Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

James by Percival Everett (Macmillan)

For anyone coming to this from outside the US, it may be helpful to have familiarity with Daniel Decatur Emmett, who shows up as a character in the book (and in the opening of James):

Since code-switching is one of the major themes of the novel, Everett's references to Emmett and the minstrel tradition might be as much a key as Everett's conversation with Twain's work.

What is there to say. I absolutely loved it.

I loved this one too. I found my reading experience to be greatly enriched by reading Huck Finn immediately prior to picking up James.

I can't help but wonder if this book is going to be added to the conversation of future studies of Huckleberry Finn in the way that Wide Sargasso Sea is included in studies of Jane Eyre currently.

James is quite an achievement. It has been years since I read Huck Finn but I've read a lot about it in articles where its use of the "n" word is discussed. In my opinion, each is a great book but together they provide something quite unique. Having the viewpoints from different participants in the same "adventure" is always preferable for better understanding, even of a fictional adventure.

Is James as specific american as The Trees was? I remember thinking that it was an interesting book, but one clearly not intended for me and my political context (or my German Book group!). Since Huckleberry Finn is so quintessential USA, I am a bit worried the same might be true here.

I feel Everett in both cases writes primarily for a US audience

In The Trees that was very explicit

Here it’s more he demolishes a part of the US literary canon which I must admit I knew nothing about

I like the book a lot but it should win the Pulitzer in my view not the Booker.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Here it’s more he demolishes a part of the US literary canon which I must admit I knew nothing about..."

GY, do you see it as critical of Twain's Huck Finn? (I'm not critical of your comment :-) just wondering what you meant.)

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I feel Everett in both cases writes primarily for a US audience

In The Trees that was very explicit

Here it’s more he demolishes a part of the US literary canon which I must admit I knew nothin..."

Exactly what I thought. James is much more suited to the Pulitzer than the Booker. I will be disappointed if it wins the Booker, and I don't think it will, but I will be happy enough to see it win the Pulitzer. I'm not American, either, but I've lived in the US.

Right now, I have Playground as my first choice for the Booker.

Laura wrote: "I can't help but wonder if this book is going to be added to the conversation of future studies of Huckleberry Finn in the way that Wide Sargasso Sea is included in studies of Jane Eyre currently."

I would doubt that it will be. At least not by most. Some teachers might add it. But Huck Finn is the definitive book.

Laura wrote: "I can't help but wonder if this book is going to be added to the conversation of future studies of Huckleberry Finn in the way that Wide Sargasso Sea is included in studies of Jane Eyre currently."

I have been waiting for this to be addressed for it gives us a chance to address the the suitability of Huckleberry Finn as an appropriate vehicle for what Everett is doing with James. It helps by looking at the difference in what Rhys did with Bronte's Jane Eyre. Rhys took Bronte's most mysterious and unknown characters and fleshed them out with backstory. In doing so, Rhys depicted them through a topical lens of the time she wrote her book employing the themes of postcolonialism and feminism. Thus Rhys' and Bronte's works are complementary both standing as accomplishments on their own.

With James it is different. I think here we have a case where Everett's James is in contention with Twain's Huckleberry Finn, because of the way Everett wrote it, choosing to rewrite the story rather than supplement it. No better quote shows this than GY's above, "Here it’s more he demolishes a part of the US literary canon.." I think most of us read James this way, as a corrected text, fixing errors in world view that Twain put forth. But there is an issue with this. Twain in his novel is trying to do something far more than just talk about race. Twain's Huckleberry Finn is a novel that is about language. It is an attempt to democratize writing by offering something in the speech of the people, rejecting the homogenized speech of traditionally published works, It is a populist novel and part of its charm is it uses a populist approach to challenge traditional and misguided ideas. So race is incorporated because this is written just 25 years after the U.S. Civil War and Twain's is promoting a theme of conciliation and if not embracing a full theme of egalitarianism, "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité," he is promoting the prerequisites, compassion, respect, and the rejection of given prevalent and prejudicial social attitudes.

