"huck finn" edited...despicable!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's a good point, I bet there are teachers that don't know how to handle it, or how important it might be to make such a point very early on, for those that don't understand.

But, even if it is explained to a class, I still don't know if all kids in every situation would be ready for it. To see a black character referred to as that by a white author and white characters might make some students sick even if the satire element is explained, and even if they can be reassured that each of their classmates is also on board with appreciating it as a satire. And, I'd like to add: even if the student happened to already love reading books.

Maybe such students will just have to "deal with it" in some classes and learn later on why they had to go through with it along with other kids that seemed less upset about it; and in other cases, maybe there'll be classes that would do best to just avoid the book. The unfortunate thing is, there'll still be some teachers making bad judgement calls about this, probably, if they are given the option to teach it or not. Not that each lesson and teacher has to be perfect and work out great, but this book seems to be particularly tricky for a lot of schools.

Yes, I agree. I think many students, actually, will be uncomfortable with the book no matter how much it is explained, just due to the very nature of the word. But if they understood the book, at least they would know what is being portrayed isn't being portrayed out of malice. After all, the reader should be at least a little uncomfortable with the material.

Plus, there is something to be said about the pedagogical value of making students uncomfortable on purpose with certain materials, whether it be racism, war, sex, or any multitude of subjects. This is always a tricky tightrope to walk though; you don't want to reduce your students to tears.

I think HF is often taught at way too low of a level (many times 7th and 8th grade). It would work better with a junior and senior class, in my opinion.

[JCamilo]

Actually, if Huck finn is in the schools because his political message, then I say it would remain out of the schools. The question is why we pick the books and why they are taught. Literature is not the political message. I can read Virgil without glorying the roman empire, Dante without medieval faith and I hoope we can read Twain beyong his sympathy for slavery cause. (Meaning, the end of slavery)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While we, as teachers, are not supposed to impart political beliefs on our students, but one of our duties is to guide them towards becoming well-rounded, moral citizens. This includes teaching them that racism and slavery are wrong.

Plus, we can teach what political messages works send without endorsing those political messages.

[kiki1982]

hear, hear!

Anything short of that is a waste of time.

[JCamilo]

Errr, the dude editing Mark Twain has the same argument. He is moralizing the text.

Hear, hear... Teaching literature is not about reading the books with moral intentions, that is what keep Moby Dick out of fashion - those dumb teachers that see racism, destruction of nature, etc and must talk about it and not Melville's work.

[kiki1982]

Err, it is not his place to moralise anything? Leave that up to the teacher teaching the work, or maybe to the pupils themselves, thinking about it. That is more than good enough.

Teaching literature is about teaching the message of relevant books to your pupils about things relevant to their history (as that is relevant to the society of today).

As such, it is about moral messages as well as other things, depending on the books you read.

I don't know what you think is the benefit of literature class, but that is what it is to a lot of people.

And before you ask about Shakespeare. Shapespeare is important as to human nature and how human nature deals with certain things. That is also relevant, for everyone, no matter how old Shaklespeare may be. And there are loads of moral messages in Shakespeare.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Errr, the dude editing Mark Twain has the same argument. He is moralizing the text.

Hear, hear... Teaching literature is not about reading the books with moral intentions, that is what keep Moby Dick out of fashion - those dumb teachers that see racism, destruction of nature, etc and must talk about it and not Melville's work.

You can do both.

[JCamilo]

No, you cann't. Feminist teachers destroy Woolf work because they focus on her feminist trait. And this destroy literature. Voltaire was a bastard anti-democratic, so is borges. I wont repeat the effect that what you two are propoposing is exactly what keep classical works from classes is exactly the moralization of literature teaching. Morals change. But when they are in vigor they are absolute, so Moby Dick lose his place, Kipling loses his space, Twain, Carlyle, etc. Despite the undeniable literary quality of their works.

You want to teach ethics and moral, go for Kant and in the philosophy class. Literature class should not be about this. Even because those guys who ban books believe in their morals. So, in the end, you two are now advocating exactly the control of the books by moral standars, since this is the result of bringing a book with moral intentions.

