I am posting this review on behalf of the reviewer, Martin Zehr.

Barb

~~~~~

BOOK REVIEW

Many books reviewed on the Forum are available at discounted prices from
the TwainWeb Bookstore, and purchases from this site generate commissions
that benefit the Mark Twain Project.

Please visit <http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb>

Reviewed for the Mark Twain Forum by:
Martin Zehr

Copyright (c) 2003 Mark Twain Forum.  This review may not be published or
redistributed in any medium without permission.

Hill, Richard A. and McWilliams, Jim (eds.).  _ Mark Twain Among the
Scholars:  Reconsidering Contemporary Twain Criticism_.  Albany: Whitson
Publishing Company, Inc., 2002.  Pp. 155.  Hardcover, 6"x 9".  $45.00.
ISBN 0-87875-527-6.

This volume of critical essays by established Mark Twain scholars is
largely comprised of discussions which have as their focus issues which
have preoccupied Twain critics and scholars during the last hundred years,
with a particular emphasis on the last two decades.  As such, this is not a
primary source, nor even a secondary source, of information pertaining to
Twain's oeuvre, as it were, but a "tertiary" source whose primary audience
is obviously the world of professional and amateur Twain scholars.  This
focus will necessarily ensure a small and specialized readership and the
editors tacitly acknowledge this fact in their description of this volume
as "criticism of literary criticism."  Indeed, the casual reader of Twain's
works will likely have a reaction best described as bewilderment while
attempting to comprehend the discussion of some of the more esoteric,
tangential and sensational subjects of Twain criticism contained in these
essays.  Nevertheless, this volume contains a series of lively and
well-researched discussions of topics relevant to current Twain-related
"littery" scholarship which should be of sufficient interest to serious
Twain scholars to warrant attention and inclusion in their armamentarium of
critical source materials.  The nine essays included were obviously written
by scholars with a longstanding devotion to Twain and his literary legacy.

The introductory essay, appropriately enough, is by one of the acknowledged
deans of Twain scholarship, Louis J. Budd, who provides a spirited and
entertaining defense of Twain's continuing "super-aliveness" for
twenty-first century readers.  While such a defense is in all likelihood
superfluous, insofar as readers of the Forum are concerned, Budd's personal
listing and explication of Twain's "multiple intelligences" serves as a
concise and cogent reminder of the complexity of the man and writer who is
deservedly a continuing source of fascination at all levels of readership
and scholarship.  The qualities which are discussed in this essay,
presented as the author's own version of a "ten-most" list, range from
Twain's linguistic genius to his lifelong interest in spiritualism.
Readers may question the author's listing or prioritizing of the qualities
which continue to intrigue Twain readers and scholars, but the obvious and
eloquent enthusiasm Budd continues to exhibit at this point in his career
is infectious and, finally, reinforces his (and our) conclusion that the
question of a need for more Twain scholarship in the new century should be
answered with a resounding "Yes!"

Joseph Csicsila's contribution to this volume consists of a comprehensive
and well-documented survey of the trends in Twain scholarship during the
last eighty years which can be inferred through a chronological review of
American literature anthologies.  By means of a meticulous review of the
specific works of Twain excerpted or included in successive anthologies
during this period, this essay illustrates both the extent of a general
emphasis on Twain's works and the shifting perspectives in literature
studies, from the focus on the socio-historical features of his work
through the period of "New Criticism," and its focus on the author as
literary artist, to the present-era inclusion of a wide variety of Twain's
writings, e.g., through reprinting of more of Twain's short stories and
essays.

John Seelye's "De Ole True Huck," reprinted from his controversial book,
_The True Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_, provides an interlude of comic
relief with its well-warranted sendup, in the words of Huck and Tom, of the
"crickits."  In a wry overview of Twain criticism from Van Wyck Brooks to
the present day, Huck observes that "... it warn't the man who wrote the
book knowed what he had said, it was the crickit."  The levity of this
piece underscores the continuing foibles of some of the more obsessed Twain
scholars, but this succession of inside "crickit" jokes, like the contents
of this book generally, are probably best savored by an after-dinner
gathering of Twainiacs during their periodic gatherings at the Twain study
in Elmira.

