You might find these resources helpful as you work on the paper.
After a brief debate about the appropriateness of using a pen name in a court of law, the defense began its examination of Twain, during
which the author argued that the novel reflected his experiences growing up in Missouri. Twain said that the novel, while containing racist language, was a “reflection of its time” and ” was more important as a critique of following social norms than as a historical document.” Twain argued that Huck’s journey was one followed by young people, regardless of their time in history or geography.
Twain also contended that in his personal life, he was demonstrably non-racist, associating with and befriending abolitionists.
He said that he believed that “modern students were well-equipped to read the novel” and understand its themes.
The cross-examination began with a surprising charge of racism–against American Indians. The prosecuting attorney had Twain read a long passage from one of his works, “The Noble Red Man”: “He is ignoble–base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying.”
The prosecution followed with another quotation by Twain, in which he wrote, “I am greatly troubled by what you say. I wrote Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn for adults exclusively, & it always distressed me when I find that boys and girls have been allowed access to them. The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean.”
The defense continued to hammer on these themes–racism against American Indians and the unsuitability of the novel for children–throughout a contentious cross-examination that was repeatedly interrupted with cries of badgering the witness by the defense.
The defense’s closing argument was a powerful statement about the need for teaching students the kind of novels that will make them uncomfortable, and by extension, think. Attorney Kate argued that American liberty depends on giving students the right to freely explore ideas, and that Huck Finn uniquely explores the culture of its time.
She concluded by contending that Mark Twain was not a racist, and that the defense had never proven it. Alluding to his lifetime commitment towards better treatment of African-Americans and his 1897 text “Following the Equator”, she claimed that there was no evidence to support the idea that Twain was a racist presented in the trial. She concluded her speech to a scattering of applause from her side of the courtroom.
The prosecution’s closing was delivered by Kara, who argued in a brief statement that “even witnesses presented by the defense” had conceded that the novel made some students uncomfortable, and it should therefore, be banned. She questioned the idea of education occurring when students felt uncomfortable in the classroom, suggesting that the book be made available in libraries, but not required as a part of the curriculum. The prosecutor framed this as a “reasonable solution”: to protect the rights of students to read the book and respect the rights of those who did not want to be exposed to it.
She also closed to a scattering of applause.
The verdict in the trial is expected on Friday.
Ernest Mason, a journalist, was called by the prosecution to argue against the teaching of the book. Mason argued that the ‘steamboat incident’ best illustrated why the book should not be part of the required curriculum. “Because Aunt Sally and Huck both ‘refuse to accept that a black person can be a human,” he argued, “no student should be required to read the novel.
In a withering cross-examination, Mason conceded that the novel offered a “realistic depiction of slavery” and that “at times, Jim seems much smarter than Huck.”
The next witness was Dr. Peaches Henry, of the Baylor English Department. Dr. Henry relayed her personal experience with racism, and argued that Twain’s book “should be stricken from schools” because it humiliates black students and makes white students uncomfortable. Under cross-examination, Dr. Henry vigorously argued that the novel did not work as satire, because of its inherent weakness as a text, the inability of teachers to adequately teach it, and the lack of sophistication shown by high school students.
Jane Smiley, from Harpers Magazine, strengthened the the prosecution’s case by directly attacking the book as a “racist, poorly written text.” Under cross-examination, she had a difficult time explaining why other texts like Uncle Tom’s Cabin offered a better choice.
The prosecution rested its case with the testimony of Thomas Stork, who claimed that “presenting racist ideas in literature” would lead to racist acts. He suggested that the novel should not be mandated in classrooms, but made available in libraries and for college students.
The defense offered a stinging attack in cross-examination, wondering what standard Stork would use to allow censorship. “If” attorney Kate asked,” you can ban any book because someone might be offended, what books will survive? Stork responded by claiming that Huck Finn was uniquely bad and justified censorship.
The defense opened its case with Alan Webb, who argued, citing George Bernard Shaw, that censorship was the moral equivalent of assassination. He also said that 75% percent of people want to censor something, and that unpopular ideas were critical to end oppression of women and to actually end slavery.
Under cross-examination, Webb became flustered, having to defend the idea that the sole decision-making power for teaching books should rest with teachers. When pressed, he argued that there were reasonable limits, like restrictions on pornography. Webb got in real trouble on the issue of violence, at first suggesting violent texts should be banned, then defending works like The Things They Carried.
