Leo Marx Critic on Huckleberry Finn

Author's ideas: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has a controversial ending, which, as stated in Professor Leo Marx's 1995 analysis, resulted from: the enforced happy ending, the author's basic betrayal of Huck's companion Jim (Twain, 1994), and the return of the tale to the original mood, reflected at the novel's start (Broussard, 2011).

Leo Marx states that Huckleberry becomes a powerless, naive and subservient accomplice of Tom the robber (Marx, 1995, p. 296), akin to the eager boy, prepared to become a part of Tom's gang of thieves at the novel's outset.

I concur with Twain's view, since Tom's wild scheme holds no significance after the revelation that, all this time, Jim was a liberated man. Further, Huck discovers his father is deceased, and hence, is freed, as well. Ultimately, Twain (1994) ties up loose ends, providing writers with a seemingly happy ending, which, however, has a dark aspect, discovered easily by critics.

This opinion isn't held by Marx alone. A number of readers are alarmed by the fact that, in the last chapters, both Huckleberry and Twain revert to their old ways. Huckleberry's coming to Phelps's Farm leads to the creation of a glaring contrast between the novel's ending and the prior three-quarters of it. The story abruptly reverts to the playful mood encountered in the initial chapters, prior to Huck's father's return. Prior to going down-river, Huckleberry is a naughty boy with a somewhat questionable moral compass. Huck doesn't shy from playing practical jokes, ending in potential harm to other people, as is evidenced by his act of placing a dead rattlesnake on Jim's blanket. Though his spark still remains, his trip down-river helps Huck to understand the growing complexities of better life. His maturation can be best portrayed by the deepening of his and Jim's friendship, and his inner conflict at the idea of turning Jim in. But after arriving at Phelps's farm, where he reunites with Tom, it appears that all he achieved while on his trip down-river has turned to dust. Tom forces Huck to participate in an unnecessary, complicated plot to set Jim free. Here, Jim's longing for freedom has been made the target of nonsensical acts (Marx, 1995, p. 295). One will truly start sensing the author's departure from his story's initial parts after reading, in detail, Twain's description of the pointless plan hatched by Tom, which takes up almost seven chapters of the book (Broussard, 2011).

Indeed, the events cited in the last chapters turn the story away from Huck's original objective of helping Jim gain his freedom, while also transforming Huck. Leo Marx aptly states that Huck becomes a powerless, subservient, and naive accomplice of Tom's (Marx, 1995, p. 296), akin to the eager boy, prepared to become a part of Tom's gang of thieves at the novel's outset. But Tom's wild scheme holds no significance after the revelation that, all this time, Jim was a liberated man. Further, Huck discovers his father is deceased, and hence, is freed, as well. Ultimately, Twain (1994) ties up loose ends, providing writers with a seemingly happy ending, which, however, has a dark aspect, discovered easily by critics (Broussard, 2011).

Those who criticize the tale's ending look beyond the silly front placed by Tom's shenanigans, to something a lot more alarming: Jim's degradation and emasculation. Marx (1995) states that while journeying with Huck, Jim was a person, but in the last episode, readers fail to consider Jim in Tom's maze of nonsensical invention (p. 296). All through the course of their stay at Phelps's farm, it appears that Jim is more enchained than ever. Jim calmly accepts Tom's absurd escape plan, and when it appears that things are falling apart, his allegiance to Tom and Huck drives him to go back to the place where he will face certain arrest and enslavement. Jim's docile return is described as follows, in Huck's words, "Jim never said nothing, and he never let on to know me, and they took him to the same cabin ... and chained him again" (Twain, 1994, p. 214). The reason he decided to remain mute was: Jim was well aware that word had no value among the Whites. Marx (1995) remarks that Jim represents the stereotypical, submissive Negro slave (p. 296). This fact is made glaringly clear by the "calico dress" he appears in at the story's ending.

