Essay #4 Rough Draft/ Peer Review

Jo Stewart
ENGL 1A
October 6, 2008
Essay #4 Prompt #1


Claims of Huckleberry Finn
In the time period that Christopher Looby wrote his response to Fiedlers interpretation, things were very different. People weren’t quite aware of gay and lesbian culture. These ambiguous historical circumstances changed before The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, was actually published in 1885. As everyone is already aware of house people’s thought processes are very different. Including morals and the way that we were raised, someone in today’s age cannot impose the thoughts or issues in yesterday’s age. As we can see from the text, Fiedlers claim is overdoing it, she is trying to pull out sexual controversies that don’t even exist. She tried to make something of the fact the Huck and Jim were as close of friends as they were, and make it seem like they had a gay relationship going on through out the middle toward the end of the book. The fact is that they were not gay, or promoting any affectionate complexity toward one another, as Looby explains.
In the late 1800’s, the roles of men and women were laid out how they were expected to live for you as a broad outline. For example, men would be the real workers for the family. Including hunting, farming, blacksmithing, and working in many more areas with handy or hands on considered work, are considered the ideal male jobs. They were the ones that wanted to get their hands dirty. They were also the ones who would bring home the food, or the money for the family to survive on. Boys would grow up learning to do these kinds of chores, as that’s what they’d do for the rest of their lives. Women wouldn’t necessarily do these jobs because they were stuck at home cooking, taking care of the children, doing laundry, and cleaning around the house. Women would clean the house while the husband was at work and getting food for her to cook. The kids and their mom would work in the garden. These kinds of jobs were considered womanly. Another example is considering a maid is a woman’s job, and a construction worked is usually a male job. Back then many people followed this “role” as it was ideal to the way that male and female perceived as being successful.
Leslie Fiedlers claims about the book were very sexist. The way she analyzes the book is apparently in the homosexual way. Her famously scandalizing claim, “Come back to the raft ag’in, huck honey!” (Page 539, Looby) She interpreted their male age differing friendship as something to be partners. I think that older people, as Jim, have the choice to call you honey if they want, its like saying sweetie, or young sweet heart. It’s their way of showing you that they are trying to treat you with respect. Jim is calling Huck Honey as Hucks just a child. There’s no apparent relationship. She also claims, “..the essay does its thinking from within a deeply homophobic and gay-baiting structure of assumptions.” But in actuality, they don’t show any affection that would be valued as an affectionate relationship. They hang out because they were both on the run. They didn’t have anyone else to hang out with, explaining why they were always together. Another example is when Fiedler said “the concept of the white man’s sexual envy of the Negro male they do not sufficiently note the complementary factor of physical attraction, the mythic love of white male and black,” (Page 523). This is not only racist but also sexist. It’s not only untrue about the sexual envy between Huck and Jim, but it is wrong for her to say that she doesn’t think that white male and black male can be together.
Looby argues against Fiedlers interpretation of their sexual relationship and attractions between both Huck and Jim. Looby’s claim “What we can say is that Twain portrayed a loving interracial male same-sax bond in all of its dense affectionate complexity, with all of its social inscrutability, and portrayed it within the ambiguous and tragic historical circumstances that made it so hard to understand and represent.” (Page 541, Looby) Meaning the claims Fiedlers makes were false interpretations. The book was made in a time period where gay aspects weren’t taken into consideration. He obviously doesn’t agree with Fiedlers claim about their sexuality. He thinks that Fiedler perceives the men’s relationship to be way more than it was ever intended to be. Looby believes the time period the book was written actually helps explain the way they communicate with each other. The way Jim calls Huck honey is the way that an elder would talk to a young child. There are no sexual feelings at all. As Looby said, Fiedler just misinterpreted the whole meaning behind the book. You have to keep in mind that in this time period people weren’t gay, or at least weren’t what is called “out of the box” gay. Another example is when Looby said “..when Fiedler “named the friendship homosexual” he had merely “yelled out his most terrifying name for chaos,” having been unable to unsnarl the ambiguities of the relationship,” (Page 529). I agree with Looby and think that when Fiedler said that they were homosexual, he was just trying to pull out controversies. He was also just trying to make something of their close friendship that was never intended to be a huge aspect of the book.
In conclusion, I think that Looby took a long time to explain his claim, but in the end, I agree with him. I believe that Fiedler’s interpretation of the book is just silly and no one in this day in age can read the book and say that there are sexual relationships abiding between the characters because they weren’t there to see how people perceived others. I believe that the claim that they both represent between woman and man choosing their work fields is something to be considered, because it is still something that can relate to today’s age. Then again I also look at it from the other point of view and I don’t like how they place men and women roles in to categories. I think that people can grow up and choose what ever it is that they want to be. Although Looby’s claim is very long, it is just the right amount of explanation to get the point across. Fiedler’s claim is out of line, and perceived to be something that it is not.