Even when we agree the moral is acceptable (Like anti-slavery), Twain is NOWHERE the moral high-grounds there. He is not even the first (Uncle Thomas Cabin was first), so the only reason that should matter is Twain's literary merit, not his moral.

Teaching literature is NOT about teaching a message. It is not propaganda. Some books do not even have a message. How come you can say so much about allowing people to have their own interpretation and now is claiming some addult is free to give the message (he thinks it is right, since the majority of great works of literature do not have a conclusive message or we do not know we which one was the message) or a moral (which by the way, is not universal. Christians and Muslims have different moral codes, but a teacher may find both in his literature class).

In Shakespeare there is a lot of moral messages? Such as obeying the king. Does it matter? Not at all. Romeo and Juliet are under age. It is the moral of young kids should not run away from their parents. The moral YOU think it is important, nobody else and it is lost, misinterpreted, irrelevant.

If the literature class is that for a lot of people (haha, I doubt so.) then it would be no wonder why any text from anyone should be read: does not matter the quality, the aesthetic experience, the pleasure, only means the doctrine of the teacher. And Voilá, those students grow up and can change Nigger to Slave.

[kiki1982]

Oh, please, we are not at all arguing that one has to ONLY teach a certain interpretation. Yes, writers can be narrowed down to some particular message if the teacher hammers it home too much. BUT, there are certain moral messages from a historic point of view.
How do you suggest that Jane Eyre has no moral message at all? And I am not talking about the raving feminist interpretation of the mad woman in the attic, I am just talking about the inherent criticism present in that story of Jane and Rochester, that she does not want to be dominated.

And how is 'the king must be obeyed' the only moral message in Shakespeare? King Lear's narcism doesn't have any bad consequences? The avariciousness of Cordelia's two sisters hasn't got any either? The tricks of Edmund have no bad effect upon him? The feud between the Montagues and the Capulets has no effects whatsoever? The murder of Hamlet's father and his uncle's trickery have no consequences? Those are also moral messages, it seems to me.

The thought that reading is merely literary merit is very narrow-minded. People are welcome to read a book only for that reason, or for plot reasons, but that is not at all where literature stops. Usually there is a message, otherwise there would nothing to discuss, nor anything to study (so what are all those academics doing anyway?). That should be taught in class, if anything, not merely literary merit if that can be taught at all... You cannot tell anyone to have pleasure, nor to find something beautiful.
How can one teach that? It is beautiful. Why? Because the teacher says it? because most people find it (it has become a classic)? because some obscure academic finds that?

The mere form of HF is a message. One does never make a satire about something he approves of. In a minor or major way, a satire disapproves of things that happen. Gulliver's Travels (and other work of Swift; not least the battle of the books) can be read as an allegory or satire on the society he lived in. Austen's work is a satire on the ridiculous appearance society of her day. Some of Kafka's work is satirical as well. Does that mean he approved of the over-active admin streak of the Habsburg empire? I would be surprised. If he calls a renouned secretary Momus (The Castle), god of satire, mochery and censure, why does he do that? Surely not to encouragingly nod to the vast administrative machine? Dickens's Circumlocution Office, merely by its name, cannot be called positive I presume? How is that not a message then? How is the whole story of LIttle Dorrit no message at all?

[JCamilo]

Oh, please, we are not at all arguing that one has to ONLY teach a certain interpretation. Yes, writers can be narrowed down to some particular message if the teacher hammers it home too much. BUT, there are certain moral messages from a historic point of view.
How do you suggest that Jane Eyre has no moral message at all? And I am not talking about the raving feminist interpretation of the mad woman in the attic, I am just talking about the inherent criticism present in that story of Jane and Rochester, that she does not want to be dominated.

