freedom, the necessity of human dignity)
and in addition insufficiently strong to break the mold within which it's
been set (slavery as an acceptable practice)?  Is Tom Sawyer the first
enthusiastic X-Files/Star Trek/soap opera/buddy-movie/MTV fan in American
literature??  On a darker note, isn't it just a two-step from slavish
devotion to these cults'o'shlock to believing in conspiracies, etc., etc. --
which ultimately leads, and has led in our century, to Waco, Oklahoma City
and (one hopes not) the destruction of democracy?   Wouldn't Tom have made a
great David Koresh?

Perhaps imagining prescient insights relevant to our own times is just as
philistine as anything Tom said or did.  But the impulse to "dumb down" has
always been there in this country.  Tom Sawyer didn't know or trust a genuine
emotion, and most Americans still can't either.  It pains me to see this
budding studio executive palmed off on our children as a hero, while Huck
continues to be marginalized as the "bad" boy.   Yes, Huck's dialect has
everything to do with this:  Tom Sawyer "talks respectable" and is treated
accordingly, while Huck talks like his Pap -- 'nuff said!  The subtle message
kids receive is:  Huck is good, but don't be like him -- be like Tom.  He'll
make more money.

I think Twain probably knew all this, and that this ambivalence existed to a
large extent in his own character.   No one in the world of 19th century
AmLit sought wealth and respectability with more enthusiasm; no one was as
aware of false notes, hypocrisy and mediocrity in writing.

Anyone who can point me in the direction of more writings on this subject,
please do so.  Thanks very much!

Sylvia Weiser Wendel, M.F.A.