Huck Finn gets banned for one word, and you know which one

Since I care about, and endorse, free expression, I sat down with one of the most banned books in American literature, which at the same time is hailed as an American classic — “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, (Tom Sawyer’s Comrade),” Mark Twain’s sequel to  “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” These were two among 50 of his works.

It was banned almost from the day it was first published in 1885.

The main reason for the banning was, and is, “coarse language,” which is the polite way of referring to the heavy and casual use of the word “nigger.” It smacks the 21st Century reader across the face because we rarely see that word anymore, having been replaced by the Politically Correct “N-word.”

In effect, “nigger” has been banned. I prefer to use the vile and impolite word when it serves a purpose, and here it does. Banning it gives it a power it does not deserve.

I bought the 100th Mark Twain anniversary Seawolf Press edition, which the publisher explains “uses the original spellings and punctuation (or lack thereof) from the first edition,” which did not use the word “The” before the word “Adventures.”

It says “the book exposes attitudes prevalent at the times, especially racism, and includes coarse language.” This is part apology, part explanation, for taking the reader someplace he or she may find uncomfortable. Some truths are uncomfortable.

Twain starts his book with a tongue-in-cheek preface: “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.” Nevertheless, supporters and critics have found a motive, a moral, and a plot.

Before moving on, I should note that some feminists find the book objectionable because of its stereotypical portrayal of women only as caretakers. The book was published 35 years before women got the right to vote, and portrays Aunt Polly, Aunt Sally and the widow Douglas as positive characters. 

It portrays women accurately, within its time, as it does slavery, 40 years before the outbreak of the Civil War. (Twain reportedly served in a thrown-together Missouri rebel militia, which melted after two weeks upon word that Gen. Ulysses Grant was headed their way.)

The overarching theme of the book is freedom — the adult Jim’s freedom from slavery, and 13-year-old Huck Finn’s freedom from his drunken, abusive father.

On an intellectual level, Huck oftens challenges the mores of society, which makes him objectionable to some, while on the other hand, he can be anti-religion, anti-school, and anti-government, which makes him objectionable to others. He also smokes and drinks, which hardly makes him a role model for school children assigned to read the book.

But, really, it’s the use of “nigger,” hundreds of times. Plus the depiction of Jim as being very superstitious, obsequious,  and simple-minded, if honest and affectionate. 

Defenders of Mark Twain (actual name Samuel Clemens), say the book actually was anti-racist, exposing the evils of the system, using Huck’s internal conflicts between doing what he thought was right — freeing Jim — while feeling the guilt, instilled in him by white society, of doing it.

Huck is presented, basically, as a good boy, but a consummate liar, who fakes his own death as the novel opens. The leading white male sub characters — the King and the Duke — are grifters and heartless thieves.

—-

It has been called an American classic for so long it seems like blasphemy to think that maybe, well, it just isn’t.

There isn’t much character development. Huck and Jim and the King and Duke, and the women don’t change much, or learn much.

It is a hard read, made harder by Twain employing a number of dialects: “The Missouri Negro dialect; the extremist form of the backwoods South-Western dialect; the ordinary ‘Pike County’ dialect; and four modified varieties of the last.” Writing this way was painstaking, Twain wrote. It is painful to read, I write.

Reading it is a very hard slog, and the narrative is molasses slow for the modern reader.

Should it be banned?

Of course not.

Nor should any of the oft-banned books — “The Color Purple,” “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl,” “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” “The Holy Bible” — or any found on the Top 100 challenged or banned list.

They should be available to the public, but that doesn’t mean they should be available to all ages. Not to be like Oprah’s book club, but I previously reviewed Toni Morrison’s Novel prize-winning novel “The Bluest Eye,” and found it unsuitable for children below high school age, and a tough read for even teenagers.

Age-restricting books, as we do for movies, is not banning. It is appropriate in some cases.

As I would do, yes, with Huck Finn.