For lack of a better introduction, I suppose a sivilized tip of a cap will do. But beginnings are overrated anyways....always pretending that they really are, in fact, beginnings. I might contend this is rather a tangent, veering off into where it came from: another tangent. And tangents are inevitably (and geometrically) wed to circles, which ominously have no beginnings.
But I wander into territory - not Huck's, mind you - that borders on the philosophical musings of dreamers and madmen. I might be both, but it is not my intent to go there. Not yet. As such, in "beginning" this blog, perhaps it best that I employ the same notice that begins this little boy's book:
NOTICE
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 a plot in it will be
shot.
BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR
Per G.G., CHIEF OF ORDNANCE
We can't quite say whether Twain, his editor, or Huck himself can lay claim to these words. It is, after all, Huck's book; if he'd 'a' knowed about what trouble it was to make a book he wouldn't 'a' tackled it, and though he ain't a-going to no more, he told a fine tale, all in all. But the historians know that these admonitory words were added after the publication of his adventures, sometime in 1885, in response to the criticism which slung slander at this supposedly infamous text with "derogatory morals" and "coarse language." Coarse, maybe, but aren't we all? Twain would think so. And I think Huck learns this along the river.
But in line with the original skeptics, the Denver Public Library tried barring Huck Finn from their collection in 1902. In response, they received the following telegraph (quoted in part):
There's nobody for me to attack in this matter even with soft and gentle ridicule -- and I shouldn't ever think of using a grown up weapon in this kind of a nursery. Above all, I couldn't venture to attack the clergymen whom you mention, for I have their habits and live in the same glass house which they are occupying. I am always reading immoral books on the sly, and then selfishly trying to prevent other people from having the same wicked good time.
No, if Satan's morals...are preferable to Huck's, let Huck's take a back seat; they can stand any ordinary competition, but not a combination like that. And I'm not going to defend them, anyway.
Sincerely yours,
S. L. Clemens.
York Harbor, Aug. 14, 1902.
referenced at "Mark Twain on 'Huck Finn.'" New York Tribune (Aug. 22, 1902)
This doesn't answer our mystery of who penned the preliminary 'notice', but surely lends credibility to Huck's morals (aka, Huck's
take), and I think it's appropriate to make reference here. In regards to the ordinance, one Robert H. Hirst, the fine curator of the
Mark Twain Papers (located at Cal's Bancroft Library), proposes that our "Chief G. G." was possibly the Clemenses' family butler (certainly not
his own words, but a referential nod
to him by Twain). More can be read on Hirst's interesting proposition
here.
Whoever it is, this beginning was added
after the ending, and thus activating our nonsensical paradox. It all makes me wonder how Huck would feel, knowing that these stern warnings were added to
his story. His morals are surely the right ones, and I can't tell if he'd prefer they be made known in the fashion of a Colonel Sherburn - on top of a soapbox - or if he'd prefer to quietly drop them in his pocket and light out. I have the same dilemma myself.
As usual, however, I digress. I was in search of a proper introduction. What I or anyone else can expect from this blog, if anything, is a concisely organized, tangled mess. And I apologize for that. I can't promise cohesive content other than that which begins - er,
tangents - from this often scattered head of mine. But I offer a preliminary thanks if you've stumbled upon (and read)
Huck's Take. And even though this first post may seem like a beginning, you and I been there before.
For lack of a better introduction, I suppose a sivilized tip of a cap will do. But beginnings are overrated anyways....always pretending that they really are, in fact, beginnings. I might contend this is rather a tangent, veering off into where it came from: another tangent. And tangents are inevitably (and geometrically) wed to circles, which ominously have no beginnings.
