The river has gotten its fair share of metaphorical use over time in our culture. Tina Turner aims to find bliss by “rollin’ on the river.” Emily Dickinson is looking for companionship in “My River.”In the 1955 Western comedy, an unlikely couple joins forces in what is called “Many Rivers to Cross.”
Similarly, T. S. Eliot believes that through understanding the metaphor that lies within the river in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, readers will find the book’s central meaning. Eliot goes on to explain the integral connection between the river and Huck.
Eliot says in his essay that “Huck…gives the book style. The River gives the book its form” (286). He goes on to say that the river ultimately controls Huck and Jim’s destiny as it separates, unites and forces them to understand one another through their many conversations floating down the water.
Eliot says that in the novel,
“Mark Twain makes you see the River, as it is and was and always will be, more clearly than the author of any other description of a river known to me.”
This causes the reader to experience the river for themselves. This is what makes the book a masterpiece in his mind. He further unites Huck and the river by saying that both have no beginning or end; they are immortalized into the story.
“Huck Finn must come from nowhere and be bound for nowhere.” (288).
The issue I have with this statement is that any morality that Huck may gain throughout the story is then taken as meaningless. He then doesn’t really learn anything and isn’t changed whatsoever. He is a character that cannot be developed. He is a static player in an evolutionary novel.
As Huck is upstaged by Tom in the novel’s ending, Eliot believes that this allows Huck to disappear, because of his immortalization. Likewise, the river represents an immortalized player in the story. The river cannot be overshadowed by the larger story itself. Eliot believes that “things must merely happen” (289) for wherever the current takes Huck is where he will end up.
For Eliot, this justifies the ending of the novel. He says that no other ending could have resulted, for it would confine the immortal character that is Huck Finn. While Eliot’s argument is convincing, I believe it is too extreme to take the central argument of the novel upon the river. By doing so, it causes the characters to be left at the disposal of nature. They become mere puppets to whatever happens along the river.
Again, the character development of Huck throughout the novel is disregarded. It puts Huck out of reach. For Eliot, Huck is no longer a young boy experiencing the world, but now almost like a legend that cannot be confined to earthly bounds.
Eliot furthers himself away from answering the novel’s peculiar ending. While I agree that Huck possesses the “independence of a vagabond,” (288) the river did not necessarily impress this upon him. He is merely a child that doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions. The river served to teach him lessons that he hasn’t sorted through just yet. I believe the experiences along the river represent an important part of Huck’s development, but it does not serve to answer the questions about the novel that we are still asking today.
Garrett, I really appreciate how you are struggling with Eliot's critical perspective on the novel. I, too, am hesitant to accept Eliot's immortalizing of Huck as an archetypal character alone since we see so much development in his sense of morality and friendship across the bounds of race.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that instead of an archetype, Huck is a rounded character since we can sympathize and grow with him, and I think that's the point you get at here. The river isn't immortal or unchanging and neither is Huck.
The use of the Mississippi river is actually a very interesting thing in American literature. I have wondering myself as to any possible connections between Huck Finn and Melville's 1857 novel The Confidence-Man. The book takes place on a steamboat traveling towards New Orleans, but the river takes on a metaphorical role. The book itself is an odd and downright surreal combination of satire, allegory, and philosophical exploration of American culture and identity at the time. It shows very little to like about human beings.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I feel that the rive in Huck Finn is a symbol of freedom from the influence of society for Huck and Jim. Granted, as a symbol it is fundamentally flawed (since they are attack while on it its ultimate destination is actually far away from actual freedom), but we must admit that those times when they are on the river away from the influence of society are the times where Huck does have room to develop a more refined sense of morality.
I, too, found the recurrence of the river as a symbol for freedom in American literature interesting as I read Huck Finn. I immediately thought back to the famous scene in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" where Eliza crosses the Mississippi River to escape into freedom. Both scenes force the reader to focus in on the meaning of the journey each character is undergoing. This made me think back to Marx's thoughts on how Twain decided to end the book. He said, "To take seriously what happens at the Phelps farm is to take lightly the entire downstream journey." He then challenges the reader to constantly ask "What is the meaning of the journey?" as we read. This helped me to focus more on the journey and new-found freedom of Huck Finn rather than being disappointed in the ending for its lack of closure.
ReplyDeleteI think when I returned to Huck Finn after many years I expected to find a Bildungsroman such as Marx or Morrison, and many of our class, see. But it seems to me you have to take issue with the end if you see Huck going on a journey of self-discovery. If the journey is more about America, and Huck is a voice &/or vehicle, then the return of Tom is more coherent if less satisfying. Maybe we need a question that allows a more complex answer, one that catches both the circularity of the comedy and the moral trajectory of the river journey. Perhaps it is the reader, not Huck as a character, that should be the subject?
ReplyDelete