In July, we discussed James by Percival Everett, a reimagining of the well known and much loved Mark Twain classic Huckleberry Finn, this time told from the perspective of Jim. An old hand at writing, this is Everetts thirtieth book (!), however he only recently rose to international fame when a previous title, Erasure, was picked up by Hollywood and made into the movie “American Fiction”.
To many, Huckleberry Finn was part of the school curriculum or a staple tale read when growing up, so there was a strong sense of nostalgia around the table, but did this mean we all loved it?
What's it about?
It’s 1861 in pre-Civil War Missouri when enslaved Jim overhears that he is about to be sold and separated from his wife and daughter forever and so runs away to formulate a plan. Meanwhile, Huckleberry, aka Huck, fakes his own death to escape his violent father and is too on the run. The two collide and join forces on a journey down the Mississippi River where they encounter different ventures that raise questions around race, identity and the power of language.
What did bookclub think? (Spoilers alert!)
Our bookclubs are always more fun when the group is divided (nothing worse than if you all agree somethings a masterpiece) and divided we were - over almost everything! What one person loved, another despised, really bringing much of the conversation down to taste and preference.
James was very much a fast read for all. While a few of us loved the pace and the light text for a heavy story, others were left feeling unchallenged. It was hard not to draw comparisons to Mark Twain, and there was a general feeling this fell short in the language and writing style up against Twains text - however we did question if we should be even making such comparisons? As a stand alone text the writing style was witty, clever and satirical.
On the subject of the original, the story does not stay true to all details of Huckleberry Finn. We were told that the author read the book 15 times in a row until the story became a blur. He didn’t want to feel restrained by exact details of the original, but rather capture the essence and use it as a loose frame for James’ journey. Again, we were divided on this and it really upset some who just couldn’t bear the divergence however others really didn’t care and enjoyed that the author had made it work for his purpose.
Similarly, believability mattered to some more than others. Would a slave really be caught for stealing a pencil? And if so, beaten and lynched? Perhaps not. Though it was clear the author was making a point highlighting the ridiculous, inhumane and disproportionate punishments received by slaves. The over exaggerated characters and satirical theme was consistent throughout - its something you either love or hate!
With a teacher of philosophy and passionate readers of the topic amongst us, the real trigger for those who didn’t like the book seemed to be the reference and conversations with philosophers of the past. Those familiar, picked up on quotes from Locke and Voltaire dropped in throughout. It was suggested that, while a slave would have the ability to understand such philosophical concepts, even a slave that could read and write would not have the exposure and therefore capacity to express the level of thought shared. As you can imagine, this theory was challenged and disputed extensively!
Conclusion
Ultimately, the disparity between those who liked it and those who didn’t came down to believability of the text. If you are someone who needs a story to feel believable, or a re-imagining to be true to the original text, then James is not for you.