×

LingQ'yu daha iyi hale getirmek için çerezleri kullanıyoruz. Siteyi ziyaret ederek, bunu kabul edersiniz: çerez politikası.


image

Crash Course: English Literature, The Raft, the River, and The Weird Ending of Huckleberry Finn: Crash Course Literature 303 - YouTube (1)

The Raft, the River, and The Weird Ending of Huckleberry Finn: Crash Course Literature 303 - YouTube (1)

Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course Literature,

and today we're going to continue our discussion of Mark Twain's “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”

But this time we get to talk about metaphors, and the book's extremely unpopular ending.

So as Sigmund Freud probably never actually said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,”

but in Huckleberry Finn, the raft, the island, the river, they aren't just rafts and islands and rivers.

[Theme Music]

So, I think the most significant metaphor in the book is the Mississippi river itself.

It was a river Twain knew well; he worked in his youth as a steamboat pilot.

And he communicates some of the beauty and the wonder of that river in a passage where he describes the approach of dawn:

“Not a sound anywheres - perfectly still -

just like the whole world was asleep, only sometimes the bullfrogs a-clattering, maybe.

The first thing to see, looking away over the water, was a kind of dull line -

that was the woods on t'other side - you couldn't make nothing else out; then a pale place in the sky;

then more paleness, spreading around and you see the mist curl up off of the water,

and the east reddens up, and the river.”

I mean, you read that, and you think, hey, I want to escape my alcoholic, abusive father and travel down the river, too!

The sense of serenity, of possibility, of benevolent nature is almost overwhelming.

The river is seen to be in contrast with a lot of the violence and pettiness that Huck finds on land.

That's what some early critics noted, like Lionel Trilling and T.S. Eliot.

They argued that while the book doesn't have a lot of time for conventional religious belief,

it does make kind of a god of the river.

“It is about a god,” Trilling wrote, “a power which seems to have a mind and a will of its own,

and which, to men of moral imagination, appears to embody a great moral idea.”

He argued that while this god of the river isn't necessarily good, love of it leads Huck toward goodness,

which you can see in the way Huck's voice is at its most beautiful and poetic when he's describing the river.

But some later critics have argued that this view is maybe too rose-colored and limiting.

Like, the river is a beautiful place in Huck Finn, but also a dangerous one, which Trilling only sort of acknowledges.

I mean, it's a place where dead bodies float by,

where a sudden fog separates the two friends, where a steamboat threatens to destroy the raft.

But to that, I'd point out that gods aren't necessarily nice, as much as they're powerful.

And there's also been a lot of scholarship around the idea that the river represents a great moral idea: Freedom.

Like, early in the book, he says, “In two seconds away we went a-sliding down the river,

and it did seem so good to be free again and all by ourselves on the big river, and nobody to bother us.”

And throughout the book, there's a strong opposition between life on the river and life onshore,

where there are a bunch of nonsensical rules, and uncivilized civilizations, and absurd feuds.

But that opposition is also an oversimplification in the end, isn't it?

Because the river is often a threat to the freedom that Huck and Jim want.

I mean, Jim escapes in the first place because he's learned he's about to be sold “down the river.”

I mean, it's the river that sends bounty hunters past them.

That sticks them with two of the worst specimens of humanity ever known: the con men known as the King and the Duke.

It's the river that pushes them right past Cairo, where they were hoping to catch a steamboat up to the free states,

and transports them deeper into slave territory.

So, if we're gonna see the river as a god, and I think it's helpful to,

let's see it as, like, one of the gods of Mount Olympus, a complicated, quasi-human god.

Mr. Green, Mr. Green, I'm sorry, but you're always ruining books by overreading them.

Like, why does the river have to be a god? Why can't it just be a river?

A little late in the game for you to be rearing your head me from the past, but OK.

I would argue that you're going to worship something.

Maybe it'll be a god, maybe it'll be money, or power, or fame,

but there's going to be something that orients your humanness in a particular direction.

I think Twain is arguing against the pro-slavery, quote unquote, civilized god of the widow.