Twain has two supporters with this regard, T.S. Eliot (1995) and Shelley Fisher Fishkin (2006), who make convincing arguments in favour of the author, and try to debunk a couple of points found to be excessively troublesome by critics. By thoroughly analyzing the author's personal life and professional work, the latter reveals that the author was anything, but racist, while the former sheds light on the brilliance underlying Twain's structure. The author's close personal associations with African-Americans is investigated by Fishkin (2006), who cites the incident wherein Twain financed the complete education of a black youth, a generous act that would definitely not have been performed by a racist. Moreover, Fishkin cites numerous non-fiction works authored by Twain (his "Declaration of Independence" rewrite and "The United States of Lyncherdom") to disprove all accusations that Twain was racist. The former work was a special amendment by the author, aimed at rightfully displaying the injustice suffered by Africans in America. Fishkin maintains that all racist or stereotypical caricatures one witnesses in Twain's works do not reflect his personal beliefs; rather, they denote Twain's attempts to realistically represent Deep South society (Broussard, 2011). Leo Marx (1995) is strongly against T. S. Eliot's statement that the trip leads to freedom. He contends that Miss Watson is to be credited with setting Jim free, and hence, Eliot's opinion that the river sets him free is nothing, but "moral imagination" (Zhang, 2009).

Additionally, Leo Marx (1995) states that taking the events that transpired at Phelps's farm seriously means taking the whole downstream journey lightly (p. 292). However, giving value to the farm scene is what lends real significance to Jim and Huck's journey. Judging by the previous works of Mark Twain, any outwardly unconscious twist to the plot was actually done using wit, and for a specific purpose. The author doesn't become sloppy towards the story's culmination, nor does he simply fall into racial stereotypes. Instead, he employs his sharp wit and criticizes the society Huck and Jim land in towards the tale's ending. A glaring contrast is witnessed between the novel's initial three quarters and the ending, which becomes apparent around the 32nd Chapter. However, this change is unsurprising, as the setting changes at this juncture. At this point, Jim and Huck are not isolated on, and sheltered by, the river any longer. Upon arriving at Phelps's farm, the two re-enter society. This is why the author recalls the initial mood, at this point. Huckleberry is back at a place in which he can revert to his boyhood whimsicalities, which Jim has returned to a world that views him as a mere stubborn animal. Believing that the author has given up on his story's ending, implies overlooking the characteristic distinction between the tale's climax and the preceding chapters, as any lost moral theme arises from Jim and Huck's return to American society (Broussard, 2011).

Conclusion

A moral motif remains, despite much appearing to have been lost in the end. This is principally because Jim's fate leaves scant hope for him, in both pre and post-Civil War Deep South. The author is realistic rather than racist with the last few chapters. One can perfectly sympathize with readers' disappointment with how Jim's progress throughout the novel ultimately unravels. Again, this reversion result from their return to American society. Jim epitomizes black America, and using a perfect, though disastrous, ending, the author demonstrates how society is a great threat to a Black man's progress. Marx's (1995) review of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn's ending reveals that Jim's freedom at the story's end is nominal. Twain's realism is effectively concealed by Huck and Tom's maze of nonsensical invention (Marx, 1995, p. 296), however, his realism remains below the agreeable and apparent happy ending. While Twain presented this shocking finale to readers in 1885 and, through it, hoped to demonstrate how American society threatened progress, his tale continues to challenge readers even today, to decide if they desire such an ending from modern society, as well (Broussard, 2011).

Bibliography

Broussard, R. (2011). The Controversy Over the Ending. NSHSS, 2-7.

Eliot, T. S. (1995). The Boy and the River: Without Beginning or End." Mark Twain Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: A Case Study in Critical Controversy. Ed. Gerald Graff and James Phelan. Boston: St. Martin's, 286-290. Print

Fishkin, S. F. (2006) Race and the Politics of Memory: Mark Twain and Paul Laurence Dunbar. Journal of American Studies, 40.02: 283-309. Print

Marx, L. (1995). "Mr. Eliot, Mr. Trilling, and Huckleberry Finn." Mark Twain Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: A Case Study in Critical Controversy. Ed. Gerald Graff and James Phelan. Boston: St. Martin's, 290-305. Print.

Twain, M. (1994). Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Dover Publications, Inc.: New York, Print

Zhang,…