Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Journal
創立 40 周年記念 第 35 号, 2014, 105-117

The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic
Choices in the ‘Evasion’ of Huckleberry Finn
Timothy Gould“When a prisoner of style escapes it’s called an evasion.”
Tom Sawyer
Mark Twain’s dire “Notice” at the outset of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, whichwarns that, “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted;
persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find aplot in it will be shot,” is perhaps the world’s premier example of reverse psychology.
Hordes of critics, in defiance of Twain’s edict, have poked and prodded Huck, Jim, andTom, along with every nook and cranny of the novel, for well over a hundred years.
This sustained analysis has delivered verdicts on Huckleberry’s adventures ranging
from Ernest Hemingway’s: “All modern American literature comes from one book byMark Twain called Huckleberry Finn,” (22) to John H. Wallace’s: “The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, is the most grotesque example of racist trash everwritten” (16). But it is the ending of the book, the final twelve chapters, commonly
known as the “evasion,” that have “spawned a critical industry of their own” (Hill 492).
The ultimate judgement on the novel, by both proponents and detractors, has often
hinged on this section, some claiming greatness for the novel while rationalizing theending’s purported weaknesses, some asserting it hangs like a dead weight on the book,an anchor that prevents the novel from ever achieving its potential greatness, and some,including myself, defending it as a pragmatically and artistically sound choice by Twain.
Even Hemingway, despite his conclusion that, “it’s the best book we’ve had. All
American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing
as good since,” advises us that, “If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim isstolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating” (22). The notion thatthe “evasion,” which takes place on the Phelps’ farm after Tom Sawyer reappears in
the narrative, is “weak” has become, according to Hill, “a given for most modern critics”(492). There are, however, defenders as well. For example, contra Hemingway, Ralph
Ellison asserts that, “so thoroughly had the Negro, both as man and as a symbol of man,been pushed into the underground of the American conscience that Hemingway missed─ 105 ─

Timothy Gould

completely the structural, symbolic and moral necessity for that part of the plot in which
the boys rescue Jim. Yet it is precisely this part which gives the novel it’s significance.
Without it, except as a boy’s tale, the novel is meaningless” (262).
In this paper, I will briefly recapitulate some of the novel’s early issues that informthe ending, focusing on pragmatic explanations that have been posited in support of theevasion as it stands, and muster some existing argumentation to develop a composite
view of the ending sequence as a structurally sound, well-developed satire, operating on
multiple levels, which, as Gollin and Gollin point out, is as much about the political andsocial circumstances in the South at the time the novel was published as it is the ‘official’time of the novel’s setting, around 1835 - 1845 (6).
I will first quickly glance at some instrumental events in the novel that “form” Huckand Jim’s characters before Huck arrives at the Phelps’s farm intent on setting Jim free.
Early on, at Jackson’s Island, after faking his own murder and running away from Pap,
his abusive father, Huck meets Jim, whom he learns has “run off” from Miss Watson. On
hearing this news from Jim, Huck cries out indignantly, “Jim!” (52). In his tone we canfeel Huck’s shock at Jim’s revelation, and we instantly recognize the irony Huck fails
to see: that Jim’s rationale for running away from slavery is as good, if not better than
Huck’s own reason for escaping his predicament. Huck reflexively utters the “correct”
response, expressing the expected and mandatory outrage that any “good” Southerner
would on learning a slave has “stolen” himself. Within moments, however, Huck, having
previously given Jim his word not to tell, is struggling to balance what he knows is
the “right” thing to do (returning Jim to Miss Watson) and keeping his promise to Jim,
which means doing “wrong.” He tells Jim that he knows, “People would call me a lowdown Abolitionist and despise me for keeping mum--but that don’t make no difference. I
ain’t a-going to tell” (52). It is at this moment that Huck becomes the true protagonist of
the narrative and separates himself from his “comrade” Tom Sawyer, who consistently
and unthinkingly advocates and hews to the culturally prescribed, accepted course,
even, as we will see, to the detriment of Jim.
Despite the danger inherent in helping a runaway slave that exists within his
own cultural milieu, Huck goes against his “better” judgement and follows what
we would be inclined to call his heart, but what he believes is the irresistible anddeleterious influence of his conscience, the devil on his shoulder, as it were. This is theironic struggle that drives Huck’s character through the first part of the book, and it
culminates when Huck decides to turn Jim in, but his “weak” conscience “fails” himagain. In the following scene, Huck is debating with himself about sending a letter that─ 106 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry Finn

