Huck Finn and Bercovitch's Tricky Twain

Humor: that word that we all love and hate at the same time. For who enjoys laughing uncontrollably or laughing at a morally compromising statement? Some do, but either way there can be something unpleasant about humor. Specifically, the scathing kind of humor that exists in the comedy spectrum: that which rends and pierces. There are certain critics, like Sacvan Bercovitch, who adhere to this humor as a perspective.

Specifically, Bercovitch claims that this kind of humor is the kind used by “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” In the words of Bercovitch, the writings of Twain usually comprise of tall tales, con games, and “deadpan.” “Huckleberry Finn,” rests comfortably between the tall tale and con game. In its “deadpanism,” Twain’s novel is “funny” in three ways: in a simply humorous way, in a deceptive way, and in a curious, odd way. The basic idea is that Twain uses these three modes to essentially trick the reader into believing something falsely, and then realizing with a start that they were putting value where there was not any (“re-cognition” as Bercovitch calls it). He gives some of the more serious or dark scenarios (Huck’s decision to “go to hell,” even Huck’s growth as a character) as examples of the humor that exists and, subsequently, completely consumes the meanings in those scenarios. Thus, “Huckleberry Finn” is a great clown of a book that not only waves the “carrot” but then proceeds to bludgeon the reader with the “stick.”

While there are some redemptive qualities about this line of thinking, I was most struck by how cynical Bercovitch ‘s methodology was. At first blush, Twain’s novel as a comedy does not seem to be problematic. Bercovitch, however, does not leave his interpretation here. Starting with small ideas (the wit of Huck’s role as Tom), Bercovitch then systematically discredits the darker and more meaningful moments of “Huckleberry Finn.” A good example of this is when Bercovitch notes that the happy moments on the raft were limited to three pages, whereas the other two-thirds of the novel were about a pair of rapscallions invading said happiness. Bercovitch also muses at how Huck never actually grows in the narrative. Perhaps the best example lay in the last part of Bercovitch ‘s article, where he deems that “Huckleberry Finn” as a book is a “savagely funny obituary to the American dream.”

It seems a bit unfair to deem that Twain was simply being dubious. The surprising moment where Huck realizes how cruel he had been to Jim, for example, is a genuinely good part of the book. It is hard to believe that Twain should be so cynical that he would lull us with real values just so he could sneer at our naïveté. I get that taking and smashing the reader’s preconceptions can be good for a lark, but it seems a stretch to claim that all the good events or ideas in the book were simply placed to trick the reader. Indeed, the better lessons of the story reach into the important issues of slavery and freedom. To discount these would seem to miss the nuggets of knowledge that Twain cast throughout the novel.

There is, however, still some value in what Bercovitch has to say. I completely agree that “Huckleberry Finn” is a “savagely funny” story. Page 241 particularly sent me into a fit of laughter that lasted for minutes. The downright ridiculous scenarios and dialogue of the characters are truly clever and amusing. Here, Bercovitch is on to something. I tend to think that despite all the controversy swarming around the book (racism, which Bercovitch dismisses suspiciously fast, sexuality, adolescence, white power), Twain ultimately made the book to be read and enjoyed. The fact that the ending occurs in an unsatisfactory fashion can be accepted in the view that Twain did not want us to take the novel completely seriously. Now, this is not to say that the ending should not be evaluated: I agree that it is odd and worth thought. This is also not to say that the whole novel is a farce. I think the messages Twain gives are still valid even if they do not follow through to the ending. I took something from Huck’s decision to free Jim, for example, even though Jim was free all along. Thus, I hold that “Huckleberry Finn” is a more humorous novel than people give it credit for, but not at all to the extent of Bercovitch.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised to find a critique such as Bercovitch’s. It seems like he was so perturbed by all the heated debate over the book that he threw up his hands, picked up the cake of substance, and hurled it at the ground with all the charm of a dying pelican popping balloons at a child’s party. Elaborate metaphor? Perhaps, but his explanation is, in my opinion, a bit too one-sided to be given extensive merit. It seems quite easy to discount every issue in a text on the basis that it is all a joke. Something can always be said of humor, but there is the virtue of moderation that a person should never forget.