Talk:Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article was the Novels WikiProject Collaboration of the Month (October 2, 2006-November 1, 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
To-do list for Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
[edit] POV
The novel beings with "you don't know me" - would it be considered second person, or is this incidental? 70.255.1.78 06:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, the line you quote above is a comment made by the first-person narrator, Huck. A second-person narrator would involve the entire novel being written so that "you" are the point of view. "You wake up, feeling slightly congested. You get up, go to the mirror, and look at your bleary face, bloodshot eyes, and rumpled hair, and think, 'I need a Tylenol.'" Not much literature is written in this style, although some interactive fiction and gamebooks, such as the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series, employ it. Applejuicefool 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
The great irony of satire is that the more skillfully the author creates the satire, the less effective it becomes. There are virtually no instances in history where a satirist has successfully brought about the changes needed in a society. Mark Twain is nearly universally held to be a better writer than Harriet Beecher Stowe. And yet while Huck Finn is held to be a great work of literature, Uncle Tom’s Cabin is a great work of human conscience. Huck Finn was banned because of its incorrect use of language and because of the mischeovus pranks played corrupting young boys, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was burned because it exposed the injustice and cruelty of the south. Huck Finn was written decades after the Civil War had ended, and yet it had the power to be the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of its time, by powerfully attacking the slavery of the 1840s it had the power to attack the racism of the 1880s. Instead Mark Twain choose to play the role of court jester. Lionel Trilling believes that while the ending was somewhat mechanical and a “falling off”, that it was a necessary evil in order to bring back the mood of the start of the book. T.S. Elliot also argues that the end of the novel should bring the book back to the beginning and furthermore suggests that the way the novel ends is in the same style of the way the Mississipi itself ends. Leo Marx on the other hand argues that the ending is a betrayal of everything that Mark Twain has built up throughout the novel and a reliance on the very society that Twain has criticized as being so evil. Of these three arguments Leo Marx is most correct because he takes in to account human elements, and the powerful need for freedom into account, while T.S. Elliots and Lionel Trilling are more concerned with literary atmosphere and the geography of the great river. The ending to Huck Finn is a betrayal of Mark twain’s vision because instead of mocking the evils of society it mocks the noble truths it has attempted to reveal.
The ending of Huckleberry Finn suggests that the growth that Huck has made throughout the river voyage has been meaningless.
` In the final scenes of Huck Finn, Jim becomes the black face comedy act that blacks traditionally heled in literature and theater during this time period, abandoning his growth as a human being.
Throughout Huck Finn Mark Twain attacked and revealed the evils and cruelities of Southern society, at the end of the novel however Huck and Jim are saved by the same society Twain has spent the whole novel condemining.
--Gary123 11:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page one
Ironically, reading this book was the single biggest factor in my life that made me, a middle-class white, an anti-racist. I won't get into details here of how I suffered for my principled stand, suffice it to say that my family and I rarely lost an opportunity to oppose discrimination and prejudice against blacks and other races. User:Ed Poor
- An excellent argument for keeping the book in US schools! :) -- April
Yes, I think opposition to Huck was primarily a straw man -- any non-black using the term nigger must be a racist; the use must be hate speech. The Disney Channel made a movie called "Return to Hannibal" and made a publiticy point of quoting the actor portraying Jim as saying that he refused to take the part if the word nigger appeared in the screenplay.
My take on taboo words is: if you use a word to hurt, that is teasing (which is generally wrong, or at least impolite). However, the mere use of a word does not IMHO imply the intent to hurt; nor does the mere expression of an opinion. Which is why I think hate speech rules are silly at best and actually an infringement on free speech probably aimed at enforcing political correctness.
But I digress . . .
It could also be that some black racists (i.e., they hate whites) don't want anyone to know about prominent whites who oppose racism. Suppressing Huck (while branding it racist) keeps people from realizing just how prevalent anti-racism is among whites. Sheer speculation, of course; how could I be so cynical?