he has written informing Miss Watson of Jim’s whereabouts. He wrote the letter, which heis holding in his hand, in an attempt to assuage his conscience, which has been “grinding” at
him and making him feel “wicked, and lowdown and ornery” about helping Jim:
It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because
I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute,sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:“All right, then, I’ll go to hell”— and tore it up.
It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay
said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of
my head; and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being
brung up to it, and the other warn’t. And for a starter I would go to work and steal
Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that,
too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.
(270)
We, of course, can see that Huck’s decision to tear up the letter is absolutely
right, the only possible decision, but he, as a creature of his time, a pure conscience
distorted by his environment and with no confidence in the humane intuitions thathe misinterprets as evil, and which he is convinced emerge in him as a result of his
bad upbringing, sees his choice to destroy the letter as the inevitable result of the“wickedness” that resides “in his line.” This phrase can be interpreted as referring toa “line” of work, meaning he is merely being consistent with previous “bad” choices
he has made up to this point in his life, or Huck may also be referring to his genetic“line,” inherited from the inarguably rotten Pap, which he believes haunts him like anunshakeable devil on his shoulder, dooming him to “wickedness.” Huck’s is a pure soul,
and we know that somehow he has severed his “line” with Pap and emerged unscathed,but ignorant nevertheless of his own goodness.
Huck’s forfeiture of his soul to hell on account of his “line,” and his promise tocontinue and find even “worse” acts to commit, guarantees him a place in purgatory, atleast from his own perspective, but in reality, from the reader’s viewpoint, his decision
has precisely the opposite effect — delivering him from that horrible fate. Let us remove
the irony for a moment and analyze Huck’s “worse” in the underlying way we regard it
as we read, namely as “better.” Again, we have just witnessed Huck actually redeeming
his soul even as he believes he is damning it, so what would it mean for him to do─ 107 ─

Timothy Gould

better? What more can he do? He has, in essence, regardless of his belief to the contrary,reached the pinnacle of goodness by sacrificing himself for another. At this point in thenovel, Huck’s moral journey is complete.
A bildungsroman appears to be unfolding, and with this almost angelic view of
Huck in mind, and about twenty-five percent of the book remaining, we arrive at the
Phelps’s farm, where Jim is being held prisoner and where the evasion sequence that
ends the novel takes place. Soon, Tom Sawyer, who has been absent since the beginningof the narrative, appears on the scene again and, as is his way, takes over the operation.
While W. Somerset Maugham’s judgement that, “if Mark Twain had not had theunfortunate notion of bringing in that boring little muttonhead, Tom Sawyer, to ruin thelast few chapters, [Huckleberry Finn] would have been faultless,” (Fishkin 5).
While Maugham may be overstating the case, there is, without a doubt, a stark
contrast between the middle section of the book, where Huck and Jim make their way
down the river, and the ending sequence on the Phelps’s farm. During the middle section,
Huck and Jim’s relationship has become real and substantial, a bonding between themhas occurred based on shared experience and shared humanity. Jim emerges as a man,shedding the one dimensional traits he exhibited at the beginning of the book. We see
him display a range of emotions, even chastising Huck for playing a nasty practical jokeof which he (Jim) was the butt. We learn about his love and attachment to his children
and how he plans to free his family from slavery even if he has to “get an Ab’litionist to
go and steal them” (124).
Once Huck and Tom reunite at the Phelps’s farm and start planning to free Jim,
however, the notable consequence of their reunion is that the progress Huck has madeas a person over the course of his journey with Jim is virtually erased. Suddenly, he
is Tom’s sidekick again. The three dimensional aspect of their characters and theirrelationship that has been so realistically constructed is drained out of both Huck andJim and we are again left with the one dimensional place holders that operate as foils forTom’s antics. The effect is jarring, and the discomfort it produces is intensified because
Jim at the same time undergoes a kind of ‘de-evolution’, and ‘reverts’ back to the former
minstrelsy, caricature-like poltroon, or comic ‘darkey’ he played in the early part of thebook (Berret). It is this stark transition, the erasure of the characters’ progress andthe sudden change in trajectory of the narrative that surely prompted Hemingway tosuggest Twain “cheated” here and we would do best to ignore this part of the book,advice which, like the “Notice,” is generally ignored. But does all this mean that theartistic integrity of the novel has been compromised by the ending? Before analyzing

