The Satires of Huckleberry Finn

Satire is a difficult art; one flaw, one inconsistency, and the satire falls apart. Unlike the often easier parody or comedy, which can rely on slapstick and gags, satire must also rely heavily on reality. Even when satire is done well, it can still be easily misunderstood. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an epitome case from American literature. Even those who do not ignorantly scorn the book's so-called racism still criticize the ending - that Twain abandoned his themes of morality and individualism, that Twain destroys his carefully built plot and characterization, that Twain ends the story abruptly and unnaturally. But did he? Or did Twain ignore crafting a typical story - or even a typical satire, for that matter - but do even more? An excellent satire is one that not only mocks, but comments on life and reality. Thus, the apparently awkward ending of the book ending succeeds as an effectively brilliant, satirical commentary on two things - human nature in general, and the traditional structure of storytelling.

Critics of the book commonly cite that in the ending, the major characters - namely Huck, Jim, and Tom - act inconsistently with their previous portrayals. What if, though, these are not inconsistencies with character, but changeability in nature? What if Twain is presenting us not with cookie-cutter characters, but instead with people who have volatility and faults? The titular character Huck is accredited to going through several 'identities'; the typical view is that these identities are his changes as he struggles with "his conscious

As controversial - if not more - than Huck's character change is that of Jim. Professor Leo Marx goes as so far as to argue that Jim is "something less than human", a "[stereotypical] submissive stage-negro" by the ending (Marx). But Jim is not submissive, even as he is imprisoned, on the brink of being forced back into slavery, and made to follow Tom's brutally ridiculous plan; when Tom goes too far, suggesting that Jim sit there with snakes, Jim threatens that he is "gwyne to leave", of all things (251). Tom obliges. Apparently Jim does have control, even in a dire situation. He is able to "use subterfuge" and especially "manipulate the [white] creatures who rule him" (Hill). Furthermore, though Tom is commonly condemned for withholding the fact that Jim has been set free, in fact, as Richard Hill points out, it is Jim, of all people, who "withheld the most important anticlimactic secret" - the fact that Huck's father has been dead this entire time; Huck's journey and his adventures were for nothing (Hill). Though Jim knows Huck's father is dead, he wishes to keep Huck with him, so that the boy can "assist his efforts" (Wilson). Is it possible, then, that Jim is manipulative - and thus, possessing of a non-comical negative trait, of all things?

A common stereotype of Twain's time was that of the moronic, superstitious, laughable black. If Twain were a lesser writer, than he would have made Jim the opposite of the stereotype - an intelligent, rational, moral man. But Twain goes further. Instead of creating a perfect Mary Sue character, he creates a human. Jim cares for his "wife" and "children" just as much as "white folks [do] for their'n" (153). And yet Jim also questionably uses "rhetorical and intellectual maneuvers" on Huck, keeping the young boy - and thus endangering the boy's life - just so that he can have a chance of escape (Wilson). If Jim's manipulation of Huck for his own personal gain (whether such gains are justified or not) was accomplished by a different character - a white male, for example - then such actions would have been labeled as more villainous. Through Jim, Twain reveals two facts about life: firstly, that blacks are just as human as whites are; and secondly, simply because blacks are blacks, this does not make them moronic laughingstock (as believed by southern society), or as tortured paragons of virtue (as believed by quite a number of abolitionists). The reader does not realize that he is being duped, sympathizing with Jim, a man whose motives would have been much more questionable had his race and background been different. As such, Jim should get as much credit as Huck for being something of an anti-hero.
Twain not only sought to satirize and deconstruct character through the usage of anti-heroes, but he also intended to deconstruct the very concept and meaning of a story itself. A typical story follows a pattern as outlined by Joseph Cambell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, where a hero goes forth into the world, battles a series of forces, wins some kind of victory, and then returns home. In Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, however, Twain seems to cheat the structure of a story, ending with the "devices of low comedy" (Marx). But does Twain really wish to stoop this low, from sophisticated satire to crude comedy? His intention is to not only make mere burlesque, but to mock people's perceptions of stories and real life. Reality is never as simple as a story; people who believe so are just like Tom Sawyer, who believes in delusions such as "A-rabs", "elephants and treasure", and "Don Quixote", all of which do not exist in any manner along the Mississippi (22). Because of Tom's sincere belief in foolish romanticism, Jim is injured; death is imminent to all involved in Tom's gambit; and thusly, Twain's prediction in the novel's introduction, that "persons attempting to find a plot [will] be shot", has been fulfilled. Is it any coincidence that Tom, in the midst of the 'glory' of his plot, is shot in the leg? It is dark humor indeed, that a young boy must be maimed; but in real life, the consequences of idiocy are often not as light. In reality, those who try to copy exactly from fantastical plots and characters will realize too late when the laws of fiction, of dreams, are not synonymous with the laws of reality.

Tom asserts that life must mimic well-founded and spectacular plots, referencing to "the way[s] all the best authorities" do it (230); but in reality, there are no neat, adventurous sequential events. As in real life, there is no 'real' and 'good' ending.. There are messes and problems, inconsistent change and idiocies in characters, and unpredictable incidents. Even at the very end of the book, in the last pages, there is not, in truth, a real end; Huck decides "to light out for the territory [in the Wild West]", and continue his 'adventures' to the West just as he had along the Mississippi (279). Huck's life and 'identity' do not tidily resolve, but both move on, for more changes and experiences, as with all people. And so, just as Twain warns at the beginning, "persons attempting to find a moral in [this narrative] will be banished" - and in fact, the persons who try to find typical, story-like sense in the book, especially the ending, will only drift away from the book's true meaning - banished metaphorically from ever knowing the book's deeper meaning.

But the art of satirization is never straightforward, precisely because the audience is unaware that the criticism and laughter is directed at them, not with. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and especially its ending is a success in being able to evaluate and assess human nature and the concept and patterns of story-making, together at the same time. Twain did not merely fail or succeed; he went beyond that, and elevated himself to the level of the great ancient philosophers, pointing out not only outer, temporary problems and issues of mankind, but also of the internal, enduring, hypocritical conflicts.

Works Cited
Novels for Students. Ed. Diane Telgen. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale Research, 1998. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Cengage Learning. 5 Oct. 2008 .
Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 1884. New York: Penguin Group, 1997.
Wilson, Charles E., Jr. Race and Racism in Literature. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. 12 Oct. 2008 .