21st Century Literature discussion

This topic is for discussion of that includes spoilers.

I'm a few chapters in, so I'll start moving my posts here so as to not accidentally spoil anyone's experience.

I'm hoping as the month gets further, more people will join? With work and life commitments, I'm a slow reader so it's kind of a good thing for me to start ahead. :)

I'm a couple chapters in, but that should pick up this week as I just finished a couple books that are due back to the library.

I'm not sure of what Coover's goal was in writing this. Perhaps he merely intended it as "fanfic." As I said elsewhere, I'm reading a sequel that Twain himself wrote. It's considerably more "humorous" in intent. The "misspellin's" aren't as thick as Coover either.

Mark, completely agree with you and Sam in missing Twain's humor somewhat.

I'm not very familiar with Coover's work in general, but just going by the text so far, I'd assume his goals were along the lines of what Sam suggested in her comment in the no spoilers thread. It's not funny in the way of Twain, but I can still feel a savage satire on almost every page - a pessimistic satire of human behavior, satire of the culture of Twain's time (and perhaps of Western culture in general), and satire of the genre of the "Western." It reminds me a little of the darker and more disillusioned works of Twain's, like The War Prayer, but it takes things even perhaps a step further.

I still feel a little shocked by Huck's casual betrayal of Jim back into slavery in chapter 2. Coover's vision of human nature seems even more jaded than Twain's.

But it's early going for me. I'm only on chapter 3. So, it's very possible my opinions will change as I get further along.

Just got through the comments on Lincoln, lynching, slavery, and the hanging of the Cherokees later in chapter 3.

Tom is this book is spectacularly unlikeable. In Twain's books Tom comes across as a bit of a scamp but not really mean at heart, just young and inexperienced and naughty. Here, he's older and well on the way to becoming a complete monster. Even Huck is a fairly unpleasant character, though a little less over the top.

Lynching described as a "participatory democracy," that's a new one.

Mid-chapter 8 now.

Huck has recovered a tiny bit of a moral compass, and there are now at least one or two non-despicable minor characters . . . though the satire is still mostly dark.

Gotten quite a bit further, now in chapter 15. I'm not sure what I think of the mix of very dark satire and the more serious parts.

At least partly it does seem to be a comment on the evils of humanity itself. Huck says a couple times that there will always be brutality when a bunch of people are in one place. Those parts are pure cynicism.

But then again, other parts feel like social commentary too. This quote caught my eye:

"when you're living with a mob of other people, it's hard not to fall into thinking as they do."

That seems to be what happened to Huck earlier in the book in his temporary acceptance of Jim's being sold back into slavery, as he accepts Tom's arguments as probably valid. It also seems to be closely linked with the brutality that's happening; the culture of that time accepts (and expects) certain kinds of violence, and it it's only a few brave people who can resist the draw of it. The pastor who speaks against the hanging of the native Americans ends up fearing for his life and threatened by his own former congregation. But the coercion to conform is both internal and external. That's why the other "good Christians" Huck encounters earlier can pray for the hanging of "every last one of those red hyenas" without even realizing the incongruity of what they're saying.

The problem for me is that some characters are clearly cartoonish on purpose, and I'm not always sure how to take the very dark humor. Like the depictions of the thugs who show up in Huck's teepee during the gold rush - they're clearly exaggerated for the sake of humor. But the brutality of the action combined with the dark humor often jars me - I suppose that's the point, maybe? Maybe he is trying to make me as a reader uncomfortable? I'm not sure.

On chapter 19 now and less than half the book remaining:

And here we are, back to complete cynicism and despair of any goodness in humankind: In Ite's story, Snake has prophetic visions, which give Snake the following grand revelation:

"Nothing mattered in the world no more and everything, even boils and pustules, was funny."

I wonder if this is why the book has so much very dark satire? Though I agree with Mark and Sam, it's not actually funny. But certain characters' caricatures are clearly over the top in a way that's supposed to make them ridiculous people. Deadwood is one example. No one in life can be quite that ridiculous.