─ 108 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry Finnthat question, it may help to briefly summarize the final twelve chapters that make up
the evasion sequence.
The king, an itinerant con man traveling with Huck and Jim, without Huck’s
knowledge, sells Jim for “forty dirty dollars” as a runaway slave, and Jim is held in arickety old shack on a farm that belongs to Tom Sawyer’s aunt Sally and uncle Silas
Phelps. Huck has already decided that he will “go to hell” and is determined to “steal”
Jim and continue helping him to freedom when Tom Sawyer arrives at the farm. On
hearing that Huck plans to steal Jim, Tom says, “What! Why Jim is —” and then hestops and does not utter the critical next word, “free.” Huck continues, sure of Tom’s
reproach: “I know what you’ll say. You’ll say it’s dirty low-down business; but what if itis? —I’m low-down; and I’m agoing to steal him, and I want you to keep mum and not let
on. Will you?” Huck is astonished when Tom not only agrees to “keep mum,” but further
says, “I’ll help you steal him!” (284). Tom suggests that they each “study out a plan tosteal Jim . . . and we’ll take the one we like the best” (291). Here is Huck’s description ofhis plan:“We can easy find out if it’s Jim in there. Then get up my canoe tomorrow night,
and fetch my raft over from the island. Then the first dark night that comes, steal the
key out of the old man’s britches, after he goes to bed, and shove off down the river on
the raft, with Jim, hiding daytimes and running nights, the way me and Jim used to do
before. Wouldn’t that plan work?” (292).
Unveiled in one short paragraph, Huck’s proposal is clear, concise and immediately
ready for action. Tom’s reaction is characteristic; he responds to Huck’s question about
whether the plan just offered will work with, “Work? Why cert’nly, it would work, likerats a-fighting. But it’s too blame’ simple; there ain’t nothing to it. What’s the good ofa plan that ain’t no more trouble than that? It’s as mild as goose-milk. Why, Huck, it
wouldn’t make no more talk than breaking into a soap factory” (292).
Tom’s objection to Huck’s plan is actually longer than Huck’s plan, but as usually
happens when they are together, Huck defers and accepts Tom’s plan, which Hucksays, “was worth fifteen of mine, for style, and would make Jim just as free a man as
mine would, and maybe get us all killed, besides” (292). Tom’s plan comprises a mishmash of escape scenes and motifs that he has gleaned from romantic adventure stories,
and if Huck puts up any objection, Tom chastises him for his intolerable ignorance.
When Huck points out, for example, that Jim could simply lift the bed he is chained to
and walk away, Tom answers with exasperation, “Why, hain’t you ever read any books
at all? — Baron Trenck, nor Casanova, nor Benvenuto Chelleeny, nor Henri IV, nor─ 109 ─

Timothy Gould

none of them heroes? Whoever heard of getting a prisoner loose in such an old-maidy
way as that?” (299). Again and again Tom invokes “the authorities” and trumpets theself-proclaimed expertise he has conferred upon himself by dint of reading them as
justification to repudiate almost every objection Huck raises. As the evasion unfolds,
Jim, who is still being detained, is subjected to all manner of humilities as he, too, plays
along with Tom’s romantic notions of what an escape must be. Tom eventually decides
that Jim simply must carve his coat of arms and other “mournful inscriptions” into arock, a log will not do, insisting, “they don’t have log walls in a dungeon: we got to dig
the inscriptions into a rock” (323). The rock Tom is determined to use, however, is agrindstone, which turns out to be too heavy for the boys to move. To solve this problem,
they decide to go and get Jim. When they get to where Jim is being held, Jim, “raised up
his bed and slid the chain off the bed-leg, and wrapt it round and round his neck, and we
crawled out through our hole and down there, and Jim and me laid into that grindstone
and walked her along like nothing” (323). Jim simply “escapes” to help the boys, layingout boldly the irony that has been apparent to us all along. Furthermore, when it turns
out the hole to get the grindstone into the shack is too small, “Jim he took the pickand soon made it big enough” (324). A full catalog of the satiric antics comprising theevasion is beyond the scope of this paper, but clearly the positive character growthand development that Huck and Jim evinced during their earlier voyage down theMississippi are no longer evident.
Here I will lay out some of Twain’s pragmatic and artistic expediencies that may
account for this character “reversion” and consider how these choices influence thenature of the evasion sequence. Initially, Twain set out to produce “another boy’s book,a sequel to Tom Sawyer . . . but soon found himself with several hundred pages of amanuscript increasingly less like Tom Sawyer and more like no book that anyone —including Twain himself — had ever written before” (Fishkin ix). Twain surely intended
to maintain Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as something of a hybrid of a children’s tale
and a boy-book. Using Hunter’s terminology, “the former is composed for the amusementof children, the latter is composed about children for the amusement of adults” (431).
The combination of these two was Twain’s domain, a place in literature where he hadalready, with Tom Sawyer, carved out a special niche. Twain is “unique . . . in being awriter whose children’s books are taken with complete seriousness by literary critics
as an important part of adult literature” (Hunter 431). But the farther Huck and Jim
travel down the river, and the more “enlightened” they become, the more dangerous theterritory for Twain and the closer they come to crossing over the nebulous boundary─ 110 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry Finn

