Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This is the thread for the Oct-Nov 2026 Buddy Read of James by Percival Everett.

My husband & I listened to this together. I hope people enjoy it!

I read James about a month ago but am going to get the book from the library again in case I need to refresh my memory on the details. Happy to match the discussion to where everyone else is in the book, to avoid spoilers.

I also read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn just before starting James. Would be fun to compare the two as part of our discussion!

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of my least favorites of the "classics." I've read it 8 times--7 as class assignments and once by choice (to see if that made any difference--it didn't). So a fresh take on the story from Jim's POV was a welcome addition to my TBR. I was really excited to read it. So much so that I bought it in HC when published.

Unfortunately, James did not live up to my expectations, but gave me some good credit when I took it to my favorite used bookstore haunt.

I'm still waiting for that fresh take on HF that will blow my reading socks off.

My two cents (for what it's worth)

Glad to hear you enjoyed it, Annette! And thanks for the input, Squire. I'll read your reviews when I've finished reading.

I read Tom and Huck both last month in preparation for this. I hadn't read them since I was very young. They were better than I remembered, and I found things to appreciate, though understood why they weren't favorites.

I've started this (am in Chapter 4) and so far am really enjoying it.

Cynda and Joy, if you want to discuss spoilers beyond that, please feel free. I'd just request you maybe start your post with a warning. I will catch up! I'm reading a ton of books this month, so will be slow, but this one seems like it will go relatively fast.

I had actually never read Huck before I did it in preparation for reading James (I'd read Tom as a child but don't remember it very well).

Sad to say, I didn't like Huck at all. The Duke and the King got old very quickly for me and I found the chapters involving them repetitive and tedious. The last segment of the book when Huck and Tom made a big game out of "saving" Jim also irritated me (yes, I know they were just kids, but still...that's a person's life). And I struggled with the local dialect (I didn't grow up in the US), which of course isn't the book's fault, but this didn't help the reading experience.

But I'm really glad I read Huck before reading James because I think the contrast between the two really enhanced my enjoyment of James.

I will reread James.

I am glad I reread Huckleberry novel again after not having read it since my late teens. I didn't get it then as I was a girl in a different century where boys shenanigans and adventures were still tolerated when girls were kess free.

Jim was seeking his own goals of freedom while Huckleberry was off on some adventure. Huck thought Jim had stayed where he was told stay.put, but no he didn't. Huck couldn't see the truth.

Did the narrator? Did the narrator decide not to go off on a tangent? Or was the narrator mkre like Huck, someone focused on Huck's story so much that the narrator could not see Jim was purauing his own freedom goals?

I will read James starting this weekend.

Squire, I enjoyed reading your review.

Thanks, Bob. I hate to rate a book lower than 3 without explaining why.

Joy wrote: "I had actually never read Huck before I did it in preparation for reading James (I'd read Tom as a child but don't remember it very well).

Sad to say, I didn't like Huck at all. The Duke and the ..."

Joy, the parts of Huck you disliked were exactly the ones I had trouble with. The adventures got really tedious and Tom making a big game out of Jim's fate at the end really bothered me too.

After reading I read an article that said Twain stopped in the middle of writing Huck for a long stretch before going back to it, and perhaps at the end was throwing in a bunch of Tom Sawyer stuff that his readers had previously liked.

Anyway, so far I'm finding James much more satisfying. In an interview with Everett I heard he said he humbly hoped it would be a conversation with the original work, so I'm glad to have read the original right before, too.

26% from Part 1
My audio book seems to be differently numbered.

The first time I read this novel, I wasn't sure of what to make of it. So not very disappointing when Goodreads dropped my star rating review.

Now I am seeing some of why James is written the way he is.

* If he is going to be literate, he might as well be as literate as anyome reading books from a mid 19th-century judge's library.

* If he has such a fine education, James will be teaching young family abd community nembers how to operate in their world. Fkr the enslaved, success would not mean going to a better school or ebtering a finer career than the parents. It would mean learning how to fit in, how to be unnoticeable.

* If James is to survive, he must support and accept the support of a boy with whom he has a complicated relationship, sonething more and less than frienenemies.