From that perspective, I feel James will lose its shine a few years hence, but there is another part. Twain was also a harsh critic and part of his reputation was made on those criticisms. A Tramp Abroad is almost unreadable because of the meanspirited treatment of European taste. One of his funniest but harshest attacks was on James Fenimore Cooper in the essays on "James Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses."



In the popular essay so popular Twain wrote a sequel Twain subjects Cooper and others to the treatment Everett is subjecting Twain. Here is where James may reach a longer duration in the canon as critic's elaborate on the delight of Everett giving Twain the same consideration he gave Cooper, IMO.

Many reviews I’ve read seem to think that this novel is meant to be a take down of Huck Finn or a less problematic rewrite of the original, but every interview I’ve read from Everett says otherwise. In one interview, he calls Twain his “literary hero� and refers to James as an homage.

From an NPR article: “My writing James is not in any way an indictment of Twain at all, I'm writing the novel that Twain was � not ill equipped � but unequipped to write.� In that article, he also says he thinks of James as being in discourse with Huck Finn.

Rachel wrote: "Many reviews I’ve read seem to think that this novel is meant to be a take down of Huck Finn or a less problematic rewrite of the original, but every interview I’ve read from Everett says otherwise..."

I never saw it as a take down of Twain. I think it is a common misconception that Twain is somehow pro-slavery or at least particularly prejudiced, due to the use of the "n" word, but it is exactly the opposite. His portrayal of the friendship between Huck and Jim demonstrates that he is challenging the status quo, when such a friendship would have been viewed as unacceptable.

I think Everett's quote is basically saying Twain was unequipped to write from a black perspective whereas Everett can.

I hope both books are read together in the future in the US schools (though this may be unlikely in the current American South's political environment). It would be a fabulous addition and could inspire great discussions.

I agree it is more suited to the Pulitzer than the Booker.

Thanks. My comment was a rather lazy In conversation with or extending would have been better and has been far better expressed by these subsequent comments.

I still think the essential point (and the question I was addressing) is that yes this like The Trees it is aimed at an American audience. Whatever term you use I could not have told you a single thing about Huck Finn before reading it alongside this - if you don’t even know there is a character called Jim (I did not) then I feel you are not an ideal or target reader of James.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Thanks. My comment was a rather lazy In conversation with or extending would have been better and has been far better expressed by these subsequent comments. ..."

Lots of subsequent comments raising different questions/expressing varied views so I'm not sure if yours addressed my query or someone else's. I am familiar with Huck Finn and I was just curious abut this part "he demolishes a part of the US literary canon". I was wondering about your take about its relation to Huck Finn - subversion, extension, supplement, or something else?

To be honest I only know anything about Huck Finn due to James so I am not sure I can comment that intelligently

Quite an interesting conversation! I don't know that I think that Everett "demolishes" Huck Finn. For many years now, Twain's novel has been subject to critical review over its depiction of Jim and other characters, so Everett's timing for tackling that head on was quite good. In addition, as I've mentioned elsewhere and as Everett has said in interviews, he felt himself not to be rewriting Huck Finn but to be in conversation with Twain. In one author event I attended, Everett said that he read Huck Finn 17 times before writing James (and plans never to read it again). He is a huge Twain fan, although Huck Finn is not his favorite of Twain's novels.

I think James is a superb and important novel that deserves to be in this year's Booker conversation. Whether its essential American-ness means that it should not win is for me a more complicated question. Lincoln in the Bardo contains some incredibly American concepts (the Civil War, slavery, President Lincoln) but also themes of death and remorse and the afterlife, which resonate for everyone. And race, one of James' core themes, is a regrettably universal topic. My understanding is that the UK has been grappling with issues around its connections to the slave trade recently as well. Yes, Huck Finn is a core text in the US canon, but James has much to say even for people who have not read Twain's novel. That is not to say that I think James will win the Booker (although I fully expect it to be shortlisted and to be a contender), but that its "Americanness" should not exclude it because it has much to offer to people who are not American.