which would make the book inaccessible and even inappropriate for one of its ostensible
target audiences - children. The early chapters of the novel do, as Fishkin notes,
maintain a continuity with, and can be seen as a sequel to Adventures of Tom Sawyer,
while the middle chapters drift into uncharted, yet still navigable territory for Twain’s
purposes. But the trajectory Huck and Jim are on leads naturally to an unsupportableoutcome in terms of keeping the book in its intended domain.
Imagine that Twain would have allowed Jim and Huck to maintain, after they hadreached the Phelps’s farm, the character traits they had developed over the course of
their journey; Jim as an independent, feeling, fully formed and well-rounded man, andHuck, with his new insight, suddenly able to pierce the thick shroud of ironic ignorance
that has enveloped him and reflect on his newfound understanding of humanity. In
other words, his bildungsromanesque trajectory would require him to acknowledge andrespond to his complete and total misapprehension of himself, recognizing that he truly
is fundamentally good where he has all along considered himself fundamentally bad. If
Twain did this, he would have sacrificed at least one of the elements of the novel thatmake it great — our access, through irony, to Huck’s truly strong moral fiber.
Huck does indeed have some reflective access to his conscience, but it always
delivers the “wrong” results, so that he consistently arrives at the conclusion that, as adirect outcome of his deficient upbringing, his bad “line,” he is a deeply flawed humanbeing. Readers, however, even younger ones, can effortlessly recognize Huck’s inherent
goodness. This easily visible irony is one of the exciting elements that raises the novelout of the realm of the saccharine and makes it perennially popular with younger
readers - it is an interesting children’s story, but it has just enough sophistication, at
this level, to make it seem, to younger readers, that they are ‘getting’ an adult story.
It is Huck’s mistaken conviction that his badness is an irresistible force, impossible toovercome, which gives him the confidence to carry out the “despicable” act of stealing
Jim. Huck reconciles himself to his own bad character, unknowingly confirming, atleast for us, the readers, his own goodness. If Twain abandoned that and gave Huck
direct access to his own (true) conscience, the book would become ‘flat,’ and its charm,
for a very important target audience, would be lost. The budding bildungsroman, then,once Huck has resolved himself to Hell, is abandoned and Huck and Jim are returned,
so that Twain may make further use of them for satiric purposes, to their initial onedimensional states.
Critics of the evasion chapters complain that, in failing to allow Huck to complete
the trajectory of his character arc, the unity of the novel is fatally disrupted, diminishing─ 111 ─