Moved from Toboo word
A friend, a father figure, and a silent mentor; these three traits portray Jim from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in more ways then one. Jim is a symbol of equality that shows Huck that in truth, blacks and whites can be equal. The bizarre part of it is, that Jim has no idea that he is such an influence on Huck. Take this quote for example, “Huck; you’s de bes’ fren’ Jim’s ever had; en you’s de only fren’ old Jim’s got now. -Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on’y white genlman dat ever up’ his promise to ole Jim.” (Twain 87). Huck realizes that he means something to Jim, he is a friend, and in turn he takes a closer look at what Jim really stands for. In the quote, “He was thinking about his wife and his children, away up yonder, and he was low and homesick; because he hadn’t ever been away from home before in his life; and I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their’n.” (Twain 150). Huck is changing his whole perspective of Jim and taking it into consideration that the way he was brought up was unethical and entirely racist towards good people, like Jim. Huck recognizes that Jim has a family of his own that he has to be parted with, and like a sincere man, this dismays him. Whether Huck perceives it, or not, Jim is a fatherly icon whose advice needs to be taken advantage of and this reference validates this point, “Jim whispered and said he was feeling powerful sick, and told me to come along.” (Twain 66). This particular incident happens when Huck wants to explore a sinking ship, and like a troubled father, Jim was late to provide an answer. Seeing that Huck keeps nagging, Jim agrees, but soon after he pretends to be ill to con Huck off the ship, given that he is worried about him. Jim does not see his impact on Huck and an example of this is the turning part in the story when Huck proceeds to yell, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell” (Twain 206). for Jim’s sake of not turning him in. Jim was a silent mentor to Huck, but just the same, he was a good one. (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn).
- This needs to be cleaned up a bit to be encyclopedic and perhaps shortened, but can and should be included in this article. --maveric149
I haven't read the book, but this article clearly propagates the opinion that it is definitely not racist, in spite of its numerous bannings. I think the article should be rewritten to remove this bias. Jheijmans 05:42 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
- There's far too much about racism and far too little about the first great American novel in this article. Ortolan88 08:53 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
Thanks for taking this up, but the new sentence in the first section, the quote from Hemingway doesn't look very encyclopedic to me either, since this is one man's opinion (I assume), and not the general truth (again, I assume). So maybe something like this is a little better: "Some, like Hemingway, claim that "<quote>".
Even then I'm not too pleased with adding quotes to articles, but that's my personal opinion. Jheijmans 10:14 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
- I, on the other hand, the old reporter, am a sucker for a quote, and if the greatest American novelist of the 20th century tips his hat to the greatest American novelist of the 19th century, and also summarizes a widely held position, then it seems okay to me. I just looked at it. I think the Hemingway quote supports the previous sentence, "commonly accounted the first great American novel", which isn't just my opinion or Hemingway's. Oh, what the heck, I'll change it as you suggest! It reads better as a separate paragraph, and Hemingway was talking about the vernacular as well as the literary impact. As for the utility of quotes, see what two Miles Davis quotes at the beginning and end contribute to the Louis Armstrong article. Ortolan88 10:29 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
What about the rest of the Hemingway quote, which says to ignore the end of the book, since it's cheating? Koyaanis Qatsi 11:49 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
- Well, if I put that in (which I had forgotten), then the quote definitely wouldn't go at the top. On the other had, I do deal with the issue in a more broad way, when I talk about whether the beginning and end with Tom Sawyer are as good as the middle without him. Article is a work in progress.Ortolan88 12:48 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT) PS - I found several more versions of the quote, but none with the "cheat" part. Do you have?Ortolan88 12:57 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
I encountered that quote in class about 5 years ago, I'll look for it but make no guarantees. I'm sure I don't have the notes any more. Koyaanis Qatsi
...
I looked in the Norton Anthology of American Lit, but they just mention Hemingway's praise, not the other half. So to find the quote I'll have to email my former professor, which means that first I'll have to remember his name. Funny, I can remember what he looks like and that he was a big fan of Saul Bellow. Koyaanis Qatsi
I never expected to find it, but I did--just after finding a paper with the professor's name on it and just before giving up to email him.
- "All American literature comes from Huck Finn. But don't read the last 11 chapters; that's just cheating."