And arguing that love of this huge, intimidating, beautiful river is a better way to worship.

So I do think it matters whether you see it just as a river, because you're going to worship something.

All right, that's the end of my rant.

Let's move on to the raft, which a lot of critics also romanticize and Huck does too, like when he says,

“We said there warn't no home like a raft, after all.

Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don't.

You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft.”

Or when he says, “It's lovely to live on a raft.

We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them,

and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened.”

I just don't think that living on a raft would be like that at all.

I mean, one of the things I love most about sleeping in a bed is that when I roll over,

I do not fall into the Mississippi River.

So again the raft seems to represent a kind of freedom, but on the other hand,

the raft gets them off the island at the beginning of the book, and the island is kind of a paradise.

I mean, when they're on the island.

Huck even says to Jim, “I wouldn't want to be nowhere else but here” So take that raft and river!

But of course, there's also a problem with the island, which is that it's too close

to the past they're trying to escape.

This is often what Twain does.

I mean, he was a satirist and an ironist, and so there wasn't much he held sacred,

so if he showed something in a positive light, he was usually very aware of the negatives, too.

So they do feel great freedom on the raft, but in some ways, of course, it restricts freedom.

I mean, it sends them south.

If there's real freedom to be found in the book, it's not going to be in a raft or on a river.

It's going to be inside the characters, in a changed moral sense and a new idea of

what true freedom, and loyalty, and friendship really mean.

And that is what makes the ending of the book so confounding to many critics,

because the ending seems to go against a lot of the great stuff that the novel has already established.

OK, let's Go To the Thought Bubble.

So, Huck escapes the King and Duke only to learn that they have sold Jim away

and that Jim is being held on the Phelps farm until his owner can claim him.

So he goes to the Phelps farm where is very conveniently mistaken for Tom Sawyer,

who was scheduled to arrive for a visit.

When Tom does arrive, pretending to be his brother Sid, he and Huck discuss plans to free Jim.

Huck comes up with a simple no-nonsense scheme – steal the key and sneak Jim out.

But Tom wants a plan that's a lot more elaborate,

that borrows from every adventure and romance novel he's ever read.

Now Twain was no big fan of romance.

“Huckleberry Finn" is one of the first proper attempts at American realism

and he names a wrecked steamboat the Walter Scott,

just to show what he thinks of Ivanhoe and all those lords and ladies and unlikely coincidences.

You know, like Tom Sawyer being previously scheduled to visit a random farm?

But even if Twain is obviously satirizing Tom and his harebrained schemes,

there's no ignoring the fact that these schemes hurt Jim, both physically and emotionally,

though he endures them all with a willingness that is actually pretty heartbreaking.

He lets the boys put snakes and rats and spiders into the hut where he is held and when the rats bite him,

he writes messages in his own blood on a shirt that Tom provides.

Jim can't actually write, but he scrawls on the shirt just to please Tom.

Then Tom gets the bright idea to announce the escape plan in a series of anonymous letters,

which complicates things even more and gets Tom shot in the leg while running away with Jim.

And Jim jeopardizes his freedom to get a doctor for Tom and is captured again,

only to have Tom announce that Jim has been free all this time.

His mistress freed him on her deathbed.

So everything Tom put him through, with Huck's agreement, was just for show. Just for fun.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, of course, that's a pretty messed up idea of fun.

And yes, the ending ties up the loose ends of the plot pretty neatly and it restores

to the book some of the feel of “Adventures of Tom Sawyer.”

But as previously noted: Tom Sawyer isn't that great of a book.

So going back to its tone isn't necessarily a great call.

Huck has matured tremendously over the course of this journey,

and he's developed a relationship with Jim that relies on mutual affection and mutual trust.

And while Huck takes a dim view of most people – he tricks them, he lies to them –

he comes to believe that cruelty is unworthy of him and that he doesn't want others to suffer.

Like, when the Duke and the King, men who have abused Huck and sold Jim away,

are finally caught and tarred and feathered, we might expect Huck to be happy, but he isn't.