On the other hand, some things in the book clearly feel like commentary; that's usually the purpose of satire, shining a light on human and societal flaws in the yearning for change, for something better. When Jonathan Swift proposes cannibalism in A Modest Proposal, he's hoping to shock his contemporary readers into realizing their own callousness, and into admitting to themselves what their actions and beliefs really imply.

I have to believe that there is some of that same impulse here in Huck Out West, but the book seems to flip-flop continually between that sort of impulse and a wallowing in complete despair over the human condition. Maybe that's just my experience of it though. I'm eager to see how others are reacting as they get further.

I agree with all Greg is saying though I am not quite certain why Coover is doing what he is doing. If you have not read it, I think is would benefit us to read or reread the short story, "The Babysitter," from Pricksongs:

https://biblioklept.org/2018/09/27/re...

This story is often used in creative writing classes to challenge student's presuppositions and I think there is similarity in what Coover is attempting inHuck Out West and what he accomplished in The Babysitter, but I also want us to notice how Coover intentionally limits himself in The Babysitter just as he does in Huck Out West. In the Babysitter it ismost evident in the vocabulary while in Huck Out West it seems to be in depictions of cruelty and violence which all seem to be repetitions and slight variations on earlier depictions. This makes me wonder if Coover may be trying to make an attempt to comment on what we choose to depict in literature or perhaps what we, as readers, respond to in literature. BTW, Coover had a much larger vocabulary than what we see in these two works. He tended to experment freely so there is a great deal of range in the style of his works.

Sam wrote: "I agree with all Greg is saying though I am not quite certain why Coover is doing what he is doing. If you have not read it, I think is would benefit us to read or reread the short story, "The Baby..."

That's really interesting Sam! Since Huck Out West is my first by him, I don't have a good idea of him as a writer and that might be distorting my impressions, for sure. And I find your ideas of his commenting on what is depicted and what is responded to very intriguing. I've been treating the book as I would in a typical case, but as Coover seems quite experimental in "The Babysitter," I don't know if I'm approaching the book the right way. It could be that Coover is one of those writers that is better understood the more works you read by him.

Greg - I'm feeling social commentary as well. "Tribes, They're a powerful curse laid on you when you get born. They ruin you, but you can't get away from them." (Chap XXIV) struck me as something I hear in present day conversations.

Also, I noticed that after Tom's reappearance more words were written in ALL CAPS - shouting?

As Huck continues to "muddytate" on the evils of humanity, do you think his moral compass is becoming more fine-tuned?

Sarah wrote: "Greg - I'm feeling social commentary as well. "Tribes, They're a powerful curse laid on you when you get born. They ruin you, but you can't get away from them." (Chap XXIV) struck me as something I..."

That's a great quote to hone in on Sarah!

And as far as Huck improving morally, I think maybe yes? At least he is getting a bit better at standing up to the people around him when he has to. He sticks around to help Deadwood, despite it being dangerous and despite his companions pushing him not to. He has a sliver of decency at his core.

Tom on the other hand is a complete opportunist and nihilist . . . and also probably a sociopath!

I ran across another thing that just has to be intended as commentary in chapter 23. Tom says of the Native Americans:

We'll "someday make statues of them, but . . . first (we) got to kill them all" since they are "in the way".

It's unscrupulous and horrifying, but he's just saying out loud the truth of how people behaved. We just clothe the urge with better language and disguise things better. But at heart, this is what many leaders of Twain's time must have been thinking internally.

I am going to offer this quote from the overview in the first chapter ofthe Understanding Robert Coover by Brian Evenson. I think it incorporates and integrates much of what we have said here with what Evenson found in Coover's earlier works.