I cited it as Green Hills of Africa p.22, 1935. Oh, and also that T. S. Eliot apparently loved even the ending. No quote on that, though. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:59 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
- One of us is going to have to look at The Green Hills of Africa because the starting quote is extended elsewhere, but without that phrase. (I like a dubious character like Hemingway complaining about cheating.) At any rate, the quote will lose its pride of place in the article when we get it right, and appear somewhere closer to the bottom, just above the censorship maybe.Ortolan88 17:53 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)
Well, I don't have a personal copy of Green Hills, though I could get one from any number of local libraries. And so far as the cheating goes--yes, Hemingway himself had a dubious character, but I don't think any of his novels suffered such a blatant deus ex machina as what I recall from the end of Huck Finn--and it has been five years since I read it, so please forgive me if I don't elaborate--I just recall agreeing completely with Hemingway that it was a form of literary "cheating." It is a fine story anyay ... peace in the literary camps, to each his own, onward with the wiki-pedia, huh? :-) And if we want unqualified praise from a respected author, we might look up Eliot. Koyaanis Qatsi
I think I must have written the quote wrong--perhaps I was paraphrasing, or perhaps the prof got the meaning right but the words wrong, and mentioned the source. I will look it up. Meanwhile, here's this: http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/campbell/enl311/huckquot.html
- Hemingway deus ex machina: the mangled body part in A Farewell to Arms is left totally ambiguous as to its effect on performance, and this in a love story.
- The quote link is excellent, and I trust the Hemingway quote better than anything else I've seen. The last time I read Huck I really reconciled myself to the final chapters as an inevitable return to the "real", that is to say false, world. In Twain's notes he has the idea that Tom and Huck end up with an elephant! Now that would have been cheating.
What mangled body part in A Farewell to Arms?
So far as The Sun Also Rises goes, there's a part that amuses me a lot where Brett and Jake are in the hotel together; Brett's man has gone to get wine or something and it says "Then later:" and Brett asks Jake if he feels any better. But my theory on that is that book is not in fact a tragedy, but a cynical comedy. Refresh my memory on A Farewell to Arms, please (and I just read it over Christmas break!) Koyaanis Qatsi
- Trip to library. May be confused. Ortolan88 16:46 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)
User:Ed Poor, I don't have any problems with the edit you made about racism (although I am going to try to address the issue in more detail later), but I do object to the summary comment that went along with it:
- "mere usage of word 'nigger' justifies labeling the book as racist"
Since you didn't actually label the book as racist, the following is theoretical. Are Niggaz With Attitude racist? Is the scene in Blazing Saddles ("I'm going to kill the nigger") racist? Is Dick Gregory's autobiography Nigger racist? (Gregory said, "Momma, every time you hear that word, you'll know they're advertising my book.") The word nigger appears 215 times in the book, including one of the most powerful scenes in the book, in which Huck apologizes to Jim for fooling him and says, in effect, "It was hard to humble myself to a nigger, but I done it and I was better for it". If anything, the word needs to be demythologized and Huckleberry Finn is the book to do it. Ortolan88 19:21 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)
Ortolan, what I meant by the "mere usage" thing is that some advocates automatically assume (or at least see an excellent opportunity to claim) that any non-black author who uses the term nigger is a racist. I guess they reason that only a racist would print such a derogatory term. They possibility that Twain was a non-racist or even an anti-racist does not seem to enter these advocates' minds.
I think the novel would have seemed inauthentic if Twain had cleaned up the language, as Disney did with "Return to Hannibal". People back then, black and white, used the term nigger a lot.
Another question is to what extent Twain used Huck's narration as an ironic way of expressing his own views on race relations. He has Huck, a rebellious young man, say (in effect) "I don't care if society says freeing a slave is wrong. I think it's right, and I'm going to do it even if they say I'm going to hell." Could this be what the author wanted to say outright? Could it that he wants the reader, who has learned to sympathize with Huck, to agree with Huck's sentiments? Ed Poor
About the Hemingway quote--sorry for the delay; work has been kicking me around a bit.