J.C. Furnas, the self-professed "Finnophile" who passed away just as this
book was going to press, exhibits a devotion to _Huckleberry Finn_ in his
contribution which is exceeded only by his demonstrably thorough
familiarity with both the text of the book and the critical evaluations
which have followed in its wake since publication.  His essay, titled "The
Crowded Raft: _Huckleberry Finn_& Its Critics," is replete with examples of
some of the more strained conclusions and interpretations of the book which
continue to crop up in the form of absurd symbolic ascriptions of the
behavior of Huck or Jim, e.g., the predilection of some critics to explain
their actions in the context of a Freudian psychoanalytic theory long
discarded by contemporary psychologists or the more sensational
interpretation of their relationship as an exemplar of homoerotic
tendencies as portrayed in American literature.  Furnas' evidentiary-based
views are an antidote to some of the more extreme tangents which are
apparent in current Twain scholarship.  There can be little doubt, however,
that his insights and admonitions will have no significant salutary impact
on the recurring phenomena, perhaps motivated by the pressure to produce
"ground-breaking" dissertation themes, of more "far-reaching" insights
regarding Twain and his characters.

Furnas' essay serves is an appropriate segue to Richard Hill's discussion
of the criticism which has been focused on the last twelve chapters of
_Huckleberry Finn_, comprising the Phelps farm segment, for the last
half-century.  The dissatisfaction with which this section of the novel has
been viewed by literary critics is likely familiar, perhaps to an
exasperating degree, by avid readers of Twain criticism, but persists
nevertheless as a source of continuing debate.  The supposed failing, of
individual characters or overarching themes, represented by the ending of
_Huckleberry Finn_, is reviewed from the perspectives of key writers in
this debate, e.g., Leo Marx, Henry Nash Smith, Thomas Gullason, and Bernard
DeVoto,  among others.  Hill provides a historical context for the literary
criticism generated by the perceived failure of Twain to fulfill the moral
promise of the novel, but on occasion enters the fray himself, arguing
against the "supposed loss of Jim's noble character in the ending of the
book," and, in the end, reminding us that attempts to dissect the novel too
energetically, on the basis of aesthetic or ideological agendas, will
inevitably preclude or diminish the enjoyment of  "...the mixed-up and
splendid ambuscade that is _Huckleberry Finn_.  Hill's discussion of the
continuing debate regarding the adequacy of the ending is, nevertheless, in
my opinion, conspicuous for its absence of any mention or discussion of the
historical facts that may well have served as the impetus for the
allegorical function of the Phelps farm episode. Specifically, there is no
mention of the controversial presidential election of 1876, coincidentally,
the year in which Twain began the writing of _Huck Finn_, and its direct
progeny, the ending of Reconstruction and the unimpeded
institutionalization of Jim Crow in the old Confederacy.  As Toni Morrison
has observed, in her introduction to the Oxford edition of _Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn_ edited by Shelley Fisher Fishkin, one conclusion
warranted by this second loss of freedom is that "The nation, as well as
Tom Sawyer, was deferring Jim's freedom in agonizing play."  This seemingly
obvious interpretation of the "failed" ending of _Huckleberry Finn_
deserves specific mention, if not prominent emphasis, in any "littery"
analysis of the novel, if only to illustrate the impact of historical
context, i.e., the end of Reconstruction and Twain's own disillusionment,
during his 1882 trip down the Mississippi, upon observing the continuing
vestiges of the slavery system, on the writing of his masterpiece.

The subject of Henry Wonham's essay is the "chaotic narrative" of
_Pudd'nhead Wilson_ and the problems with Twain's plot and character
development that render it impervious to any consistent interpretive
perspective other than "a seamless ironic vision."  Wonham explores the
myriad methods, whether deliberate or not, by which Twain deprives the
reader of a consistently objective vantage point from which to traverse the
narrative.  Wonham's discussion reinforces the notion of prior critics that
_Pudd'nhead Wilson_ is a tantalizing work for its unfulfilled promise, full
of confusions and inconsistencies which, in the end, render it a less
forceful vehicle for cultural criticism than otherwise might have been the
result of Twain's efforts.  He underscores the tendency of Twain critics,
particularly in the case of  _Pudd'nhead Wilson_, to generate criticism
which is based, not on the author's own intentions, however they may be
divined, but in their own preferences for social, political or ideological
agendas.

