Writing: 5/5 Characters: 5/5 Plot: 4/5
A beautifully written reimagining of Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, told from the perspective of “Big Jim,” the slave with whom Huckleberry Finn escapes down the river. While Finn is escaping an abusive father, Jim is running from the rumor that he will be sold away from his family. This aligns with the original work. However, in this version of the story, Jim is presented as an intelligent, educated, and feeling man with a rich interior life and a strong sense of responsibility. He is the narrator of the tale and we hear the story from his perspective — drastically different than that of the Twain’s narrator Huckleberry Finn.
The key mechanism of the storytelling (for me) is the code-switching that all the slaves use when in the presence of white people — adopting an unsophisticated patois along with ignorant and superstitious behaviors. Among themselves they speak with good grammar and have a rational (if somewhat resigned) outlook. It’s fascinating what (often inaccurate) signals we receive simply by the way someone talks and behaves.
I enjoyed the writing, the deep characterization, and the (somewhat uplifting) end, although I didn’t particularly enjoy the “adventures.” Starting with the same plot lines as Huck Finn, the book expanded to include plot elements that supported Jim’s drive to free himself and his family. The story was full of realistically depicted attitudes and behaviors towards slaves. While I had read many fictionalized accounts of slavery, I thought this was one of the best for highlighting the varying attitudes of whites, as well as adding depth to the experiences of the slave himself. White characters ranged from cruel men who took pleasure in their cruelty, to those who didn’t believe in slavery but didn’t take any steps to stop it, to those who were actually kind and yet still considered Black people to be subhuman. Everett managed to convey the intense tension present in every moment for a person who is enslaved — the constant worry and lack of any kind of control, the constant tamping down of anger, the constant need for vigilance lest anyone notice anything about you that doesn’t jive with the “dumb animal” they expect. But the real stroke of mastery in the writing is how everything shifts for the reader simply by making it clear that the characters are fully recognizable as human being simply by speaking in a way that we recognize as intelligent.
While I don’t think this was the primary point of the book, it also got me thinking about when violence is justified. Without giving too much away, Jim intentionally kills two other (white) characters even though his own life was not at risk at the time. I was completely happy with his actions which left me feeling vicariously satisfied at the death of two absolutely horrible people. And yet, those people had done nothing that was illegal — instead they were cruel, violent, and behaved immorally according to my own ethical standards. Most of us today are horrified by the idea of slavery and the specific cruelty of many of those who practiced it; however, there are people today who are celebrating the murders committed by Luigi Mangione (United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson), Tyler Robinson (Charlie Kirk), and the Hamas attack on Israel (1200 murders, rapes and 250 people kidnapped — all non combatants). In their minds, the victims were “guilty” and merited murder. The line between these situations feels clear to me, but is it?