I'm in agreement with Joy D and Cindy. I did not see James as demolishing a part of the US canon. I think the two stand together as the same situation seen from two viewpoints and the viewers having vastly different backgrounds. Together they provide an excellent opportunity to explore many aspects of slavery and its continuing impact.

I think it is just this huge gap of familiarity with the original novel between US and UK readers. I am in same camp as GY in that I wasn’t even aware there was a character in Huckleberry Finn called Jim so even the title could do with changing for UK readers. “Call Me By My Proper Name� or something would be better.

It’s an outstanding book though.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It’s an outstanding book though."

Yes it is.

James was my most anticipated book of the year and it lived up to the hype for me. I read Huckleberry Finn first in preparation and I would recommend that approach. I do think you would lose something if you aren't familiar with the original. A summary of Huck might do, but not sure.

In Twain's work, Jim is often sidelined from the action because of his race (imprisoned, forced to stay behind with the raft to avoid being seen). Everett gives James his dignity and agency back. I didn't read it as a criticism of Twain's work. Everett has mentioned his love for the original on a few occasions. I read it as a necessary correction, an acknowledgment that a perspective is missing because we've only seen this story told by a young boy before now.

I expected this to be a satire, full of dark humor, but it often read like a thriller. The writing is propulsive, much more than Twain's book. I found it hard to put down.

The ending did feel a little loose and I wasn't sure about the late twist, but I think this will continue to grow on me. The Huckleberry Finn ending is famously bad. James' ending is still much better.

If there's another book I like as much in the shortlist I'll be happy. I agree with what a couple of people have mentioned about this being a more natural fit for the Pulitzer.

Mat wrote: "James was my most anticipated book of the year and it lived up to the hype for me. I read Huckleberry Finn first in preparation and I would recommend that approach. I do think you would lose someth..."

Mat, I share your ambivalence about the final twist in James. It was a bit jarring and didn’t flow seamlessly from the rest of the book. That said, it’s so much better than the cringe-inducing ending of Huck Finn (as you’ve noted) that I’m inclined to be generous towards the James ending.

Gwendolyn wrote: "Mat, I share your ambivalence about the final twist in James. It was a bit jarring and didn’t flow seamlessly from the rest of the book. That said, it’s so much better than the cringe-inducing ending of Huck Finn (as you’ve noted) that I’m inclined to be generous towards the James ending."

Yes, agreed. The twist felt like an overcorrection, a little unnecessary. I thought the novel was nearly perfect until I got to that twist and it took me out of the story for a moment. Jarring is a good description. It felt like I was suddenly reading fan-fiction. I'm trying to talk carefully around this because of spoilers, but it was the only change that I felt did a disservice to the original. It adds a dynamic to a relationship that I think takes away more complexity than it adds. It makes the relationship less interesting to me.

But, it may be unfair to say that a retelling can do a disservice or owes the original anything. When a little time has passed, I would be interested in hearing Everett explain his thinking behind that twist.

I might re-read at least the last 50 pages of this in the near future. I think I read through the ending too fast during my first read.

This was my 5th Percival Everett book. After I read The Trees, I decided that this was an author that I have criminally overlooked and I've kept up with his subsequent releases and dipped into his backlist. I loved James exactly as much as I anticipated I would. I don't think it's anti-Huck Finn and I genuinely believe that it will be impossible in the future for Twain's book to be read in an academic context without considering the changes Everett suggests here.

That said, I think I'm beginning to notice a pattern where Everett just doesn't know how to finish his books. The ending here, ripped straight out of Tarantino's script for Django Unchained, is unapologetically bonkers. I don't even think this is necessarily a flaw. Everett just seems less concerned with rounding everything off than he is with getting through the first three questers of the narrative.

For me this does not detract from the book's greatness, but it may be enough to prevent it beating Hisham Matar to the prize.

Great comments.