Coover writes along several different thematic lines, some of which cross over into one another and all of which are related in some way.
He is concerned with communities and the way in which communities both come together and hold together through a series of shared stories and myths; yet he also sees something menacing about the way communities reinforce themselves through exclusion and scapegoating. He is interested in the ways in which the real and the fantastic can be made to play off one another in a work of fiction, and he often explores the gap between real events and how these events are interpreted. Coover examines storytelling and the ways in which fiction develops and comes to seem significant; he wants his readers to understand the dynamics not only of the story but also of the fictions people create in the world at large. For Coover politics, family interactions, and religion all contain an element of fictionalization and interpretation, but this element is often unexamined. He believes that one role of the fiction writer is to bring about an awareness of the assumptions found behind interpretations and myths

The book is from 2003 and unfortunately does not cover Huck Out West, but I still think we can see echos of Evenson's thoughts in this late flawed novel.

Definitely Sam - I agree!

Throughout there are several examples of the communities / culture creating their own stories, which are deliberately distorted from the truth. And for sure as shown in several quotes shared by all of us, there is a menacing element to the ways communities scapegoat and exclude in this book. There's a huge amount of violent scapegoating.

And definitely there's a fiction making in Ite's myths which he often adapts as he tells them, as well as in the stories the groups of people tell each other about themselves.

This is a great passage by Evenson, highly relevant.

In chapter 27 now:

One thing I find particularly disturbing in recent chapters is the way that Tom sees the law as a way not to create justice but only to pervert justice. He welcomes law because it gives him more impunity to do what he wants. He doesn't fear that the law might restrain him; he assumes it won't restrain even his worst impulses.

Likewise, he sees civilization as a way to make things, I guess the best way to put it is, less civilized . . . less fair, less non-violent.

In some ways, it's hard to argue with Tom's view, as it seems self-evident from current events that manipulative people can use the law in this way.

But it's also so desperately cynical! Civilization is not always so mercenary and self-interested, and it does not always act for the interests of the few. And it seems hard to believe that laws restrain unscrupulous people less than complete lawlessness. I just don't see it. Sure, sometimes laws are manipulated to terrible ends, but there are other cases where the law can protect innocent people and keep them safe.

I suppose that laws will always be as good or bad as the culture that creates them, since it is the human beings who shape the laws themselves. But can the culture of Huck and Tom's time really be so bad that laws created by that culture are even worse than complete chaos?

Sam - Thank you for Evenson's analysis. This gives me a lot to ponder about the writing in HOW. That's a lot of dichotomies and basal motivations. Now I better understand why this was an enjoyable read for me and found quite a bit of humor. Maybe that's because humor is my favorite defense mechanism and examination with change are rarely comfortable. In the last ten days, I've done much thinking about my reality and how I might choose to act in order to shape my future reality.

I'm just beginning it, but I do think I'm going to like it very much.

Bella (Kiki) wrote: "I'm just beginning it, but I do think I'm going to like it very much."

Glad to hear that Bella!

I just finished the book. I was wondering why I was reading this and ready to drop it for the first 100 pages or so. And then something clicked (may be I got used to the language and the jumps in the narrative) and it was a faster read after that. I am still thinking about it and wondering how I would experience it if I had read it at some other point of time and not in the current environment. Other than one or two instances, I did not find the book funny. It was a vicious and biting commentary that is appropriate for today. As I was reading ch. 22 and Tom is talking about the UP'N UP, the news of Matt Gaetz nomination came through. That was funny. This part resonated "Trouble is, Huck, you never growed up. You're still living in some dream of a world that don't exist"

Mg, I'll admit that I didn't find anything in the book ha ha funny either. For me, I experienced irony and dark satire but not humor really. But there were several characterizations that were caricatures and over the top in a way where I can see how they could be found humorous. And it's possible it was intended differently than I saw it.

If I had read it alone, I definitely would have only noticed the alternating biting commentary and despairing cynicism. The biting commentary has felt particularly strong to me as I'm reading. But then again, given what Sam and others have said, I can see other aspects too. I can see the book being taken in a few different ways now, possibly at once.