51% from Part 1
My audiobook seems to be differently numbered

While Duke and King get old, I am finding them important to the story. They call him out. In particular, King says:

There's something about you, Ceasar.

and again:

Something about you.

He can hide his true nature only so much. Even young Huck has noticed something not slave-like about Jim/James.Yes that's right. He is intelligent, educated, aware, and questions much, including:

How much do I want to be free.

This novel is a meditation on the nature of slavery.

Kathleen wrote: "In an interview with Everett I heard he said he humbly hoped it would be a conversation with the original work, so I'm glad to have read the original right before, too."

"a conversation with the original work"--I love that! And glad you're enjoying it so far!

Spoilers below for Chapters 1-4

I really like how James (using italics to distinguish book names from character names) begins. Chapter 1 immediately establishes Jim as the protagonist and makes clear there's a lot more to Jim than we saw in Huck.

Once we get further into the book, I'd like to know what you all think of Everett's choice to have Jim and the other slaves speak "regular" English except when white people are around. Everett uses it to make the "the better they feel, the safer we are" point, but this potentially could've been done with the other strategies Jim teaches the children--eg, ask if they should get sand for the grease fire instead of saying water will make it worse. I originally read James for a book club and there was some discussion of whether slaves speaking "regular" English was historically accurate or plausible...so for some people, this was a distraction.

The fact that Jim was already slipping in his use of language around Huck that first day on Jackson Island definitely doesn't bode well for him keeping this secret from Huck.

Oh, and "stupidstitiousest" is an awesome word!

I read this pretty recently. It came highly recommended to me and I read the gushing reviews and so probably came in expecting more than I felt it delivered. So, I thought - I'll reread the original! Turns out, I then actually liked "James" more in comparison. I do think it's one of those books that suffers from an author having a couple good ideas but not enough to execute an entire novel.

I was really stunned by what a bit of a mess the original book was compared to the previous novel. So, I like the idea of a reimaging and reframing. I think the book is best seen as an alternative history maybe? Interesting concepts, just probably a stretch from actual history.

81% Completed Part 2

When I read this novel for the first time earlier this year, I too came across Everett's saying that he had written this novel to be in communication with Huck's novel.

Huck had little occassion to consider the life of the slave Jim/James. To Huck, Jim was his companion abd friend, a thing he took for granted as well as Jim being a slave.

But for Jim/James, his understanding of who he was and his place (worldview) was different from a white boy who lived in slave culture.

James was educated and aware of larger ideas that always had been boxed and put away from the slaveholding society. That society was not always white as slaves were not only black. The slaveholding society justified slavery as a way to uplift black folks. Jim has all the academic and street smarts he needs as some other slaves did.

Here is one good book on the topic.
Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi.

There hs communication on the topic of slavery seen from different perspectives. In the Huck novel, there are few perspectives on slavery stated outright.

I’m halfway through Part One, and will enjoy your posts when I get to those parts. I am loving this so far. It is so different from Twain, in tone and humor and style. But just like Huck had a particular voice that shed light on the situation, James does too, though it’s very different, and makes this more of an adult story. It’s simply written, but the ideas are subtle, and irony is a theme.

I think James’ strong feelings and aptitude for reading and writing are the reason for the choice you mention in your question, Joy, to have Jim speak an educated English. Everett said in an interview that this was not a book about slavery, but a book about one slave’s experience. And I agree with your points above about James’ literacy, Cynda. A thought I had while reading was: what if someone like my brother, who was a mathematician and deep thinker who devoured books as a child, was born a slave. What would he do with that brain? He’d seek out the library, of course, and if he could get away with it, devour books in the same way my brother did. For James, reading and writing is critical, which makes this a very particular slave experience. To think of wanting so much to write, and not having a pencil--that broke my writer’s heart!

Yes, I do see Everett's intention to write about Jim. I wonder if the story is something different or greater than what Everett admits. This happens. Remember how Harper Lee always insisted that what she wrote was a love story between Scout and Boo Radley. Eudora Welty told an interviewer that students call, ask her if this or that is happening in a particular story. Her response: If you see it there and can support it, then it is there.