Ordinarily I would preface this with the usual "yes, this book is in the first-person singular, but please do not mistake the narrator for the author," etc. speech, but note Hemingway's Foreword:
- Unlike many novels, none of the characters or incidents in this book is imaginary. Any one not finding sufficient love interest is at liberty, while reading it, to insert whatever love interest he or she may have at the time. The writer has attempted to write an absolutely true book to see whether the shape of a country and the pattern of a month's action can, if truly presented, compete with a work of the imagination.
Then, on page 22 (in a conversation about American authors that has already lasted for four pages):
- "But what about Thoreau?"
- "You'll have to read him. Maybe I'll be able to later. I can do nearly everything later."
- "Better have some more beer, Papa."
- "All right."
- "What about the good writers?"
- "The good writers are Henry James, Stephen Crane, and Mark Twain. That's not the order they're good in. There is no order for good writers."
- "Mark Twain is a humorist. The others I do not know."
- "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating. But 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."
- "What about the others?"
- "Crane wrote two fine stories. The Open Boat and The Blue Hotel. The last one is the best."
- "And what happened to him?"
- "He died. That's simple. He was dying from the start."
etc.
--KQ 15:53 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
- I reckon that "All modern American literature" quote belongs in the Hemingway article, with a link back here to ol' Huck. Ed Poor
Why isn't the information at the end, on censorship, put in it's place? -- Octothorn
- And what is it is place? --Brion
-
- In censorship -- Octothorn
-
-
- I disagree. I think it's relevant to the book that the final reaction of some people is to try to prevent other people from reading it. Koyaanis Qatsi
-
Although the Concord, Massachusetts library banned the book shortly after its publication because of its tawdry subject manner and the coarse, ignorant language in which it was narrated, the San Francisco Chronicle came quickly to its defense on March 29, 1885:
This seemed (either intentionally or not) heavily POV. I added quotes around the claims of tawdry subject and ignorant language but someone may want to clean it up further. 65.116.19.243 14:28, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn → Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, over a redirect page – The latter is the book's actual title (see [1]). --Calton | Talk 01:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
Support
- I am for "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". -- Darwinek 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The cover of the first United States edition (shown here) did not contain the initial The, though some later editions do. Jonathunder 05:16, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- Support I've seen numerous copies of the book and they all seem to say "The". Also the seems to sound more appropriate. So I'm gonna have to go with support.
- I also believe that including 'The' makes the title sound better.
Oppose
- I'm afraid I'm going to oppose this one. Although it seems that you are correct in some instances other sources do include The in the title - the image in the article and numerous links, for example. violet/riga (t) 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- VR is correct. "The" does seem to be in the title. - UtherSRG 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Support I've seen numerous copies of the book and they all seem to say "The". Also the seems to sound more appropriate. So I'm gonna have to go with support.
[edit] Discussion
-
- Add any additional comments
When will this vote be closed, and what % of supporting votes will be considered a mandate? Kingturtle 02:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to vote please do it quickly - I'll be closing the vote later on today and, as it stands, will be moving it. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I really think you need to let this vote stay open for a 5 to 7 days. Kingturtle 20:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is Jim "wise"?
"the main black character, Jim, who is depicted as wise and unselfish, albeit uneducated and superstitious."
My recollection of Jim's character is that he is, though good-hearted and loyal, not what I would call "wise". Comments?
I would have to say that he would not be fit for the word "wise" for the fact that most of his smarts are common sense. das feuer
It's not as much common sense as it is a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge doesn't necessarily mean unwise, but I think Jim only appears to be wise because he has such a simple view on life. --EHoffman 01:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's certainly something where a source could (and should) be cited; many, many essays on Huckleberry Finn (and Jim in particular) are available in academic journals. --LostLeviathan 13:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] See, this is why you can't use WIKIPEDIA as a source
The author of the original entry says that the Duke and the King tried to swindle four orphan girls, when there were only three:
It's a pretty long journey. But it'll be lovely; wisht I was a-going. Is Mary Jane the oldest? How old is the others?"
"Mary Jane's nineteen, Susan's fifteen, and Joanna's about fourteen -- that's the one that gives herself to good works and has a hare-lip."
It's not a major plot point, but if you've read the book you should know this.
Always verify anything you read on WIKIPEDIA through another source.
