Offensive Terms and Characterizations in Huck Finn

Critical Literary Analysis

Both John H. Wallace and Allan B. Ballard present a literary argument for how Jim and other blacks are portrayed in Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They particularly focus on the use of the term “nigger” in the novel and decry the fact that a novel with such language should be taught in schools where blacks might be made to feel uncomfortable by the language. Ballard recounts his own suffering as a student having to hear his classmates utter that word during readings of the book in class: he notes that in his class, “some of the whites snickered, others giggled” while he himself saw none of the merits of the work and could only later “recall the sense of relief I felt when I would flip ahead a few pages and see that the word ‘nigger’ would not be read that hour” (8). Wallace likewise views the novel’s language as problematic and its presentation of Negro culture as shameful. This paper will discuss the literary argument between John H. Wallace and Allan B. Ballard on how Jim and other black individuals were viewed in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

John H. Wallace has been one of the most vocal critics of the novel. He described it as “the most grotesque example of racist trash ever written,” arguing that when it is taught in classes the proliferation of the term “nigger” in the book is humiliating for black students (16). When the book is read in class, it is no better than mental and emotional bullying of blacks: “It constitutes mental cruelty, harassment…tension, discontent, and even fighting” against black students when it is read aloud in the classroom and while sitting with their white peers (Wallace 17). His problem with the novel is the effect it has on the consciousness of students, regardless of their race. For whites, it can give them a powerful ego trip, while for blacks it can be a kind of negative reinforcement of their sense of inferiority. Thus, Wallace asks: “How much pain must a black child endure to secure an education?” (22). Two solutions to this problem that Wallace provides are: first, teach the book at the graduate level, where the inflammatory language is less likely to be felt so negatively because the minds and emotions of the students are matured and disciplined; second, if high school educators feel it should be taught then they should at least use the adapted version that Wallace provides, wherein the story is maintained but the inflammatory use of certain terms like “nigger” is removed. This is Wallace’s view of the book.

Ballard’s view is somewhat similar, but also more condemning: his critique of the novel is that reinforces systemic racism. Ballard states, for instance, that  

the presentation of the novel as an “American classic” serves as an official endorsement of a term uttered by the most prejudiced racial bigots to an age group eager to experiment with any language of shock value. One reporter has likened the teaching of the novel to eighth grade kids to “pulling the pin of a hand grenade and tossing it into the all too common American classroom.” (8)

No matter how the novel is presented to young minds, Ballard says, it gives an impression because what those young minds see and hear are words that denigrate and undermine. Those offensive terms can be couched in defensive rhetoric and excuses can be made, but the work’s main characteristics still assault the senses of the young individual to whom they are exposed. Those who fail to see this point must forget that they too are likely to protest to media that is full of violence or sexuality being presented to young readers or viewers; if such exposure is bad for their own kids, then the exposure of racist terms is also bad.

Wallace and Ballard both adopt a negative position towards Twain’s novel. Where Wallace differs from Ballard is in the fact that the novel might be taught at a higher grade level or in an alternate form. That is why he created his adaptation of the novel for high school teachers who feel it has merits. Wallace wants teachers who believe in the book’s value to have a form of the work that is without racist terms, so that blacks are not offended. Ballard, however, dismisses the book outright as a contrivance of a racially discriminating society, where blacks are subjugated and denigrated. He sees no merits in the work at all.

The Other Side

There are counter-arguments to the critiques of Wallace and Ballard. Nat Hentoff, for instance, defends Twain’s book and laments the softness of those who cannot get past the fact that people used and (still use) insensitive language. Hentoff complains, “What’s going to happen to a kid when he gets into the world if he’s going to let a word paralyze him so he can’t think?” (8). The answer to that question, of course, is that he will call for safe spaces and join the cancel culture movement like so many of today. But is not such a climate a tad stifling and a tad narrow? Does it not run the risk of cutting the present generation off from the artifacts of the past that describe a people’s history, a people’s perspective, and the culture of the past. Yes, the term “nigger” is offensive—but Mark Twain was not using it to offend anymore than Dave Chappelle is today when he uses the term in his stand-up. Twain, as an artist, was representing a reality and to avoid the use of the offensive term would have been to project a false reality.

Likewise, Peaches Henry argues that one can present the realities and artifacts of the past in a controlled environment so as to learn from them. The experience of Ballard does not have to be the experience of all; in fact, by understanding Ballard’s and Wallace’s position, an educator can better address the issue of racism and portrayals of racism in American literary texts. From this perspective, one could argue that it is thus informative and instructive to review the literary argument between John H. Wallace and Allan B. Ballard on how Jim and other Black individuals were viewed in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for their insights can help educators understand how best to teach the novel.

Ann Lew also makes the argument that the novel presents Jim as the “only decent adult male” in Huck’s world (20). Indeed, Huck’s Pap is no good; his guardians are woefully unprepared to care for him. The two con men who take over his raft and fate are worse. The world of Huck is populated with criminals and derelicts—but it is Jim alone who has a good nature and a sense of honor and value that transcends everything around him. Huck realizes this, which is why it is important to him to set Jim free at the end of the novel. From this perspective the merits of the novel may be seen in the fact that Jim is presented as a good and noble character who has a positive influence on the white child Huck.

Response

Wallace provides an answer to these arguments by responding that Twain wrote the novel out of memory and from his imagination—twenty years after slavery had ended. He thus posits that it has no credible historical basis and provides no real or accurate depiction of slavery or of the black experience in America. Instead, he asserts, it is a figment merely of a white man’s imagination, one that seems to delight in the perverse maligning of the characters of black people. Jim is depicted as a bit of a buffoon and other blacks are hardly even described. It is in other words, a book by white people for white people and as such, in Wallace’s view, it only depicts a side of life that is reflective of white values and systems. What place in a modern education can such a book have? What value does it bring? Wallace thus contends that the book does more harm than good in its present form when taught to adolescents.

To the argument that Jim is presented as a good character, the response is that Twain does not seem to take his liberation all that seriously, considering that it ends up becoming a game for Tom Sawyer at the end of the novel. Whatever redeeming qualities the novel might have had up to that point are all laid to waste by the novel’s lack of a seriousness when Tom is re-introduced in the end. The idea that Huck has learned any lesson or has grown in character is upended by Tom’s arrival.

Ballard’s point is that the novel is simply too rooted in a tradition of systemic racism to have any merits whatsoever. His argument is that one may be able to find some good in just about anything—but that does not mean everything should be taught or exposed to children just because one can point to some good within it. Why expose them to ugliness just because a little corner of that ugliness retains some beauty? That is Ballard’s essential point.

Wallace and Ballard thus both come at the novel from a perspective of sensitivity and anger. Their own past experiences inform their perspectives: Ballard having to feel ashamed of himself because of the novel is what drives his antagonistic critique of the novel. Wallace’s ethical perspective is what shapes his view of it. Ballard’s personal feelings and experiences carry some weight; however, there may be other factors at play that might have made the reading of the novel a better experience for him in his class. After all, Henry’s argument is that one can control for these experiences by handling the material with maturity and discretion. But Wallace counters with the ethical argument that if a novel has to be controlled in such a manner, how can it be said to really have any inherent value of its own? What if the teacher lacks the skills to control for it at all? It can be like handing an explosive to a novice and cautioning the novice to take care that it does not go off. However, Wallace’s argument might be too cautious: after all, part of what assists in the maturation process is the dealing with uncomfortable subjects that have the ability to challenge and create tension and conflict. How people handle that conflict is what determines their character. Perhaps, then, the arguments of Wallace and Ballard are too extreme. But at the same time, they are understandable and should be accepted as legitimate.