Timothy Gould

its stature as a first rate classic. Burg, however, remarks that, “Critics who judge thenovel’s ending a failure mistake Mark Twain’s thematic purposes and undervalue his
artistic achievement through an unwillingness to deal with his masterpiece in its own
terms” (299). Twain does sacrifice the “realness” of his characters in the final chapters,
but this is not a manifestation of laziness or because of an inability to adequately handle
the issues he had raised in the earlier parts of the book. Twain was certainly cognizantof the choices he made in writing the evasion sequence, and the notion that he somehow
did not “control” his own writing must be dispelled.
The naturalness of Twain’s prose and his smooth, accurate, almost invisible,
presentation of eye dialect created what Moore, in 1922, termed, “an almost universal
prejudice,” (324) wherein Twain was regarded as a sort of American savant, not aparticipant in an historical succession of connected literature, but an emergent property,
a unique literary entity rising out of the American soil with no antecedents or forebears.
This mistaken sense of his literary grounding may lead to an oversimplified view ofthe structure of Huckleberry Finn and to an under appreciation of the depth of Twain’s
genius. H.L. Mencken debunked another related fallacy of Twain’s reputation when hedeclared emphatically that, “nothing could be more unsound than the Mark legend —the legend of the light-hearted and kindly old clown” (147), referring to the notion that
Twain’s works were simply dashed out off the top of his head with no inherent structureor planning. The evasion chapters, far from supplying support for these ideas, aretestament to Twain’s deep understanding of his own genre.
As Henrickson has pointed out, there are additional rationales that can accountfor the reappearance of Tom at the evasion. Namely, we know Twain intended to anddid continue to use Tom as a character in subsequent books (Tom Sawyer Detective
and Tom Sawyer Abroad), so it is appropriate, even necessary, for Tom not simply todisappear forever after providing the ‘link’ connecting The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Throughout Huckleberry Finn , Tom’s savvy
intelligence is referred to and highly respected by both Huck and Jim. He is, for them,
the pinnacle of brainpower, and although they may not understand or even agree withhis motivations during the evasion, they nevertheless go along with almost all of hissuggestions; there is no discernible wavering about who is the boss of the show. Twain’s
ability to maintain Tom as a likable character, when by rights we should abhor him, as
his treatment of Jim occasionally verges on torture, is a testament both to Twain’s skill
as a writer and evidence of the effectiveness of his choice of “flattening” the charactersin the final chapters. The impression is not one of watching “real” people, we understand─ 112 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry Finn

and accept that we are looking at a satire of Tom’s romantic notions. This ultimately
buffers Tom from what should be our natural response - to despise him. In other words,
if we were to make a ledger of his behavior, both good and bad, we should hate him, but
to the contrary, he is universally loved. We “know” him too well, and can forgive this“play” version of him, and his ‘naughty boy’ image is not easily displaced in favor of aninterpretation where he might be considered essentially bad or evil. From a pragmatic
viewpoint, Twain, always concerned with financial profit, must have wanted to keep his
book marketable as ostensibly a ‘boys book’. Ending with this superficially playful sceneof the evasion, while troubling for adults and critics, is exactly the kind of adventurethat attracts young readers. Without modern guidance and the benefit of ‘enlightened’
views on race, it is a romp, and funny on its face. Kids rightly think they are getting theirony during the evasion (just a different level of irony, as we will see later), which ‘feels’
like and gives the book a sophistication beyond the normal fare meant for this target
audience.
The evasion fits the novel and actually serves to unify it, not only from a pragmatic
perspective, maintaining the boy-book aspect of the narrative, but also in an artistic
sense, which, as I will discuss shortly, allows Twain to make available in the evasion adeeper, satiric “level” of interpretation, further falsifying the “kindly old clown” myth.
Finally, it is through the “Notice” at the beginning of the book that Twain projects, in
his inimitable style, his intent that the ending of the narrative, the part most likely tocause a violation of the edict itself, is meant to remain firmly grounded on his own hometurf children’s literature/boy-book, and any attempts to take it from that domain will not
be tolerated. That being said, the evasion is nonetheless where Twain makes his mostcaustic, albeit subtle, satiric commentary.
The first American edition of Huckleberry Finn appeared in 1885, but, as Quirk
notes, Twain wrote Adventures of Huckleberry Finn sporadically starting in 1876, and,“Over the extended period of composition, Twain’s political, social, and philosophicalattitudes changed as did his attitude toward Huck’s narrative” (39). Harold Kolb
interprets the evasion at its most accessible level of satire and finds that the “final
chapters constitute an amusing parody of The Count of Monte Cristo and The Man in
the Iron Mask,” but he may not be giving Twain his due when he concludes that, “Twain
seems to have traded in his satiric cannon for a popgun” (8). Quirk, who to a large extent
defends the greatness of Twain’s narrative, placing it in the illustrious company ofAmerican classics such as Moby Dick and The Sound and the Fury, claims that, in termsof “flaws” in the novel, including the ending, “Mark Twain appears to have fallen asleep