I'm getting close to finishing too. I can't say I love it yet, but I do find it interesting. I'm not sorry to have read it.

Sam wrote: ". . . but also of the fictions people create in the world at large. For Coover politics, family interactions, and religion all contain an element of fictionalization and interpretation, but this element is often unexamined."

Getting to the final chapters, but another thing came up that made me think of this quote.

When Huck and Becky compare vastly different stories Tom told them about how Tom killed his father, Becky says she wonders which one is true. Huck says that Ite would say both were true. This is obviously impossible in a practical sense, but I guess he means that the two myths Tom created about the events have a life of their own and have become their own sort of truth . . . I suppose, in the same way that the stories Ite adapts about Coyote and Snake contain elements of human truth even though in strictly factual terms, they're not true.

I don't know how it is everywhere, but around me in the public space, this malleability of facts is perhaps more on evidence than ever before, and I don't find it to be a happy development. I agree with Coover that myths have their own truth, in that they express important cultural realities, cultural assumptions, and cultural yearnings. But extending that malleability of truth into the everyday world strikes me nowadays as really disheartening and disturbing because we are already living that out.

I am not sure how I feel about Coover's treatment of these themes, though I suppose he has been writing on these themes for many years. I am not sure these themes mean the same things that they did back in 1966 when his first book came out. What used to be a bracing counter-cultural challenge now strikes me as something much darker and altogether different.

Mg wrote: "I just finished the book. I was wondering why I was reading this and ready to drop it for the first 100 pages or so. And then something clicked (may be I got used to the language and the jumps in t..."
. As I was reading ch. 22 and Tom is talking about the UP'N UP, the news of Matt Gaetz nomination came through. That was funny. This part resonated


Funny, indeed!

Greg wrote: "Sam wrote: ". . . but also of the fictions people create in the world at large. For Coover politics, family interactions, and religion all contain an element of fictionalization and interpretation, b..."

You have elaborated on something that has been bothering me, use of the word truth. I can go with human truth and cultural truth, as you point out examples in HOW. There is truth in a court of law. All of these definitions of Truth imply a premise of social agreement. However, when my friend speaks of this being a time of "flexible truth" perhaps she is really speaking of a "malleability of facts", as you suggest. When there is individual perception inherent in the argument, I am "disturbed and disheartened" by use of the word truth. I was part of the counter-culture back in the day and honestly (truly - ha!) today is different and darker. There is a lot of history and experience as support. Not sure how much is my individual perception, but thanks for bringing up the question.

Just finished the book yesterday (having had similar experiences to many of you while reading based on the comments above). Until about page 175 or 176 (when Tom cinematically re-enters the story more centrally), I was quite bored (and I say this as a long time fan of Coover's writing) and raising questions you all have posed (Why am I reading this? What is Coover trying to do? Why is this so darn tootin' bleak? Who done known't forgiveness and flapcakes might juss pair up like a good setta boots? Why the hell am I now talking like this?!!)

It really wasn't until the final third (maybe even fifth) of the book that any sort of cohesion started to gel for me. I started to see it allegorically, an exploration of the American myth... Maybe a dismantling of the American myth? The gold rush is sort of stand-in for the American Dream--anyone can get rich and do so instantly! Why that sorta luck is just poring out the land itself even if it means we might have to kill one another to get it first. But Huck and Tom are almost like two paths America(ns) could have taken (might still take): Huck as the more empathetic US connected to the land, in touch with nature/animals, accepting of and actually befriending the indigenous and "other," sharing/enjoying stories that capture/explain culture/community; Tom as the more nihilistic US interested in wealth, fame, and appearance/attention, creating stories that manipulate, entertain, distract others, and/or magnify the ego/self. They're sort of two approaches to language/meaning, as well, which I think gets to what Sarah was saying about truth.

Are many of you familiar with the Lakota mythology of Coyote and Snake? And, regardless of that answer, did you make any connections between those characters and Huck and Tom? This is one I'm still puzzling (muddytating?) over.

