If I were going to teach this book, I would focus on: Conscience versus society (relevance) Satire History Just an aside, I don’t think anyone could ever look into a book too far Controversy Tolerance vs. Prejudice I’d focus on Jim. It’s easy to focus on his superstition that we miss what a great guy he is and how society brings him down. Morality of characters/characterization/character development Parallels with Twain’s life The idea of an implanted moral compass Letters, essays, etc. by Twain to get the full picture of Huck Finn…

Huckleberry Finn should be mandatory for juniors – worth any potential controversy We all know African Americans are equal individuals, and History books and other literature can also accurately depict the palpable tensions between whites and blacks. Huckleberry Finn is good, but not that good. I do think it’s kind of a dead book…I think juniors are reaching a point in their lives when they need to see and experience current issues, and I don’t think HF is super relatable anymore. Yes, it has just enough confusing dialogue, analytical potential, and controversy surrounding it to make it a challenging but manageable book for junior. Yes, it’s good to expose high school students to controversial books as long as the discussion is optional! Of course it’s mandatory. Hemmingway said its where all great literature came from, and he called it great. I want to read great literature that started it all, and I want to read anything Hemmingway likes. It should be…not only does it have a weighty message to it, but also it is important to be able to look past the initial offensiveness/racism… It has to be taught because it’s controversial. That’s part of the lesson now! It was also my favorite part of the book. Yes. It should be mandatory but not actually because of race relations. Its really important that it was always controversial, at first for use of natural dialects and blasphemy. It shows us that what makes the book shocking or not shocking is the stage our country is in now. I liked the history of the controversy the most.

Huckleberry Finn is an admirable character; he personifies the good in all of us. I think the one goodness that Huck personifies is the ability to become good. …[Huck] personifies innocence because his goodness drives from his young age. Huck is not making an intentional effort to be good, but he hasn’t realized the importance of money and slavery in southern society, so he is not corrupt. …[if he personifies the good] he also personifies the bad in us. Perhaps Huck’s “good” qualities show us how messed up southern society is…the more we see how “bad” Huck has become the more we realize how innocent he really is Yes, he is because he doesn’t confirm to society’s beliefs and sticks to what he believes. …and he never fully transforms himself beside seeing Jim from a different perspective. …they still successfully rescue Jim. Huck also openly criticizes Tom’s plans. I think it is admirable how Huck reconstructs his morality. I don’t think Huck was necessarily meant to personify the good in all humans…although he did display a small bit of that quality. Huck lies, cheats, steals, but all for necessity or the greater benefit of someone, or himself. By the end of the novel, I think it’s unclear whether or not Huck has truly changed and abandoned his former flaws. No – he’s phony, and the exact representation of hypocritical southern stereotypes - a complete full circle character…ending up in the same mindset he left with (racist and easily- influenced)

"A successful book is not made of what is in it, but of what is left out of it.” - Mark Twain This quote is definitely true for epic fantasy novels ([Lord of the Rings]), but in terms of a book like Huck Finn, it is more important what the author actually says. …Twain’s quote is not true in a literal sense, but a figurative one. I would consider allusions or implications as material put in the book…”The Crucible” didn’t directly talk about the Red Scare but it teaches you about the premise, making it the reader’s job to apply the lesson…I disregard what I said about the quote [at first] and admit that Mark Twain is 100% accurate. …[the quote] turns out not to be true. Yes, what’s left out is important, but not as important as what is in the book. Leaving a gap for the reader to infer from is what makes the book memorably to the reader…showing not telling. Infer the answer, don’t be spoon fed it. A book that does not tell you what it wants you to derive from it, but instead lets you interpret it yourself, leads to deeper “looking into yourself for the answer” meaning But nobody cares about what was left out of it. The attachment people feel toward Jim while reading the novel is more impactful than a direct speech on the plight of The African slave …sometimes leaving things out causes people to jump to the wrong conclusion