─ 113 ─

Timothy Gould

with his face in the soup” (38). Fishkin, however, moves towards what I think is a moreaccurate reading and finds a sharper satire at work when she notes that, “HuckleberryFinn is subversive in ways that Tom Sawyer is not”(xi).
This subversive nature hinges on the evasion as, “a satire of the many betrayals andindignities African-Americans endured after the breakdown of Reconstruction” (Fishkinxvi). Similarly, Gollin and Gollin refer to the ending as a, “satire on enlightened white
attitudes toward the freed black man, not in the 1840’s, when the story is set, but in the
1880’s, when the chapters were written” (6). Riding stowaway, as it were, on Twain’s
ostensible boy-story, the deep satire of the evasion contains an unexpected level of social
commentary that Twain skillfully couched in the genre his readers expected. Fishkinpoints out as well that, “Huckleberry Finn is a masterful satire not of slavery, which had
been abolished a decade before Twain began writing the novel, but of the racism thatsuffused American society as Twain wrote the book in the late 1870’s and early 1880’s
and that continues to stain American culture” (Fishkin xvi).
H.L. Mencken offers an account that illustrates and rationalizes Twain’s imperative
to “bury” the deeply satiric elements of Huckleberry Finn. Mencken writes that, “Marknew his countrymen. He knew their intense suspicion of ideas, their blind hatred ofheterodoxy, their bitter way of dealing with dissenters. He knew how, their pruderies
outraged, they would turn upon even the gaudiest hero and roll him in the mud. And
knowing, he was afraid” (149). A blatant satire, though of a mild intensity, such as we
see leveled against Tom’s Walter Scott inspired romantic notions of the South, might
be considered a kind of gentle poking, rather than the deeper, more caustic criticism
directed at the failure of reconstruction and both the North and the South’s dismaltreatment of the freed slave population. Twain was willing to offer the former at facevalue, but the latter, as pointed out by Mencken, would have verged on foolish to
an author known to be apprehensive of his own public persona to the extent that hedemanded that his autobiography not be published in its entirety until one hundredyears after his death. Pascal Covici, Jr., discussing Twain’s presentation, says, “onecan deliver a satire with telling force through the insidious medium of a travesty if heis careful not to overwhelm the satire with the extraneous interest of the travesty.” In
Huckleberry Finn, Twain certainly pushed this to its limits, and ultimately delivered a“forceful”, yet sufficiently subtle, satire.
Because it is not always obvious on its face, when attempting to determine if weare dealing with a satire, we must often take recourse to historical context to find thepossible analogues that may be lurking in a particular novel. Following are briefly some─ 114 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry Finnof the satiric analogies employed by Twain: Tom can be seen as a symbol of the Southernestablishment; when he is on the scene, no divergence from “mainstream,” received
behavior is brooked, and he is the arbiter of the “right” way to do things, a power
bestowed on him by the “authorities” in his romantic fictions. Huck and Jim are “erased”
as volitional creatures and the tentative progress made during their time alone, theirearlier return to a ‘natural state’, as it were, a state unimpeded by society, where they
were as they would be without the insidious influence of societal pressure, is subjugatedto the pressure that Tom himself brings to bear on them in the form of the requirements
and vagaries of mainstream culture. Jim is technically and legally free during the entire
time of the evasion, and from the time Tom appears on the scene, the reader is acutely
aware of this. Despite this “freedom,” he remains in bondage, unable to act under his
own agency. At the time of the publication of Huckleberry Finn, reconstruction, theperiod after the Civil War which was meant to reconcile the previously warring Northand South, had ended. Slaves, of course, had been emancipated, but for all intents andpurposes their prospects were not much changed from their time in bondage. The early
hope of reconstruction, in which the promise of true freedom and full participation in
American society was distinctly possible for the former slaves, had begun on a strong
note, and many former slaves had begun participate in public life. The project crashed,however, on the rocks of the white supremacy movement, which successfully terrorized
African Americans, in the form of, among others, the KKK, and codified its distorted
notions in the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes. The brief moment of hope deliveredsome enduring results, but in the main, African Americans were reduced to a virtual
continuation of slave labor.
Chadwick-Joshua points out that, “Tom’s reappearance signifies the still (un)reconstructed South, for [Twain] sees no problem in using Jim as a vehicle for having
fun and adventure. Jim completes the realistic and rather dark picture of the progress
and promise of reconstruction. Jim universally represents the southern ex-slave whose
future and anticipated quality of life are at best questionable — given the pervasive
economic, social, and political conditions in the South during the late 1880s”(xix).
Fishkin additionally notes that, “The final section of Huckleberry Finn-which revolves
around Tom Sawyer’s bizarre maneuvers to free a slave who, it turns out, is already free
— increasingly came to be understood as a satire on the ways in which the United Statesbotched the enterprise of freeing the slaves.”
Finally, it seems to me that Huck symbolizes the North. He recognized Jim’s
humanity, and we loved him for that, but as soon as he is with Tom again, he absolves