“Well, it made me sick to see it,” he says, “and I was sorry for them poor pitiful rascals,

it seemed like I couldn't ever feel any hardness against them any more in the world…

Human beings CAN be awful cruel to one another.”

But if he's able to summon that kind of sympathy for his enemies, if he doesn't feel any hardness toward them,

how can he allow the cruelty to Jim?

How can he let himself be reduced to the role of Tom's sidekick again?

And how can Twain encourage Jim to bear it all so complacently?

I don't have good answers to those questions, although some of it may lie in Huck's upbringing.

Huck is very conscious of having not been raised in respectable circumstances and he believes that Tom

– with all of his reading and all of his education – must know better.

In fact, he can barely get it through his head that a boy as educated and civilized

as Tom would consent to help free a runaway slave.

Now, of course Tom knows that Jim is free all the time, so he's not taking a moral risk.

But even so, for many readers, this ending sequence is a betrayal of what has come before.

I mean, out on the river, when they weren't being threatened by steamboats or menaced by con men,

Huck and Jim could almost believe that a new and better world was possible.

They could even look up at the stars and wonder if they were made or just happened,

which is a pretty sacreligious thing to wonder.

The Raft, the River, and The Weird Ending of Huckleberry Finn: Crash Course Literature 303 - YouTube (1) Пліт, річка і дивний кінець Гекльберрі Фінна: Підсумковий літературний курс 303 - YouTube (1)

Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course Literature, أهلاً، أنا (جون قرين)، وهذا الأدب في (كراش كورس)

and today we're going to continue our discussion of Mark Twain's “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” واليوم سوف نكمل نقاشنا عن كتاب (مارك توين): "مغامرات هكلبيري فين"،

But this time we get to talk about metaphors, and the book's extremely unpopular ending. ولكن هذه المرة سوف نتكلم عن الاستعارات، ونهاية الكتاب المكروهة بشدة.

So as Sigmund Freud probably never actually said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” لذا وكما ينسب لـ(سيغموند فرويد): "السيجارة أحياناً هي مجرد سيجارة فقط "،

but in Huckleberry Finn, the raft, the island, the river, they aren't just rafts and islands and rivers. ولكن العوامة والجزيرة والنهر في هذه الرواية لم يكونوا مجرد عوامة وجزيرة و نهراً.

[Theme Music] [موسيقى]

So, I think the most significant metaphor in the book is the Mississippi river itself. أعتقد أن الاستعارة الأكثر أهمية في الكتاب هي نهر مسيسبي

It was a river Twain knew well; he worked in his youth as a steamboat pilot. كان نهر يعرفه (توين) جيداً، حيث عمل فيه في صغره كربَّان باخرة.

And he communicates some of the beauty and the wonder of that river in a passage where he describes the approach of dawn: وقد ذكر بعضاً من جمال وعجائب ذلك النهر في فقرة وصف فيها لحظة الغروب بقوله:

“Not a sound anywheres - perfectly still - "لا يوجد صوت في أي مكان - سكون تام-

just like the whole world was asleep, only sometimes the bullfrogs a-clattering, maybe. وكأن العالم كله نائمٌ، ما عدا نقنقة الضفادع في بعض الأحيان

The first thing to see, looking away over the water, was a kind of dull line - أول شي تلمحه عندما ترى سطح الماء، هو شيء كالخط الباهت،

that was the woods on t'other side - you couldn't make nothing else out; then a pale place in the sky; تلك الغابات بالجهة المقابلة - لا تستطيع أن ترى غير ذلك - ثم تبصر مكاناً شاحباً في السماء،

then more paleness, spreading around and you see the mist curl up off of the water, يليه شحوبٌ أكثر ينتشر في الأرجاء، وترى رذاذاً يلتف بعيداً عن الماء

and the east reddens up, and the river.” والشرق يزداد احمراراً، وكذلك النهر".

I mean, you read that, and you think, hey, I want to escape my alcoholic, abusive father and travel down the river, too! عندما تقرأ ذلك قد تقول: "أنا أيضاً أريد أن أهرب من أبي السكّير المؤذي إلى ذلك النهر".