[edit] I deleted the bit about Jim being the best man in the story
Jim may be better than many of the people portrayed in Huckleberry Finn, but he isn't therefore the best man, unless there's something I'm missing about Judge Thatcher, who protected and fought for Huck as best he could within the parameters of the law.
(Present tense, this is a book not a history. It is true that Judge Thatcher comes across as canny and virtuous, as, in fact, does the doctor who tries to alert the townspeople that King and Duke are frauds. Are these not minor characters, men who apepar for a moment? I see that the Note on Character that I inserted has been deleted by some well-intentioned person who is unaware of the depth and ubiquity of the problem and has replaced it with an unsupported statement attributing the entire problem to a single biographer. It could have been let remain. I am new to this, as you can see. S Filler 8-10-06)
[edit] Racism
The book labels almost every white character as stupid, racist and ignorant while the main black character is wise and kind hearted. It stereotypes white people and is therefore racist. Just because the victim of this racism isnt seen as some sort of 'underdog' it doesnt mean it isnt racism.
- Kindly explain how portraying American society as it was in the 1840s is racism. Most white people across the United States during this period held racist views, as practically every historical source from that time verifies. Twain is fictionalizing the very real world that he lived in. That's not racism.--Pinko1977 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, Mark Twain was white himself, so it can't be "anti-white" racist. Self-critical, perhaps. Kind of amusing, really - a basically anti-racist book being blamed "racist" in both directions! --Illythr 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
yes one of the greatest books ever written... serioulsy, it rocks, read it now!
I disagree, I don't like it very much.
- Twain is satirizing the period he lived in. That was the whole point of him writing the book.Gotmesomepants 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Besides, Mark Twain was white himself, so it can't be "anti-white" racist." Who says a white person can't be racist against white people? Seems to me that any person who is opposed to a group of people based on race is racist, regardless of their own race. I'm not saying Mark Twain suffered from racism, just pointing out that this statement is untrue. Applejuicefool 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Themes
The section about themes of the book could use a lot more work. There are too many paragraphs that just say "A major theme of the book is...." with very little discussion. --Phoenix Hacker 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White Trash angle
I think the real reason people may find this book offensive is not only because of the frequent use of the N word, but also because it basically points out how evil and base white trash can become. There are a few "good" white characters in the book, though at times you may be able to point out their hypocrisy, but when they are evil they are downright nasty, for example Huck's Pap who is just about the epitome of the very definition of what one could define white trash as. So there's plenty o' reason for white folks t' hate this book too, I reckon, which explains why it's so banned. Basically, blacks don't like it, whites don't like it, the only ones who can possibly like it are the literary free-thinkers, but a body has to be a might educated for that, don' he? Actually, upon reflection even the free-thinkers can hate it too because they should be free to love and hate whatever they like. It looks like Huck Finn just can't get a break. It just crosses too many people and definitely has the house stacked against it.
[edit] Time of the book
In the article, it says the book probably took place in the 1820's. However, At the neginning of the book it says that it takes place "forty to fiftey years ago" and it was released in 1884. This means it took place between 1834-1844.
[edit] Censorship?
One of the listed examples of censorship is "excluded from the juvenile sections of the Brooklyn Public library and other libraries." How is it censorship to categorize this book as adult literature? I would suggest removing this example, and instead adding a bit on the arguments about whether or not it is children's literature. --LostLeviathan 13:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plot summary
The plot summary should probably be expanded to an actual plot summary. Right now it doesn't say all that much about the story. I'm propbably not the best person to do it as I haven't read it in almost 2 years (and honestly I'm not a huge fan), but if nobody else does it I might try (with the aid of sparknotes I guess, purely for summary, not analysis, purposes).--Derco 21:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] J'Accuse
The paucity of this article, on the novel sometimes called the greatest in American literature, and included on almost every list of the top half-dozen, should be a source of great shame for the Wikipedia. -- Writtenonsand 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reference without precedent
Albert Bigelow Paine's 1912 Twain biography marks the first use of the term "Nigger Jim," a phrase not attributed to Clemens, causing its rise in usage in short-hand descriptions of the character in critical essays.