─ 115 ─

Timothy Gould

himself of any responsibility for Jim’s welfare, except in purely existential terms. The
North, in terms of Reconstruction, was tired of fighting, both against the South and forthe freed slaves. They gave up, and when they stopped being responsible and exertingthemselves, the South of the Black Codes rose up and filled the vacuum. This is precisely
what happens when Huck and Tom are together and it is to the detriment of both ofthem, just as both the North and South were ultimately weakened when the promise of
Reconstruction was allowed to be destroyed.

Works Cited
Bassett, John Earl. “‘Huckleberry Finn’: The End Lies in the Beginning.” American
Literary Realism, 1870-1910 17.1 (1984): 89–98.
Berret, Anthony J. “Huckleberry Finn and the Minstrel Show.” American Studies 27.2
(1986): 37–49.
Burg, David F. “Another View of Huckleberry Finn.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 29.3
(1974): 299–319.
Camfield, Gregg. The Oxford Companion to Mark Twain. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003.
Chadwick-Joshua, Jocelyn. The Jim Dilemma: Reading Race in Huckleberry Finn.
Univ. Press of Mississippi, 1998.
Covici, Pascal Jr. Mark Twain’s Humor: The Image of a World. Southern Methodist
University Press, 1962.
Eliot, T.S. “Introduction to ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.’” Bloom’s Modern
Critical Views: Mark Twain. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 2006.
33-41.
Ellison, Ralph. “Twentieth-Century Fiction and the Black Mask of Humanity.” The MarkTwain Anthology: Great Writers on His Life and Works. Ed. Shelley Fisher Fishkin.
New York: Library of America, 2010. 253–270.
Fishkin, Shelley Fisher. Introduction. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn. By Mark Twain. New York: Signet, 2002. v–xxiv.
Gollin, Richard, and Rita Gollin. “‘ Huckleberry Finn’ and the Time of the Evasion.”
Modern Language Studies (1979): 5–15.
Hemingway, Ernest. Green Hills of Africa. 1935. New York: Scribner, 2003.
Henrickson, Gary P. “Biographers’ Twain, Critics’ Twain, Which of the Twain Wrote the‘Evasion’?” The Southern Literary Journal 26.1 (1993): 14–29.

─ 116 ─The Never Ending Ending: Pragmatic and Artistic Choices in the‘Evasion’of Huckleberry FinnHill, Richard. “Overreaching: Critical Agenda and the Ending of Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 33.4 (1991): 492–513.
Hunter, Jim. “Mark Twain and the Boy-Book in 19th-Century America.” College English
24.6 (1963): 430–438.
Kolb, Harold H. Jr. “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” The Routledge Encyclopedia ofMark Twain. Ed. J. R. LeMaster and James D. Wilson. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Mencken, H.L. “Mark Twain.” The Mark Twain Anthology: Great Writers on His Life andWorks. Ed. Shelley Fisher Fishkin. New York: Library of America, 2010. 141–150.
Nilon, Charles H. “The Ending of ‘Huckleberry Finn’:‘ Freeing the Free Negro’.” MarkTwain Journal 22.2 (1984): 21–27.
Quirk, Tom. “The Flawed Greatness of Huckleberry Finn.” American Literary Realism
45.1 (2012): 38–48.
Trites, Roberta S. “Concord Public Library.” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Mark Twain.
1993. Ed. J. R. LeMaster and James D. Wilson. 2011.
Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 1885. Ed. Victor Fischer and Lin Salamo.
Berkeley: U of California P, 2001.
Wallace, John H. “The Case Against Huck Finn.” Satire or Evasion. Durham: Duke UP,
1992. 16–24.

─ 117 ─