In a message dated 4/15/2007 8:00:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

This  very lack of agreement on the book makes it even more disturbing. Is
_Huckleberry Finn_
a racist book or an antiracist book? Regardless of our  own opinions, there
is still no consensus on that fundamental question. Is  it possible that the
novel is both racist and antiracist at the same time?  That in itself is yet
another disturbing  thought.

Kent, very good and "disturbing" review. You've made  me put it on my list
of
works to read. [On a side note, your spam filter may be  catching my emails
to you?]

It comes as a surprise to me that though there may be  "disagreement" on
aspects of the book, and some strident quarters who have  always wanted to
paint
the book as "coarse" (Concord Library) or "racist" (ad  nauseum) that you
would
offer there is "no consensus on the fundamental  question"--that is, if the
book is racist, and by extension, if Sam was  racist.  Clearly, he grew out
of
that position and was far in advance of  his nation on these issues as he
grew
into adulthood.

It would seem to me that only chuckleheaded  mule-drivers would argue the
book is racist--those who know little about Sam's  life (or those
uninitiated few
who pick up the book, see the N-word  and run in horror for the R-word).
But,
I may be wrong, perhaps in this  antiseptic social climate there is no
consensus on any large question.

The evolution of Sam's feelings and regard for the  Negro race (I use his
term here) is clear in the record, from Auntie Cord's  narrative to the John
T.
Lewis episode to his sponsorship of a  black for a college degree.  There
*may*
be disagreement, granted, but  consensus? Clearly, there is, or am I simply
delusional? But not to pickle  about on your choice of words, even though a
lot
of the smoke on such issues  surround the use of certain words.  The R-word
is our current "worst"  label, but it was not used as such in Sam's time,
and I
grow tired of using a  contemporary lens to judge historical figures.

Was it simple coincidence that Sam began HF during the  nation's Centennial?
Was it also coincidence that the completion of the  book came after the
failure of Reconstruction and the removal of all Federal  troops from the
South?
Wasn't Jim Crow the spur that led Sam away from a simple  "boys' book"
following
up *Tom Sawyer* to larger social and moral questions  dealing with
ex-slaves?
Isn't the subtle and powerful way it deals with  race, society, conscience
and humanity why it is considered Clemens'  masterpiece? And isn't Jim the
shining example of what the human heart can  achieve?

Both racist and anti-racist? "A house divided against  itself cannot
stand"--Sam would agree with that biblical aphorism of Christ so  often
attributed to
Lincoln. The suggestion that HF is both racist and  anti-racist seems way
off
the mark to me, the sort of question which may lend  itself to confusion.
Samuel Clemens was a complex and often contradictory  person, but he would
not
have written such a book to be in conflict on such an  important issue.

Consensus? If there is none, I'd say the country still  lags behind the man
in enlightenment.

David H.  Fears