I can well imagine that Everett wrote a story about Jim the slave who shows his worthiness as fellow adventurer in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and then shows that worthiness stems from curiousity, reading, knowing how to keep within his place in society. That can be hard work for anyone, particularly a slave--black or not.

Norman--a character so well developed and so crucial to the plot--was written with intention and woven through the story with intention. Norman shows us what passing can be like, what racial/ethic identification can be like.

What I like about this novel is that it is not pedagogic. Just this month I read another novel describing the nature of slavery with far less subtlety, more if a lesson.. But then it was geared to a different, younger audience. It is often considered a good book for Middle Graders:Kindred.

This novel James is written for those of us with more awareness, open to gaining more insights than we already having, for those brave enough to face more of what slavery is like--slavery not being limited to time, place, social groups.

This novel is about Jim. He shares his experiences and awarenesses with us. We learn about his world, his place in it.

Spoilers for chapters 1-11

Heather wrote: “So, I thought - I'll reread the original! Turns out, I then actually liked "James" more in comparison.”


Kathleen wrote: “It is so different from Twain, in tone and humor and style. But just like Huck had a particular voice that shed light on the situation, James does too, though it’s very different, and makes this more of an adult story.”




100% agree with what you both said. Someone in my book club said they didn’t like James because the writing wasn’t anything like Twain’s in Huck. I thought that was entirely the point—Everett wasn’t trying to tell the exact same story in exactly the same way, except from Jim’s perspective instead of Huck’s. Everett was creating a new story based on the plot of Huck.

It’s not just Jim who’s different in James vs Huck. I found Huck to also be different—more reflective and thoughtful and less childish. This is already seen in chapters 5-6 in the conversations he has with Jim about slavery and the change Everett made such that Jim being bitten by the snake wasn’t due to Huck’s “prank” of leaving a dead snake under Jim’s blanket.

I really loved James and I don't think I would've loved it as much if I hadn't had Huck fresh in my mind while reading it. It's seeing what Everett changed and how he did it that makes it so impressive to me.

Spoilers for chapters 1-11

Heather wrote: “I think the book is best seen as an alternative history maybe? Interesting concepts, just probably a stretch from actual history.”


Cynda wrote: “If he is going to be literate, he might as well be as literate as anyome reading books from a mid 19th-century judge's library.”

Kathleen wrote: “II think James’ strong feelings and aptitude for reading and writing are the reason for the choice you mention in your question, Joy, to have Jim speak an educated English.”

Building on what you’ve said, I think there was no other choice Everett could’ve made with regard to the language spoken by Jim and the other slaves. Jim’s literacy, intellect, and philosophical sophistication wouldn't have come through in the way Everett wanted if he’d been restricted to using “slave talk”. Also, to have all the black characters use “slave talk” as they did in Huck would’ve continued to reinforce their “otherness”, which undermines the entire message of James.

Kathleen wrote: “Everett said in an interview that this was not a book about slavery, but a book about one slave’s experience.”

Cynda wrote: “I wonder if the story is something different or greater than what Everett admits.”

I agree with Cynda that James is more than just about one slave’s experience and point to the fever dream debate with Voltaire as evidence. This isn’t just Jim thinking about the injustice of his own life. He’s calling out the hypocrisy of Western intellectual elites and philosophy for talking out of both sides of their mouths, so to speak, not just on the issue of slavery, but of equality and liberty. It’s almost a “breaking the fourth wall” situation.

I've only read one other book by Everett (Erasure) but, based on these two books, it's surprising to me that he didn't intend or see James as a broader discourse on slavery/racism/equality....

Joy wrote:
I found Huck to also be different—more reflective and thoughtful and less childish.
Great point about the snake. I noticed that too, and thought it was a good choice not to use that part of the original story. Huck and Jim's relationship is definitely different here.

Joy wrote:
This isn’t just Jim thinking about the injustice of his own life.
I agree. I may have quoted that wrong, but what I think he was saying was he wasn't trying to encompass everything about slavery in this volume, just one man's story that does, as you say, make a much broader point.