Excellent post by Mark today. I know U.S. holidays are imminent and hope you find time to read what he had to say.

First, I agree with Mark that this is not one of Coover's better novels. I had some second thoughts on the nomination after I started reading but am taking the glass half full approach. I think the ideas Coover is exploring are valid even if the writing was not up to my expectation and TBH, I have gained as much from reading lesser books by good authors as I have from their best, and they make the best books stand out and seem even better. And looking forward to The Maniac, a great book, I expect you'll love it after reading this and hope you all join in.

On the thoughts about myth, I agree with Marc although I think the concept of myth can be expanded to a more general idea, as the myth that fueled the British idea of empire, the German's idea of superior race, the French idea of "liberty egalite fraternite." I think we may look at Coover's idea of myth broadened and universal.

I also saw the two paths that Mark saw, but saw Huck as a little more apathetic than empathetic and then I started looking at all the characters as possible types for students Coover would see passing through his classes while he was a professor, those whom are exposed and have to respond to the indoctrinating myths. Tom would be the type that accepted the myth, all in, and looked to profit and advance himself within the indoctrinating rules. Huck would be the everyman student not fully buying into the indoctrination but not fully rejecting it either. He is easily influenced and can be manipulated by friends. He is a bit overtrusting which gets him in trouble. He does not try to overthink things. I think this type represents many of us, and an example would be most every "Joe" who has fought in any war. Becky is the pragmatic disenfranchised type that does what she needs to to survive. Eeteh can represent every type of "other," we can imagine from Matthew Shepard to George Floyd. This analysis is not meant to contradict Mark but to supplement his thoughts. Coover was capable of being quite complex. I don't know how many of you read The Public Burning but there are still themes I am exploring from that book despite the many years that have past since I last read it. So while my thoughts are very loose and unsupported, I think they are representative of something Coover might do in a novel.

I am afraid, I did not take the time to research the "coyote and snake," possibilities. They do offer commentary apart from the action and an alternative mythology in comparison, but I did not take it further.

Sam wrote: "...and then I started looking at all the characters as possible types for students Coover would see passing through his classes while he was a professor, those whom are exposed and have to respond to the indoctrinating myths."
A fascinating perspective to consider. Did you think Huck remained apathetic throughout or did you see him changing much as a character? I agree that myths (in general) as well as those that acted as predecessors to the American one (colonialism, manifest destiny, etc. as you mentioned) are a logical extension of this book. (For the record, I have no issues being contradicted although I appreciate you are diplomatically broadening the discussion in this context.)

I did not do much research on coyote and snake mythology. I'm familiar with the notion of the "trickster" in many Native American tales, which is the role Coyote usually takes.

Huck and Tom have a very brief-but-essential conversation about power and freedom. If memory serves, Huck believes power is somewhat antithetical to freedom and Tom believes power is the only way to have freedom. Freedom seems like a core concept to America's founding and its mythology. What do we make of it in light of this novel? And did this book in any way alter the way any of you think about freedom personally?

I haven't read The Public Burning, but hope to do so next year.

Marc wrote: " Sam wrote: "...and then I started looking at all the characters as possible types for students Coover would see passing through his classes while he was a professor, those whom are exposed and hav..."

When I used the word apathetic, I was writing fast and not really conveying what I meant well. I agree more with you that "Huck as the more empathetic US connected to the land, in touch with nature/animals, accepting of and actually befriending the indigenous and "other," sharing/enjoying stories that capture/explain culture/community." but I felt your description pictured him more of a binary opposite to Tom and felt from that description people might see him as a hippie/leftist type. I saw him more of a "blank slate," without political influences and despite individual leanings that were as you saw him, in no sense did he identify to any group with similar leaning. I used the term apathetic to try and illustrate that Huck did not care or better had not responded to any of the socializing indoctrinating influences to which young people are exposed.


