Mark Twain - Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The - 10

[StefanY]

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The


The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a book that I remembered fondly from my childhood that actually holds up to another reading as an adult. Twain's wit and humor still carry the story for me as when I was a child, however, this time around, I was better able to appreciate the social and political commentary infused throughout the story. That's the magic of Twain's masterpiece: it's attraction to both young and old for both the same and different facets. For the young, this is a rollicking adventure story of an ornery youth and his escaped slave friend. It's the classic buddy tale infused with humor and narrow escapes. For the adult, There are the deeper layers of Huck's constant struggle with his own inner morality versus the popular opinion of what is considered to be right in the eyes of whites in the pre-civil war Mississippi River area.

For a great escape and a look into the culture of the central United States just prior to the Civil War, I highly recommend Huckleberry Finn for all audiences.

Have you read this book? Click here to rate it!

[The Egoist]

This is one of the finest books in all of American literature. Intensely controversial from its writing, it is a seminal work of social satire.

Of course it stands up to re-reading by adult readers. It was never meant as a "Boy's Adventure." It is neither escapist, nor light hearted. Unless you thought Gulliver's Travels or A Modest Proposal were as well.

The book confronts the nature of slavery, the moral conundrums arising therefrom, racism, classism, poverty, crime and the nature of a society with an open frontier.

Please attempt to be more objective when writing the first review of an established classic of Western literature. Your subjective response is going to shape reader perception without giving them any sense of what they're looking at.

[spiphany]

Please attempt to be more objective when writing the first review of an established classic of Western literature. Your subjective response is going to shape reader perception without giving them any sense of what they're looking at.

Not to be blunt here, but: Why?
A book review is first of all an opinion of a book. Provided the reviewer backs up his opinions (as Stefan does) and provides enough information that a potential reader can form some understanding of why the reviewer formed the judgment he did, I don't see the problem.

I also don't see how your review of the book is substantially more objective. ("One of the finest books in all of American literature" and "it is a seminal work of social satire" seem like opinions to me.) Just because you don't feel that a review sufficiently addresses the canonical aspects of the book is no reason to dismiss it.

[The Egoist]

Brad is telling me my language is strong here, and I'm not at all trying to be nasty. My writing style was largely cultivated in law school, so it's, well, incredibly direct. I mean no offense:

I understand what you're saying. But I can't agree.

You simply can't treat the canon the same way you review a new Janet Evanovich book.

A reviewer needs to explain the context of any book- especially a classic. Subjective feeling is far less important than giving prospective readers a sense of what they're approaching. Otherwise, first-time readers might approach the material with your subjective biases, thus poisoning their reading. While that might not be problematic with pop fiction, here, as with all classics, it's a major concern.

In other words, a review of a classic is not a creative work. It is a work of reportage. As such, journalistic ethics should apply. Meaning private opinion should be neutered.

[spiphany]

First of all, provided a review meets the guidelines for the website, I don't think it's your place to be telling people what they should or should not write in a review. Leave that for the admins to decide, please. They wrote the criteria. If you believe the criteria for what is acceptable in a review is inaccurate, you should ask them to revise the criteria rather than criticizing the reviewers.

The way I see it, NONE of us here (as far as I know) are professional reviewers. We write reviews for various reasons, but mainly because we feel like we have something to say about a book which we think will be interesting and useful to other readers. We want to discuss books -- and part of that discussion includes our subjective reactions to books, our likes and dislikes.

Look, I'm a graduate student in literature. I write papers on a regular basis -- sometimes even about books which I dislike -- and when I'm writing a critical analysis, of course I do not bring my opinions about the book into the discussion. However, I also read books for pleasure, and when I'm sharing my reading experience with friends, it would be as inappropriate of me to NOT share my emotional responses to a book as it would be to include these same responses in a scholarly paper. We always write for an audience (or audiences). You seem to be trying to restrict the reviews here to a single audience.

A reviewer needs to explain the context of any book- especially a classic. Subjective feeling is far less important than giving prospective readers a sense of what they're approaching.

Agreed. But the contexts which readers bring to a work vary as much as the readers. We're not all literary scholars. Nor should we have to be in order to write a useful review.

Otherwise, first-time readers might approach the material with your subjective biases, thus poisoning their reading.

I'm sorry?? Poisoning their reading?
If a book is worth reading, it should speak to its readers, subjective biases and all.
I don't subscribe to the view that readers are lazy and ignorant unable to appreciate the works of higher culture without being taught.

Yes, classics tend to require a different attitude on the part of the reader, and the reader must often work harder in order to appreciate them. Difficult texts require more background. But it's possible to understand this background and still have a personal opinion. There are some classical works which, however much I appreciate what the author is trying to accomplish, I simply do not like. Just because the work is canonical does not make my opinion invalid.

[The Egoist]

I don't like the idea you advance that the admins and mods are the only ones with the right to comment on standards and practices.

My position is neither ill-considered nor misinformed. The debate deserves to be open to the public. And in light of several of the reviews I've read is actually necessary.

[Darb]

I very much agree with the goal of trying to inspire young writers to improve the quality and depth of their critical writing, but I disagree with the assertion that we can, or even should, try to establish standards beyond the minimum word count we currently have. This is a free public forum, not a peer reviewed literary journal. To each according to their enthusiasm, and level of skill.