High school English teacher Nancy Methelis proved to be a controversial witness for the defense. She claimed to have taught the novel without having ever offended a student, but when confronted with her own affidavit that indicated a student has written an essay demanding that the book be banned, she quickly backtracked.
The prosecution also made a major issue with Ms. Methelis’s claim that she taught the book using an expurgated text. The prosecution closed its cross-examination asking, ” doesn’t it prove that the novel is racist if you have to change the language?” eliciting a non-commital resoonse from the teacher.
Day three closed with the testimony of Jim Brown and Levi B, experts in the First Amendment, who argued that censorship of literature would result in less ideas being transmitted in society, and less knowledge of how to progress as a society. Brown argued that it was “important to confront the past if we ever hope to improve the future.”
The trial will conclude tomorrow with the much-anticipated testimony of Mark Twain and closing arguments from both sides.
At issue in the trial is the appropriateness of one of the most well-known, beloved, and controversial books in American Literature. The prosecution is charged with proving:
- that Huck Finn is and/or Mark Twain was racist.
- that it would be appropriate for at least some schools to ban Huck Finn.
- that reading the novel inflicts intolerable harm on African-American students.
In opening remarks, the prosecutors argued that Huck Finn was “flawed, racist text” that stereotyped African-Americans as only fit to hold subordinate positions in society. Because the novel “used the most offensive racist word in American history” over 200 times, the prosecution claimed, it should not be required of students.
The defense team of Christina and Kate argued it was precisely because of its controversial subject matter that the novel should be taught. Kate evoked the words of poet Theodore Parker, who said, “The books that help you most are those which make you think that most. The hardest way of learning is that of easy reading; but a great book that comes from a great thinker is a ship of thought, deep freighted with truth and beauty.”
The defense argued that banning Twain’s book would legitimize limitless censorship, and that historical events like slavery and the Holocaust must be explored through literature.
The prosecution’s first witness was former professor Julius Lester from the University of Massachusetts, who said that though he opposed censorship, Huck Finn was a special case, because it was a “hurtful” text that taught racist values. Lester was especially critical of Chapter 40 of the novel, in which Huck declares that Jim must be “White on the inside.”
In a contentious exchange, the defense attacked Lester, arguing that Twain was a realist. Lester said that Twain’s realism seemed only to extend to the white characters in the novel, none of the black.
The prosecution’s second witness, John Wallace, argued that the novel was disrespectful to black students, and that schools should “stop feeding trash” to their students. Under fierce cross-examination from the defense, Wallace conceded that the book was appropriate for high school and college students, but resisted the idea that it should be mandated.
The prosecution’s final witness for the first day was teacher John Foley, who wrote a controversial newspaper column about the novel this fall. Foley said that he felt it “would be irresponsible to teach the novel in a predominantly minority classroom,” and that it was time “to replace the book.” Under cross-examination, Foley suggested that the novel Lonesome Dove would be an excellent replacement for Huck Finn.
The trial will continue over the next few days, with the prosecution continuing its case on Friday.
Information
The final is at 8:20 on Thursday. You may bring and use the novel, a 3×5 notecard (hand written), and the worksheet we completed in class. The test will be over two of these questions, though you should be prepared for all of them. I will eliminate one question from the list based on comments below this entry. If you have questions about the novel, use the comments area below this post, and I (or a classmate) will try to answer. Gatsby notes are in this folder.
Your revisions are also due Thursday in class.
Questions
- F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that “there are no second acts in American lives.” Do the life and death of Jay Gatsby demonstrate this claim or refute it? Does the novel ultimately argue that one can never re-invent himself?
- Point of View is one of the most powerful techniques of The Great Gatsby. Explain how Fitzgerald’s use of a ‘witness’ point of view impacts the reader and allows Fitzgerald to develop his themes. Why does he occasionally transgress this point of view, and with what impact?
- Fitzgerald is known as the preeminent chronicler of the Jazz Age, perhaps better depicting its excesses and virtues better than anyone. How does Nick Carraway demonstrate both attraction to and repulsion from the lives of the incredibly rich inhabitants of Long Island?
- How does Fitzgerald use the juxtaposition of Carraway/Gatsby and Buchanan/Carraway to reveal more about each character?
- What is ultimately the most to blame for the tragic end of the novel: Gatsby’s nostalgic desire for the past, Daisy’s selfishness, or Nick’s silence?