And love your point, Cynda: If you see it there and can support it, then it is there.
Absolutely!

Kathleen wrote: "...what I think he was saying was he wasn't trying to encompass everything about slavery in this volume, just one man's story that does, as you say, make a much broader point."

That makes sense, Kathleen. Thanks!

I read Huck Finn recently, and I was actually impressed with it. What I noticed the most was that Twain, over time, had Huck more and more appreciate Jim as a human being and not just as a slave. He eventually considered him a friend and not an inferior.
I was also amused by Jim's clear intelligence in putting up with Tom's ridiculousness. At one point Jim goes and helps them bring a millstone to his shack, then returns to live there. At one point he says something like, "I can put up with spiders and rats, but If you start filling this shack with poisonous snakes, I'm going to leave". So he knows he can leave any time without their nonsense.
But the terrifying question is also there of where he could go to be safe. He is dependent on a couple of silly white boys for his life.
I thought Twain was purposely speaking to the mindset of the southern whites and slowly moving the book in the direction of abolitionism.

When I read Huck I decided not to read James because I thought it would be a re-write from Jim's point of view, which was sort of the angle I was taking when I read Huck anyway.
But if it isn't just a re-write, perhaps I will read it after all.

Rachel wrote: “But if it isn’t just a re-write, perhaps I will read it after all.”

It’s definitely not. I’ve also heard it described as a re-telling from Jim’s point of view, and it simply isn’t. It overlaps with Twain’s novel, especially early on, but by the final 1/3 of the novel it’s entirely another story. And throughout the book, Jim & Huck (and some of the other characters) are really pretty different from who Twain wrote them to be.

I read this a year or so and agree it is NOT a retelling. Re-imagining is more accurate. I thought it was a really good book.

Cynda Reads wrote: "81% Completed Part 2

When I read this novel for the first time earlier this year, I too came across Everett's saying that he had written this novel to be in communication with Huck's novel.

Huck ..."

I'm getting back to this now that I've finished that part, Cynda--such an interesting post. I think your point about a different worldview is really important. This is a completely different novel than Huck, and that is one of the reasons. Everett isn't bringing to life the romance of life on the Mississippi. He's filling in what Twain didn't have access to: a slave's point of view. James' story isn't to entertain children with boys' adventurous antics. His story is more serious, the style more spare. Both have their place.

I like that you point out that this isn't pedagogic. For me this was very much a what-if exploration. Both books are stories, about characters who don't always act as expected. Very different than historical books like Kendi's.

Rachel,
I hope you read James then come back to tell us what you think.

Spoilers through end of Part 1 (chapter 32)

When I started reading James, I assumed, naively, that it would follow the plot of Huck and was very surprised when, around chapters 26-27, James took a turn and went down a completely different road!

This change in direction significantly truncated the original Duke and King portion of Huck that I'd found repetitive/tedious and added in the Virginia Minstrels segment, which provided an opportunity for a more complex and nuanced discussion of slavery/racism than in Huck.

Cynda wrote: "There hs communication on the topic of slavery seen from different perspectives. In the Huck novel, there are few perspectives on slavery stated outright."

Completely agree with you, Cynda. We get much more explicit commentary on slavery in James, partly because the story is told from Jim's perspective, partly because this version of Jim is more sophisticated, and partly from the changes Everett made to the plot. In the Virginia Minstrels, we see the fence straddlers like Emmett--people who claim they oppose slavery but "wouldn't go that far" to support abolitionism. Emmett says Jim isn't his slave and doesn't seem to get that debt bondage is a form of slavery.

Kathleen wrote: "Everett isn't bringing to life the romance of life on the Mississippi. He's filling in what Twain didn't have access to: a slave's point of view. James' story isn't to entertain children with boys' adventurous antics. His story is more serious, the style more spare."

100%. And life on the Mississippi wasn't particularly romantic if one were a slave or black. James makes me think of 200-year-old houses that retain the historical outer structure/frame but have been updated to have modern fixtures/amenities on the inside. The story is still set along the Mississippi in the 1800s, but the views on racial politics and discourse are quite contemporary.