"Clemens" would be who, or what exactly? 87.112.94.111 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe that that was Mark Twain's real name. --YankeeDoodle14 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Duh. John LeCarré 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Am I reading this right? In the controversy section, from what I understood, the article declares "well then I'll go to hell" the greates line in american literature. Great line, but the POV is still there (if I read it right).
[edit] Okay, I read it wrong. But why is this even in the controversy section?
The paragraph under that not only needs it's sources, but is also way too POV, calling it the "most boring and least tasteful". I say we just strike these parts.
[edit] Nancymc edit apparently linkning to user's own play production.
I yanked an edit by user Nancymc that links to a "new play version of Huck Finn". Presumably this is the user's own production. I did not feel it was approriate to be using Wikipedia for self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.228.122 (talk • contribs).
- I see that Nancy has re-added it. I will re-delete, on the following grounds: (1) Per WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, editors should not add external links to sites they own or control; (2) Nancymc is apparently Nancy McClernan, (see here) the author of the new Huck Finn play advertised by the link. (See here). I think it's great that Ms. McClernan wrote a Huck Finn play and I wish her a lot of success, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. (I question whether the link would be appropriate even if added by a neutral party.) TheronJ 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not appropriate? CITE THE RULE!
And WHY would it be inappropriate even if added by a neutral party? External links such as that are done all the time.
And while you're at it, you can go and police other people doing the same thing, like Edward Einhorn, AKA DrMajestico, adding links to his own production company web site (untitletheatrecompany61) from the Vaclav Havel page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel
Go ahead, link stormtroopers - go to work. I check the Havel page in a little while to see if you removed his links, to make sure you aren't just targeting me personally.
And BTW - it isn't just MY play production. My play was SELECTED to be part of the Metropolitan Theatre's Twainathon.
You people should really get lives.
Nancymc 15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Added link to Twainathon - my play happens to be part of it. I hope you don't reach for your smelling salts at the utter vulgarity! Nancymc 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted it again.
- I think there's a conflict of interest, because Nancy has a personal interest in driving traffic to the Met Theatre's performance of her play. (For relevant guidelines, see here and here and here).
- In general, a link to a page advertising January 2007 performances of Twain-related plays is not appropriate because (1) it's not encyclopedic, and (2) it will become irrelevant in two months. See here, here, items 1, 3, and 4 and here.
- Assuming that you've described them accurately, the Havel play links should go too, and I will try to take a look at them. In the meantime, if you want to remove them, I will support you.
- I'm open to any kind of dispute resolution you would find helpful. I also think it's great that you wrote a Huck Finn adaptation and that the Met Theatre is performing it.
- Please try to stay civil. "Link Nazis" isn't helpful.
- Thanks, TheronJ 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Time magazine
The article mentions that Time ranked the book fifth in its poll of the greatest books of all-time, but that list is actually not Time's. It is from the book "The Top Ten" by J. Peder Zane. The link provided was really only an article about Zane's book. Jrs044 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
Why are there two articles about Huckleberry Finn? There's both Huckleberry finn and 'Huckleberry Finn'. Somebody should at least change the title on the articles.
- Technically, there are two articles: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which is about the book, and Huckleberry Finn, about the character. I've changed Huckleberry finn so that it redirects to the character, not the book. TheronJ 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It's a date
Worth mentioning it was first published in Canada? (First U.S. edition 1885.) Or was it an English ed 1884, released in Canada...? Trekphiler 02:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] literature?
What was the motivation for removing the link to [[Jon Clinch]'s "Finn"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.230.171.223 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Intro
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) is commonly accounted as one of the first Great American Novels. - actually, the gist of the concept of the Great American Novel, as with Highlander, is that There Can Be Only One. And since time immemorial it has been debated whether it has been written yet and if so, by whom. --Janneman 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time Top Ten
The following book review in Time Magazine is being inappropriately inserted into a lot of articles: Book review in Time Magazine. It is being claimed that this is Time Magazine's list of the ten greatest books of all time. Hardly. This is a book review about a book that asks a lot of authors what their favorite books were and at one point in the book lists the most popular picks. The reviewer in Time Magazine actually goes so far as to say that such lists are "an obscenity." I've removed the note. --JayHenry 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