The sense of serenity, of possibility, of benevolent nature is almost overwhelming. الشعور بالسكينة وبالفرص المتاحة وبالطبيعة السخية لا يُقاوم.

The river is seen to be in contrast with a lot of the violence and pettiness that Huck finds on land. إذ يُرى النهر على أنه مضاد للعنف والحقارة التي يجدها (هوك) في اليابسة

That's what some early critics noted, like Lionel Trilling and T.S. Eliot. وهذا ما لاحظه النقاد الأوائل، منهم (ليونيل تريلينغ) و (ت.س إليوت)

They argued that while the book doesn't have a lot of time for conventional religious belief, بحجة أنه بينما أن الكتاب ليس لديه سعة لإظهار المعتقد الديني التقليدي،

it does make kind of a god of the river. لكنه أظهر النهر وكأنه بمثابة إله.

“It is about a god,” Trilling wrote, “a power which seems to have a mind and a will of its own, يقول (تريلينغ): "إنه عن الإله، قوة يبدو أن عندها عقل وإرادة بذاتها،

and which, to men of moral imagination, appears to embody a great moral idea.” ويبدو لذوي الخيال الأخلاقي بأنها تجسّد فكرة أخلاقية عظيمة".

He argued that while this god of the river isn't necessarily good, love of it leads Huck toward goodness, وأضاف بأنه ليس ضرورياً أن يكون إله النهر هذا خيّراً، ولكن حب (هوك) له قاده إلى الخير

which you can see in the way Huck's voice is at its most beautiful and poetic when he's describing the river. وهذا ما نلاحظه في طريقة تحدث (هوك) الجميلة والشاعرية جداً عند وصفه للنهر

But some later critics have argued that this view is maybe too rose-colored and limiting. ولكن بعض النقاد اللاحقين رأوا أن هذا المنظور قد يكون قاصرًا ومتفائلًا بشكل مفرط،

Like, the river is a beautiful place in Huck Finn, but also a dangerous one, which Trilling only sort of acknowledges. فمثلاً، النهر مكان جميل في الرواية ولكنه خطر أيضاً، وهذا أمر ذكره (تريلينغ) بشكل ما.

I mean, it's a place where dead bodies float by, إنه المكان حيث تطفو الجثث

where a sudden fog separates the two friends, where a steamboat threatens to destroy the raft. وحيث فرّق الضباب المفاجئ بين صديقين، وحيث هدّدت الباخرة بتدمير العوامة.

But to that, I'd point out that gods aren't necessarily nice, as much as they're powerful. ولكن لذلك أريد أن أشير إلى أن الآلهة ليست طيبة بالضرورة، بقدر ما هي قوية.

And there's also been a lot of scholarship around the idea that the river represents a great moral idea: Freedom. وهناك الكثير من البحوث حول أن الفكرة التي يمثلها النهر هي فكرة أخلاقية عظيمة: وهي الحرية.

Like, early in the book, he says, “In two seconds away we went a-sliding down the river, وكما في بداية الرواية يقول (هوك): "وبعد ثانيتين من سرياننا مع النهر،

and it did seem so good to be free again and all by ourselves on the big river, and nobody to bother us.” وما أروع أن تشعر بأنك حر مجدداً، كنا وحدنا في النهر الكبير ولا أحد ليزعجنا".

And throughout the book, there's a strong opposition between life on the river and life onshore, وخلال الرواية، هناك تضاد كبير بين الحياة في النهر، والحياة على اليابسة

where there are a bunch of nonsensical rules, and uncivilized civilizations, and absurd feuds. التي فيها حزمة من القوانين الحمقاء، والحضارات غير المتحضرة، والعداوات السخيفة،

But that opposition is also an oversimplification in the end, isn't it? لكن هذا التضاد هو أيضاً تبسيط مفرط في نهاية المطاف، صحيح؟

Because the river is often a threat to the freedom that Huck and Jim want. لأن النهر في العادة يشكل تهديدًا للحرية التي أرادها (هوك) و(جيم).