I strongly recommend Public Burning. I consider it one of my ten best of the 20th century and it is a far more complex book than Huck Out West. What Coover does with characterization is amazing as he uses both real public figures and personified ideologies to extremes that I never saw before.

Marc, Sam - Thank you for offering so many important points to ponder, e.g. power/freedom, founding of America. Now that I have 70 years of personal history, it's complicated constructing a view from that much reading, experiences, listening to powerful people. I'll keep working on it, it's fun. I did enjoy reading Coover and was going to ask a suggestion for read #2. The Public Burning sounds promising. Guess Huck caught my attention because of all the attention to James.

Coover had some previous western experience with Ghost Town. Here is how it begins:

Bleak horizon under a glazed sky, flat desert, clumps of sage, scrub, distant butte, lone rider. This is a land of sand, dry rocks, and dead things. Buzzard country. And he is migrating through it. Because: it is where he is now, and out here there’s nothing to stop for, no turning back either, nothing back there to turn to. His lean face is shaded from the sun overhead by a round felt hat with a wide brim, dun-colored like the land around, old and crumpled. A neckerchief, probably once red, knotted around his throat, collects what sweat, in his parched saddle-sore state, he sweats. A soft tattered vest, gray shirt, trail-worn cowhide chaps over dark jeans tucked into dust-caked boots with pointed toes, all of it busted up and threadbare and rained on, dried out by sun and wind and grimed with dust, that’s the picture he makes, forlorn horseman on the desert plain, obstinately plodding along. He wears a wooden-butted six-shooter just under his ribs, a bowie knife with a staghorn handle in his belt, and a rifle dangles, barrel aimed at his partnering shadow on the desert floor, from the saddle horn. He is leathery and sunburnt and old as the hills. Yet just a kid. Won’t ever be anything else.

One reason I nominated Huck Out West was to see how we would compare it to James by Percival Everett. I think Percival Everett wrote the tighter book with more clearly defined themes and purpose while Coover's book seems less defined and and much looser. But I can't imagine Everett having not read Huck Out West given the close proximity to his own publication and I am curious what he would have learned. Any thoughts?

I haven't read James yet, though I want to.

There are definitely some elements to James'/Jim's characterization in Huck Out West that I can see readers or thinkers reacting to. His extreme good nature in the face of betrayal has a touch of Uncle Tom about it. I can see a writer wanting to imagine a very different future for James/Jim than the one Coover has imagined for him.

Sam - Thanks for sharing the passage from Ghost Town. I lived in Colorado 50 years before moving to SC and thought Coover's writing tone authentically captured the essence of the west as I experienced and read about it. I may have seen that Coover visited/experienced different areas.

" But I can't imagine Everett having not read Huck Out West given the close proximity to his own publication and I am curious what he would have learned. Any thoughts?"

I just ordered James. Perhaps, we could schedule this discussion in the future and even invite Everett to join or answer our curiosities in writing?

I also have not read JAMES yet, although I would think the simple shift in POV to James’s character would make for an extremely different read. I believe Everett said he began writing it as a “corrective” to Twain’s book but quickly abandoned that approach and saw it more “in conversation with” the original text.

GHOST TOWN has a much more meta fictional feel to it, if my shoddy memory can be relied upon. You get the feeling he’s evoking place and almost deconstructing western tropes and myths. Hoping to tackle THE PUBLIC BURNING in 2025 (although every time I voice reading plans their likelihood is diminished by half).

Before I forget, thanks for nominating and leading this discussion, Sam. And thanks to all who participated/continue to participate (discussions are welcome to continue for as long as folks have things to discuss).

If the group keeps its current nominating guidelines, JAMES would be eligible as a pick starting in March.

And my thanks to everyone for participating with their contributions. That said, I am moving on from Huck Out West to our next book, The Maniac. The Maniac was a five star read for me and I am very much looking forward to the reread and the discussion. This topic will remain open for any further comments or review.