The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn Analysis

Mark Twain despised James Fenimore Cooper and other romantic writers because of the distorted view of life they presented. Cooper’s works such as, The Deerslayer and The Pathfinder, were satirically abused by Mark Twain’s critique, “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences.” Twain analyzes the defects within Cooper’s writing, stating that Cooper violated eighteen out of nineteen rules which govern “literary art in the domain of romantic fiction” (1432). However, in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Twain ironically violates the same offenses he victimizes Cooper for. “Chapter 17” violates a plethora of these rules, a few being allowing miracles or other events to be reasonable and possible, characters having a meaningful presence, and the avoidance of needless information.
Mark Twain states that events, even if miracles, should be predictable and reasonable, through the characters of the book(1433). “Chapter 17” of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn violates this rule, making certain events seem impossible and unreasonable. In the
story, Huck meets Buck, who “looked about as old as [Huck]--thirteen or fourteen” while settling in the house of the Grangerfords (100). Speaking to Huck, Buck exclaims, “Do you like to comb up Sundays, and all that kind of foolishness? You bet I don’t, but ma she makes me” (101). Huck also disliked dressing up and acting civilized under Miss Watson. The resemblance between the two characters is uncanny. The name Buck in itself rhymes with Huck and they are roughly the same age. Like Huck, Buck also does not know how to spell, as he spells George Jackson incorrectly(102). They are in opposite situations however, one being civilized with a family and the other one being uncivilized, exempt of his family. It seems unpredictable that Huck Finn would meet his doppelganger through his journey in trying to free Jim.
Mark Twain states “that the personages in a tale both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there” (1433). This rule demonstrates that characters should play some role within the story, having a purpose in being mentioned. In “Chapter 17,” this rule is disregarded when the presence of Emmeline Grangerford is mentioned. Mark Twain mentions her as a parody of Julia A. Moore, a poet known for writing about the deaths of children and her atrocious poetry(Halperin). Emmeline does not influence Huck Finn in any way and is mentioned for the amusement of Twain. She died as “she hung fire on a rhyme for...Whistler” (105). She is a figure that Huck sympathizes for as he calls her a “poor thing” (105). With no direct effect on Huck, Emmeline’s presence takes up space in the novel without accomplishing anything towards the plot. This illustrates how Twain fails to have a sufficient reason in including Emmeline Grangerford.
Mark Twain states “eschew surplusage,” meaning to abstain from mentioning excessive material (1433).
This is constantly violated in “Chapter 17” of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, with the descriptions of the Grangerford’s house to the Emmeline’s paintings. According to Huck, “it was … a mighty nice house too. [He] hadn’t seen no house out in the country before that was so nice and had so much style” (102). Huck is awestruck by the Grangerford’s home, repeating details unnecessarily. Each room and its furniture are detailed by Huck, going on for multiple pages, exempt of dialogue. Huck also dissects Emmeline’s multiple paintings, capturing even the minute details, “...and very wee black slippers, like a chisel, and she was leaning pensive on a tombstone on her right elbow... it said ‘Shall I Never See Thee More Alas’,” which can be seen as unnecessary. Huck’s descriptions throughout this chapter seem to be redundant and
irrelevant.
In conclusion, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when criticized under Mark Twain’s critique can be seen as flawed. Twain fails to abide by his own rules, having characters without meaningful presence, an unpredictable plot, and unnecessary information. This may not be to the degree of Cooper’s novels however, which seem to suffer more violations, but it is still far from perfect.