I mean, Jim escapes in the first place because he's learned he's about to be sold “down the river.” فهروب (جيم) في المقام الأول كان بسبب معرفته أنه سيُباع في النهر،

I mean, it's the river that sends bounty hunters past them. وكان النهر هو من أرسل صيادين الجوائز إليهم

That sticks them with two of the worst specimens of humanity ever known: the con men known as the King and the Duke. والذي ألصقهم مع اثنين من أسوأ العينات الإنسانية على الإطلاق، الرجلان المحتالان المعروفان بالملك والدوق.

It's the river that pushes them right past Cairo, where they were hoping to catch a steamboat up to the free states, إنه النهر الذي دفعهم بجانب القاهرة، المكان الذين كانوا آملين أن يجدوا فيه باخرة تأخذهم للولايات الحرة

and transports them deeper into slave territory. ونقلتهم بشكل أعمق داخل منطقة العبودية.

So, if we're gonna see the river as a god, and I think it's helpful to, لذا إذا نظرنا للنهر على أنه إله، - وأظنها فكرة مفيدة -

let's see it as, like, one of the gods of Mount Olympus, a complicated, quasi-human god. فعلينا أن نراه كأحد آلهة جبل أوليمبوس، إله معقد شبه إنساني.

Mr. Green, Mr. Green, I'm sorry, but you're always ruining books by overreading them. سيد(غرين)، أنا آسف ولكنك دائماً تخرّب الكتب بالإفراط في قراءتها

Like, why does the river have to be a god? Why can't it just be a river? لماذا النهر يجب أن يكون إلهاً؟ لم لا يكون نهراً فقط؟

A little late in the game for you to be rearing your head me from the past, but OK. تأخرت قليلاً يا "أنا من الماضي"، ولكن حسناً

I would argue that you're going to worship something. سأحاجج بأنك سوف تعبد شيئاً ما،

Maybe it'll be a god, maybe it'll be money, or power, or fame, قد يكون إلهاً، أو المال، أو القوة، أو الشهرة،

but there's going to be something that orients your humanness in a particular direction. ولكن يجب أن يكون هناك شيئاً يوجِّه إنسانيتك إلى جهة معينة.

I think Twain is arguing against the pro-slavery, quote unquote, civilized god of the widow. أعتقد أن (توين) يعارض المؤيدين للعبودية أو "إله الأرملة المتحضر"

And arguing that love of this huge, intimidating, beautiful river is a better way to worship. ويجادل أن الحب لهذا النهر الكبير المرعب والجميل هي طريقة أفضل للعبادة.

So I do think it matters whether you see it just as a river, because you're going to worship something. لذا أظن أنه يهم إذا كنت تراه على أنه نهر فقط، وهذا لأنك سوف تعبد شيئاً في النهاية.

All right, that's the end of my rant. حسناً، هذة نهاية تخاريفي.

Let's move on to the raft, which a lot of critics also romanticize and Huck does too, like when he says, لننتقل إلى العوامة، وهي ما تغزّل فيها الكثير من النقاد، ومنهم (هوك) كقوله:

“We said there warn't no home like a raft, after all. " قلنا إن ليس هناك بيت كالعوامة في نهاية المطاف،

Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don't. الأماكن الأخرى تبدو ضيقة، وخانقة على عكس العوامة

You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft.” تشعر فيها بالحرية المطلقة، والهدوء والراحة في العوامة".

Or when he says, “It's lovely to live on a raft. أو عندما قال: "ما أجمل أن تعيش على العوامة!

We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, لدينا السماء هناك في الأعلى مرقطة بالنجوم، واعتدنا أن نتمدد على ظهورنا ونحدق بها،

and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened.” ونتناقش عما إذا كانت قد خُلقت، أو أنها حدثت فقط".

