non-ecumenical ramblings

Once nice thing about blogs is you can review a portion of a book. Eric Muller did a 7 part review of In defence of interment when he was a guest blogger with the Volokh Conspiracy, so I'll credit him with being an inspiration.

For the summer before 6th grade, Huck Finn was required reading, and even as a 10 year old, I could tell it was a better novel than Tom Sawyer. Years later at the U.S. library in Bukavu (hope it still exists) I read the intro blurbs to most of Twain's novels. One blurb stated that of all Twain's writings, only the middle half of Huck Finn could be considered art.

Having now finished 3½ tapes (out of 7) I'm not sure I'd agree that it should be called art. Far too much extraneous material. I remember the Duke & King of course, and the Tom Sawyer ending, and even Huck being caught in his girl disguise, but I had no recollection of the separation of Huck & Jim after the ferry boat crashes their raft and Huck takes part in some ersatz Hatfield-McCoy feud. Side 1 of tape 4 ended with some long section about a lynch mob being faced down by a murdered standing on his roof with a shotgun. Completely extraneous to the plot & not sure what it adds as character development or insight or social commentary. One of the critiques of Tom Sawyer I read back in Bukavu was that 'everyone's on vacation including the authour'. That often seems true with Huck Finn as well. It almost seems that Twain's ideal life would be just floating down the river on a raft, so that's what he enjoyed writing about.

The critique also stated that Twain started Huck Finn shortly after finishing Tom Sawyer and quickly knocked out ~9 chapters, and then had writer's block, so he set the novel aside for ~9 years. It also opined that Twain didn't know how to end the novel, so he ended it in a farce by reintroducing Tom. I assumed that the Duke & King must be the art section, and sure enough, they enter near the end of tape 3, those 2 characters enter. Will review the rest after listening during my rides to work next week.


While I'm not that impressed as an adult by the novel, I have to comment on the bizarre 1960 film version of the novel starring Tony Randall. While it had been many years since I read the book, I knew that the movie was an incredible bastardization of the novel. The King & Duke do not end up tar-and-feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. There's no Tom Sawyer appearance at the end of the book, or the fake escape with Jim from the Tom's relatives - huge section not there at all. Reading the cast on IMDB, I see that Tony Randall was the King - huh?? That makes absolutely no sense. Mickey Shaughnessy looks like the King, not Randall. Too bad Twain's heirs couldn't stop such an insult to the book. Also bizarre that the director of Casablanca would film such dreck. Best leave the last word to thesyxxpac on IMDB:

This is yet another fine example of how Hollywood can take a great story and destroy it. ...When not getting the events out of order or changing them altogether....the screen play invents them...... The worst thing about this movie is the completely fabricated ending. Anyone who has read the book will quickly recognize the discrepancies between the movie and the book. The movie is filled with great scenery and the cast does a fine job. However, it should be against the law to use Mark Twain or Huckleberry Finn's name in this movie.