A Response to Smiley

In googling Smiley's article, I came across an interesting response to it--an essay in direct response to Smiley by the psychologist Maria Konnikova. In this, she uses her scientific background to show that the abrupt reversal of Huck's behavior when Tom returns to the scene at the end of the novel is not, in fact, out of context, or necessarily unpredictable.

While the beginning of the essay is mostly just the common knowledge of peer pressure and its influences on teen behavior, she later analyzes several sets of statistics, showing the likelihood of Huck's behavior. As she compares these statistics, she shows that because of Huck's age, gender, status, lifestyle, situation, etc. (especially in comparison to Tom's), Huck would be more than likely to bend to Tom's will. 

While this article, like Smiley's, doesn't tell the whole story of Huck Finn, it does shed new light on the ending of the novel. Konnikova argues that the ending many critics have deemed inappropriate and unfitting absolutely does fit the story. Despite this, she also recognizes it is not her current place to judge the artistry of the ending, and in doing so she leaves room for possible literary flaws. 

It seems to me that this article is an excellent point of reference in analyzing the legitimacy and quality of Twain's ending to Huckleberry Finn. As a modern reader, it is easy to take on a modern perspective of slavery--a mindset in which the end of the novel may come as a shock. However, Konnikova takes on the perspective of a pre-civil-war era southern boy, showing the revolutionary, and thus unlikely nature of Huck's "enlightenment" as he travels with Jim. Therefore, while Huck's regression into racism and insensitivity seem absolutely abhorrent to Twain's 21st century reader, it is understandable in the context of Huck's historical time period, and therefore fitting to the story. An understanding of the differences between the perspectives Konnikova describes accounts for much of the unaccountability found in the ending of Twain's novel, and therein ironically emphasizes his objective, showing the flaws of Huck's society, especially in its moral contradiction and repression of the individual. With this in mind, Twain then uses the corruption of Huck's character, with whom the reader relates, to urge the necessity of mass reform, because, he believes, individual reform without the support of society is futile. With Konnikova's conclusions in mind, it makes sense to me that much of the criticism surrounding the book's ending stems from the separation rather than unification of perspectives, which might lead a reader into essentially "missing the point" Twain is trying to make.

Link to Maria Konnikova's Essay:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/2012/10/05/is-huckleberry-finns-ending-really-lacking-not-if-youre-talking-psychology/