I just don't think that living on a raft would be like that at all. أنا لا أعتقد أن العيش على العوامة سيكون هكذا على الإطلاق

I mean, one of the things I love most about sleeping in a bed is that when I roll over, أعني واحدة من الأشياء التي أحبها بالنوم في السرير هي أنه عندما أتقلّب

I do not fall into the Mississippi River. لا أقع في نهر المسيسيبي

So again the raft seems to represent a kind of freedom, but on the other hand, لذا مجدداّ قد تمثّل العوامة نوعاً من الحرية، ولكن من جهة أخرى

the raft gets them off the island at the beginning of the book, and the island is kind of a paradise. فالعوامة أخذتهم بعيداً عن الجزيرة في بداية القصة، وتلك الجزيرة كانت كالفردوس

I mean, when they're on the island. فعندما كانوا على الجزيرة

Huck even says to Jim, “I wouldn't want to be nowhere else but here” So take that raft and river! قال (هوك) لـ(جيم): "لا أريد أن أكون في أي مكان عدا هنا" لذا خُذا هذا أيتها العوامة والنهر!

But of course, there's also a problem with the island, which is that it's too close ولكن بالطبع كان هناك مشكلة بالجزيرة، وهي بأنها قريبة جداً

to the past they're trying to escape. من الماضي الذي يحاولون الهروب منه

This is often what Twain does. هذا ما يفعله (توين) عادة

I mean, he was a satirist and an ironist, and so there wasn't much he held sacred, لقد كان تهكميًّا وساخرًا لذا ليس لديه شيء مقدس يتمسك فيه

so if he showed something in a positive light, he was usually very aware of the negatives, too. لذا إذا أظهر الجانب الإيجابي من الشيء، فهو بالعادة واعٍ بالسلبيات أيضاً

So they do feel great freedom on the raft, but in some ways, of course, it restricts freedom. لذا إذا شعرت بالحرية العظيمة على العوامة، ولكن في طريقة ما بالطبع هي تقيد الحرية.

I mean, it sends them south. فلقد أرسلتهم إلى الجنوب.

If there's real freedom to be found in the book, it's not going to be in a raft or on a river. إذا كانت هناك حرية حقيقية تجدها فالكتاب، فلن تكون في عوامة أو نهر

It's going to be inside the characters, in a changed moral sense and a new idea of سوف تكون داخل الشخصيات، في تغير الحس الأخلاقي، والفكرة الجديدة

what true freedom, and loyalty, and friendship really mean. لما تعنيه الحرية الحقيقية والوفاء والصداقة

And that is what makes the ending of the book so confounding to many critics, وهذا ما يجعل نهاية الكتاب مربكة للكثير من النقاد

because the ending seems to go against a lot of the great stuff that the novel has already established. لأن نهاية الكتاب تتجه عكس الكثير من الأشياء العظيمة التي بدأتها الرواية

OK, let's Go To the Thought Bubble. حسناً، لنذهب إلى فقاعة التفكير

So, Huck escapes the King and Duke only to learn that they have sold Jim away هرب (هوك) من الملك والدوق حتى عرف بأنهم باعوا (جيم)

and that Jim is being held on the Phelps farm until his owner can claim him. وأن (جيم) محبوس في مزرعة (فيلبس) إلى أن يطالب به مالكه

So he goes to the Phelps farm where is very conveniently mistaken for Tom Sawyer, لذا يذهب إلى مزرعة (فيلبس) الذين ظنوا بشكل ملائم أنه (توم سوير)،

who was scheduled to arrive for a visit. الذي كان على موعد لزيارتهم،

When Tom does arrive, pretending to be his brother Sid, he and Huck discuss plans to free Jim. وعندما وصل (توم) متظاهراً بأنه أخوه (سيد)، خطط مع (هوك) لتحرير (جيم)،

Huck comes up with a simple no-nonsense scheme – steal the key and sneak Jim out. اقترح (هوك) خطة بسيطة ومباشرة وهي سرقة المفتاح وتهريب (جيم) للخارج

