Twain, London, Creativity and Sin

I heartily second almost all of Kathleen Parker's defense of Mark Twain's original text. Eliminating the "n-word" from Huckleberry Finn is a good-intentioned denial of part of our past that could give way to more insidious denials. It is up to teachers to help children navigate and understand the plot and the language, and I am personally thankful to the teachers at Robious Middle School in Richmond, Virginia who did so for me.

I quibble, however, with one sentence: "...it seems to me that racism and the sort of worldly intelligence that inspires men and women to art are incompatible." Now, according to what I've read and heard, Twain was no racist, and, as far as I can know, neither were the other authors Parker lists (Faulkner, O'Connor, Warren, Melville).

It's much more likely, however, that Jack London was racist. Having only read, but not really studied the author, I was surprised to hear the accusation for the first time on NPR while driving my car to a work event. London, along with Twain and Tolkien, were among those who first opened my young mind to reading. His stories of animals, nature and humans under extreme circumstances enthralled me. He may not belong on pantheon Parker mentions, but he had the "worldly intelligence that inspires men and women to art." Yet the fact that London wrote this short story should give us pause.

Whatever London's views, we should not let the creative off that easily. I'm a fan of the creative mind, but I can tell you from experience that sin is even stronger. To say a certain virtue always neutralizes a certain sin risks pride. Pride, in art or in virtue, comes before a fall, and falls can surprise us. Whatever the sin, however disgusting, however horrific, the old Reformed idiom, "There but for the grace of God go I," remains a good reaction.