Let’s not forget The Trees had an even more bonkers ending as it turned into a zombie apocalypse movie.

I like Everett's writing, but I think he does have trouble with endings. I agree with GY that the end of The Trees, which I loved up until the last third, did turn into a "zombie apocalypse movie." The ending of James seemed too abrupt to me. It just didn't fit with the rest of the book. It left me feeling like I was missing a few pages.

I agree with Sam that Huck Finn is the book that will endure, not James. I don't think they'll be required reading together. Huck Finn captured the dark history of the time period.

I'm one who will be disappointed if James should win the prize. I think there are other books on the longlist that are head and shoulders better than James. I really fail to see any brilliance in James. I think it's a good book, but not a brilliant one. Deserving of the Pulitzer, but not the Booker. Maybe it's because I'm not American. I'm Italian, born and raised in Italy. For whatever reason, James was a letdown for me.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Great comments.

Let’s not forget The Trees had an even more bonkers ending as it turned into a zombie apocalypse movie."

The ending was awful, and I also didn't see the point of the academic and the woman who collected information on every lynching. Everett could have done something good with them, but I don't think he explored their potential.

We can’t talk about Everett’s endings without talking about Telephone. That book has three different endings, and you don’t know which one you’re getting until you read the copy you have. A fascinating publishing decision. Was it just a marketing ploy? Or could Everett really not decide how to end his book? I’ve only read one of the endings, but I’ve always wondered what happened in the other two.

As for the ending in James, it did feel like a hard left turn, just like the ending in The Trees. Something less abrupt and more in line with the prior pages would’ve satisfied me more, I think.

What a great point.

Gwendolyn wrote: "We can’t talk about Everett’s endings without talking about Telephone. That book has three different endings, and you don’t know which one you’re getting until you read the copy you have. A fascina..."

Everett's endings are a really fascinating point of discussion. The three different endings in Telephone reminded me of the adaptation of Erasure that came out not too long ago (titled American Fiction) which also played around with different endings. I don't know if anyone has seen it but I found it created a really interesting change from Erasure's ending.

Laura wrote: "Gwendolyn wrote: "We can’t talk about Everett’s endings without talking about Telephone. That book has three different endings, and you don’t know which one you’re getting until you read the copy y..."

I thought of American Fiction as well when I read that comment. I read Erasure shortly before seeing American Fiction and it seriously impacted how I felt about the movie. In general, I found the movie dulled a lot of the satire and bite from the novel. I read it as an angry book, but the movie felt more like a romantic comedy.

In Erasure the satire cuts like a machete. In AF, it cuts more like a Bic razor. I understand why there would need to be some changes--The "My Pafology" section from the book is so vulgar and outrageous that they could never do it justice in a movie--but I was more confused with the changes to the family story. The relationships are much less complicated than in the book. There is a wedding scene near the end of the movie that is treated like a joyous scene out of Rom Com, but in the book is much darker. The early exit of another character is handled much differently in the movie than in the book.

For me, the multiple endings in the movie felt like another example of the filmmaker trying to soften the themes of the book and make it more palatable for a movie audience. In a way it's hard to criticize him for that because I'm sure it was intentional, but I found it a little jarring after reading the book. Everett signed off on the adaptation so he must have been on board, but I'd be curious to hear his honest thoughts on the changes made to the story.

I saw that James has recently been optioned for a film adaptation by Steven Spielberg and Taika Waititi. I'm curious if they will do the book justice or resort to sentimentality. If the late twist we've alluded to is treated with sentimental overtones I'll find that kind of funny.

I find questions of adaptations really interesting. Huckleberry Finn is on the shortlist of most important American novels ever but there has arguably never been a successful adaption of the book from what I've seen.

Mat wrote: "Laura wrote: "Gwendolyn wrote: "We can’t talk about Everett’s endings without talking about Telephone. That book has three different endings, and you don’t know which one you’re getting until you r..."