But Tom wants a plan that's a lot more elaborate, لكن (توم) رغب بخطة مفصلة أكثر

that borrows from every adventure and romance novel he's ever read. التي تقتبس من كل مغامرة في رواية رومانسية قرأها،

Now Twain was no big fan of romance. لكن (توين) لم يكن من أشد المعجبين بالرومانسيات،

“Huckleberry Finn" is one of the first proper attempts at American realism "هكلبيري فين" هي واحدة من أوائل المحاولات الجيدة للواقعية في الأدب الأمريكي

and he names a wrecked steamboat the Walter Scott, وسمى الباخرة المحطمة (ذا والتر سكوت)

just to show what he thinks of Ivanhoe and all those lords and ladies and unlikely coincidences. فقط ليرينا معتقده عن (إيفانهو) وكل السادة والسيدات، والصدف بعيدة الاحتمال

You know, like Tom Sawyer being previously scheduled to visit a random farm? تعرفون، مثل الجدولة المسبوقة لزيارة (توم سوير) مزرعة عشوائية؟

But even if Twain is obviously satirizing Tom and his harebrained schemes, ولكن حتى لو كان (توين) يهجو (توم) وخططه الرعناء بشكل واضح

there's no ignoring the fact that these schemes hurt Jim, both physically and emotionally, لا تُهمل حقيقة أن تلك المخططات آذت (جيم) من الناحيتين جسدياً وعاطفياً

though he endures them all with a willingness that is actually pretty heartbreaking. على الرغم من تحمله لهم بالرضى، وهو في الواقع محطم للقلب".

He lets the boys put snakes and rats and spiders into the hut where he is held and when the rats bite him, سمِح للأولاد بأن يدخلوا الأفاعي، والفئران، والعناكب داخل الكوخ الذي هو محبوس فيه، وعندما عضته الفئران

he writes messages in his own blood on a shirt that Tom provides. كتب رسائل بدمه على قميص أمّنه (توم) له

Jim can't actually write, but he scrawls on the shirt just to please Tom. (جيم) لا يكتب، ولكنه خربش على القميص فقط ليرضي (توم)

Then Tom gets the bright idea to announce the escape plan in a series of anonymous letters, بعدها خطرت لـ(توم) تلك الفكرة اللامعة، وهي أن يعلن عن خطة الهروب بسلسلة من الرسائل المجهولة،

which complicates things even more and gets Tom shot in the leg while running away with Jim. والتي عقدت الأشياء أكثر، وسببت بإصابة (توم) بطلقة في ساقه بينما كان يهرب مع (جيم)

And Jim jeopardizes his freedom to get a doctor for Tom and is captured again, وعرّض (جيم) حريته للخطر، ليحضر طبيباً لـ(توم)، وقُبض عليه مجدداً

only to have Tom announce that Jim has been free all this time. إلى أن أعلن (توم) أن (جيم) كان حراً طوال ذلك الوقت

His mistress freed him on her deathbed. سيدته حررته عدما كانت تحتضر

So everything Tom put him through, with Huck's agreement, was just for show. Just for fun. لذا كان كلُّ ما عرضه (توم) له بموافقة من (هوك) للعرض والاستمتاع فقط.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, of course, that's a pretty messed up idea of fun. شكراً يا فقاعة التفكير. بالطبع تلك فكرة عبثية للاستمتاع .

And yes, the ending ties up the loose ends of the plot pretty neatly and it restores ونعم، تربط النهاية بين النهايات المفككة للحبكة بشكل جيد،

to the book some of the feel of “Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” وتعيد للكتاب بعض من المشاعر في "مغامرات توم سوير"

But as previously noted: Tom Sawyer isn't that great of a book. ولكن كما نوّهنا سابقاً، " توم سوير" ليس بذلك الكتاب العظيم

So going back to its tone isn't necessarily a great call. لذا العودة لنفس نمطه، ليست بالضرورة فكرة جيدة

Huck has matured tremendously over the course of this journey, نضج (هوك) بشكل هائل خلال هذه الرحلة،

and he's developed a relationship with Jim that relies on mutual affection and mutual trust. و قد طور علاقة مع (جيم) تعتمد على الميول المشترك، والثقة المشتركة.