Gary Henrickson's contribution, "How Many Children Had Huckleberry Finn?,"
returns to _Huckleberry Finn_ as the basis for a discussion of the
implications of regarding Huck as either the narrator of his adventures or
as the writer of the novel.  The existence of this question is based
primarily, if not exclusively, on a single comment made, by the character
Huck, on the last page of the novel.  Although this subject certainly
qualifies for designation as tangential in Twain studies, Henrickson's
exploration is worthwhile reading, not only for Twain aficionados, but for
any literary critics or reader who makes unwarranted assumptions regarding
the role(s) ascribed to a character by its author-creator.  Specifically,
Henrickson assails the tendency to view Huck as a historical entity,
writing his own story, a perspective that is a product of a
deconstructionist reading that ignores the central fact that he "... is
only a character in a novel."

Glen M. Johnson's discussion of "Mark Twain and the New Americanists"
highlights a tendency among modern critics to base their evaluative writing
on the rigid application of present-day standards of moral, political and
cultural awareness to writings created under an entirely different set of
normative attitudes and behavior.  As he points out, this lack of self and
time awareness often results in a denigration of historically-distant works
or, in the case of Twain, nagging and continuing charges of racism which
are certainly not justified to the extent represented by his most
vociferous critics.  Johnson's essay serves as a cautionary note for those
writers who are laudably interested in historical accuracy and the
complexity of the social context of an author's products; in effect, a
warning against the creation of "insights" regarding an author's alleged
motivations which reflect the writer's own lack of insight regarding the
disparity of mores which characterize chronologically distant eras.

The final section of this volume, by Harold K. Bush, Jr., is, in a sense, a
continuation of Glen Johnson's discussion of biases which influence the
critic's perspective; in this case, a discussion of the more personal
predilections and motivations which inform or influence the critic's style
or choice of subject matter.  Bush discusses three recent works by Twain
scholars Andrew Hoffman, Shelley Fisher Fishkin and Richard S. Lowry to
illustrate his concern with "autobiographical criticism" in contemporary
Twain studies.  Without being critical, in a judgmental sense, Bush
discusses the subjective perspective that may determine the particular
emphasis of the individual writer/critic, as well as the motivations, the
most prominent of which is the desire to be recognized as an "authority" on
a designated subject, which serve at least as a partial impetus for
critical writings.  While his observations in this regard are not
particularly earth-shaking, his capacity to illustrate his observations
regarding personal motivations in the context of these Twain scholars
results in a contribution which is well-documented and entertaining and,
more importantly, may have the effect of making the reader a bit more
conscious of his/her own critical predilections and motivational biases.

_Mark Twain Among the Scholars: Reconsidering Contemporary Twain Criticism_
is, at the very least, an appropriately-titled production, in the sense
that its title defines the probable limits of its potential audience.  Its
utility as a guide to the issues and directions that comprise current Twain
scholarship is precisely the quality that will ensure this book's limited
and specialized readership.  I would note, however, that this slim volume
might have benefited from the inclusion of more contemporary essays based
specifically on works within the Twain canon other than _Huckleberry Finn_,
a criticism which is not likely to deter its potential audience.  This is
not a book for the casual Twain reader; on the other hand, the Twain
scholar who frequents the Forum will quite likely derive significant
appreciation and enjoyment of the stimulating essays contained in this
volume, written by established Twain scholars, some who are likely familiar
"characters" to the potential reader who inhabits the world of Twainiana.
This work certainly provides strong evidence for the conclusion that, from
a literary perspective, Twain studies are not only alive and well, but
thriving.  This book may not be, in Twain's words, "water" for the masses,
but, if everyone does not imbibe such "wine," it's quality is nevertheless
undiminished.

Martin Zehr
Kansas City, Missouri