I haven’t read Erasure yet or seen the movie American Fiction. Erasure is on my list as soon as I get through this longlist, though (that and Praiseworthy). And I’ll save the movie for after I’ve read the book.

I haven't read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Has anyone read the books alongside one another?

Yes, I re-read Huck Finn first and then James, and I am glad I did. Not only did it refresh my memory, but I think it added to my appreciation for James.

I read Hick Finn immediately before.

It’s an easy read and I think enhances the experience of James if you know nothing about the book (which I did not).

I have to say that I loved the Notice at the start

“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�

But otherwise thought it was pretty poor.

I agree with everyone that reading Huckleberry Finn will add to your appreciation for James.

Reading Huckleberry Finn was an interesting experience for me. It has some of the highest highs and lowest lows in any book. The famous parts where Huck and Jim (almost feel bad now not calling him James) are floating down the Mississippi on their raft, talking and getting to know each other better, are some of my favorite scenes in any book. I also found that the humor held up well. It had me chuckling a few times.

Huckleberry Finn's ending is famously bad. So bad that Hemingway once said people should just stop reading near the end. I thought that was just hyperbole, but no the ending is that bad.

James is a much easier read. It's propulsive. I couldn't put it down whereas Huck Finn became a bit of a slog at times. Everett didn't try to write like Twain or pretend to be a 19th century author. James feels like a modern book. It feels like a Percival Everett book.

Twain actually commented that he had trouble writing the ending. Interestingly, I thought James went a little off the rails at the end and wondered if Everett was shadowing the original, though in the opposite direction.

Very interesting idea! Yes, James did go a bit off the rails in the end (consistent with what Everett has done in other books, especially The Trees). I never considered that James’s off-the-rails ending might be a commentary on the fact that Huck Finn’s ending is also off the rails, though in a completely different way.

Occam’s razor approach would say he just can’t write endings.

I think it's more that Everett refuses to write a conventional ending. All of his books go off the rails at some point, some sooner than others. I think that's deliberate.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Occam’s razor approach would say he just can’t write endings."

That's what I think, really. Most writers have problems with beginnings, middles, or ends. Everett, who is an otherwise good writer, seems to have a lot of problems with ends, The Trees being one of the worst.

It looks like I am the only one who didn't have a problem with the ending (I did have with The Trees). *Spoiler alert*: Nobody granted freedom to James (another departure from Huck Finn), he freed himself, both in mind and body. "Just James", a free man, a person, a man with his dear family.

I thought The Trees a much worse ending.

I think here though - looking at the comments that started the discussion - the criticism was also of the late (although not end of the book) twist.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I thought The Trees a much worse ending.

I think here though - looking at the comments that started the discussion - the criticism was also of the late (although not end of the book) twist."

Yes, I thought the actual ending of James was very satisfying, but the twist towards the end felt jarring to me. Perhaps that was the point (I suspect it felt jarring to Huck as well).

That twist was also jarring for me at first but then I thought it could be open to different interpretations and my thoughts went in a different direction that satisfied me though it might not work for another reader: Everett didn't present it as the fact of the story but as James's belief which seems to me he started to form after seeing Norman Brown and it also explained some elements in Twain's story that were hanging in terms of motivation (why is Huck's father so cruel to him? why do Huck and Jim share the bond?). It's not something he knew for the fact, otherwise he would have shown the (view spoiler)[fatherly (hide spoiler)] side of his care for Huck earlier in the novel, but he didn't. I think Norman Brown opened up the possibility for him to believe it but whether it's actual or not is left to a reader to decide.

I like the small link with Wandering Stars where Jude Star is given Huck Finn to read.

Vesna wrote: "That twist was also jarring for me at first but then I thought it could be open to different interpretations and my thoughts went in a different direction that satisfied me though it might not work..."

Vesna, I like your interpretation here. This “twist� felt more like an awakening or realization (by James) rather than something that had been fully understood as fact for the entire book. I like how it fit into the story without causing a big change, and I do agree it explains some of the ambiguities of Huck Finn.