And while Huck takes a dim view of most people – he tricks them, he lies to them – وبينما كان لـ(هوك) نظرة قاتمة لمعظم الناس لأنه خدعهم وكذب عليهم

he comes to believe that cruelty is unworthy of him and that he doesn't want others to suffer. إلا أنه وصل للإيمان بأن القساوة غير جديرة به، ولا يريد أن يعاني الآخرين.

Like, when the Duke and the King, men who have abused Huck and sold Jim away, فمثلاً، عندما قُبض على الدوق والملك - اللذين أساؤوا معاملة (هوك) وباعوا (جيم) -

are finally caught and tarred and feathered, we might expect Huck to be happy, but he isn't. وسُكب عليهم القطران والريش، قد نتوقع أن (هوك) سيكون سعيداً، ولكنه لم يكن.

“Well, it made me sick to see it,” he says, “and I was sorry for them poor pitiful rascals, فقد قال:" قززني ما رأيت وأشفقت على هؤلاء المساكين الأوغاد المثيرين للشفقة،

it seemed like I couldn't ever feel any hardness against them any more in the world… وبدا وكأني لم أستطع الشعور بأي ضغينة عليهم على الإطلاق..

Human beings CAN be awful cruel to one another.” البشر قد يكونون قاسين بشكل فظيع على بعضهم البعض".

But if he's able to summon that kind of sympathy for his enemies, if he doesn't feel any hardness toward them, ولكن إذا كان قادراً على أن يستجمع كل تلك الشفقة لأعدائه، وأنه لم يكِّن أي ضغينة عليهم،

how can he allow the cruelty to Jim? فكيف سمح لكل تلك القسوة على (جيم)؟

How can he let himself be reduced to the role of Tom's sidekick again? كيف سمح لنفسه أن يرخُص كدور المساعد لـ(توم) مجدداً؟

And how can Twain encourage Jim to bear it all so complacently? وكيف لـ(توين) أن يشجع (جيم) ليتحمل كل ذلك بشكل كامل؟

I don't have good answers to those questions, although some of it may lie in Huck's upbringing. ليس لدي أجوبة جيدة لتلك الأسئلة، على الرغم أن بعضًا منها قد يندرج تحت نشأة (هوك)

Huck is very conscious of having not been raised in respectable circumstances and he believes that Tom يعي (هوك) بأنه لم ينشأ في ظروف جيدة، ويعتقد بأن (توم)

– with all of his reading and all of his education – must know better. - رغم كل قراءاته وتعليمه - يجب أن يعرف أكثر.

In fact, he can barely get it through his head that a boy as educated and civilized في الواقع، بالكاد اقتنع بفكرة أن ولدًا متعلمًا ومتحضرًا

as Tom would consent to help free a runaway slave. كـ(توم) قد يرضى بمساعدة عبدٍ هارب وتحريره.

Now, of course Tom knows that Jim is free all the time, so he's not taking a moral risk. الآن بالطبع، كان (توم) يعرف مسبقاً أن (جيم) كان حراً طوال ذلك الوقت، لذا فهو لم يتخذ أي مخاطرة أخلاقية

But even so, for many readers, this ending sequence is a betrayal of what has come before. ولكن رغم ذلك، يعتبر كثير من القرّاء أن النهاية لهذا السياق خيانة لما جاء قبلها

I mean, out on the river, when they weren't being threatened by steamboats or menaced by con men, فمثلاً، وهم على النهر غير مهددين من الباخرة، أو من الرجال المحتالين

Huck and Jim could almost believe that a new and better world was possible. آمن (هوك) و (جيم) تقريباً باحتمالية وجود عالم جديد أفضل.

They could even look up at the stars and wonder if they were made or just happened, وأيضاً حدّقوا في النجوم و تساءلوا ما إذا كانت مخلوقة أو حدثت فقط،

which is a pretty sacreligious thing to wonder. وهو تساؤلٌ منبوذ دينياً.