Irrelevant, moral messages of the books are not what makes them relevant. Milton had no intention to create a freedom fight in Lucifer. Happened. Mistakes in the interpretation are more relevant than anything else. And please, do not detour, you complained about the change of the words as a form to control the kids reading capacity, and now reckon the external interference as valid? Dont you see how pointless is to say: those people changing the word are also making their interpretation interference, tour. Like I said, that was an irrelevant point to attack the change.

And how is 'the king must be obeyed' the only moral message in Shakespeare? King Lear's narcism doesn't have any bad consequences? The avariciousness of Cordelia's two sisters hasn't got any either? The tricks of Edmund have no bad effect upon him? The feud between the Montagues and the Capulets has no effects whatsoever? The murder of Hamlet's father and his uncle's trickery have no consequences? Those are also moral messages, it seems to me.

The thought that reading is merely literary merit is very narrow-minded.

Pardon, then you can write Mark Twain with modified words. Your rage cannt be justified, neither the reading of classics, who survive due their literary merit.

People are welcome to read a book only for that reason, or for plot reasons, but that is not at all where literature stops. Usually there is a message, otherwise there would nothing to discuss, nor anything to study (so what are all those academics doing anyway?)

You may have not noticed but academics are a minority. The majority of readers have no academic capacity, study, simple because it is a specialized job. And it may surprise you, the Academic specialist usually study the books they see merit on it, they find pleasure. Not for some obligation.

That should be taught in class, if anything, not merely literary merit if that can be taught at all... You cannot tell anyone to have pleasure, nor to find something beautiful.

What? Academic study of literature should be taught in class? Hey, they are academic, other kids, you understand the concept of graduation? Kids do not have condition to study academically any work.
And literary merit means what Academics find, what are you talking about? Who discovers it ? And not teached, they decide to use a book by its merits, it is a reason to let be read, not what to be taught.

How can one teach that? It is beautiful. Why? Because the teacher says it? because most people find it (it has become a classic)? because some obscure academic finds that?

You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature.

The mere form of HF is a message. One does never make a satire about something he approves of. In a minor or major way, a satire disapproves of things that happen. Gulliver's Travels (and other work of Swift; not least the battle of the books) can be read as an allegory or satire on the society he lived in. Austen's work is a satire on the ridiculous appearance society of her day. Some of Kafka's work is satirical as well. Does that mean he approved of the over-active admin streak of the Habsburg empire? I would be surprised. If he calls a renouned secretary Momus (The Castle), god of satire, mochery and censure, why does he do that? Surely not to encouragingly nod to the vast administrative machine? Dickens's Circumlocution Office, merely by its name, cannot be called positive I presume? How is that not a message then? How is the whole story of LIttle Dorrit no message at all?

No, no message at all. The message is over. Everyone knows black people are humans as white people. So Twain lost its function.

[kiki1982]

Irrelevant, moral messages of the books are not what makes them relevant. Milton had no intention to create a freedom fight in Lucifer. Happened. Mistakes in the interpretation are more relevant than anything else. And please, do not detour, you complained about the change of the words as a form to control the kids reading capacity, and now reckon the external interference as valid? Dont you see how pointless is to say: those people changing the word are also making their interpretation interference, tour. Like I said, that was an irrelevant point to attack the change.

No Milton did not intend a freedom fight in Lucifer, but intended to make people realise it was easier to follow Lucifer than God. That was also a message and a very powerful one at that.

Pardon, then you can write Mark Twain with modified words. Your rage cannt be justified, neither the reading of classics, who survive due their literary merit.

And how is that? Literary merit is not so narrow as 'it is beautiful' alone. Literary merit includes something to think about. Books which have been only well written rarely get into the classics list. Examples are all those that were once popular and now forgotten. Take Radcliffe for instance. Imensely popular in her day, but now not anymore. Certainly not due to her writing style which I would call enjoyable and pretty.

You may have not noticed but academics are a minority. The majority of readers have no academic capacity, study, simple because it is a specialized job. And it may surprise you, the Academic specialist usually study the books they see merit on it, they find pleasure. Not for some obligation.

Of course academics are in the minority, although literature would never have turned into a science if 'it is beautiful' was the only criterium available to the literary science.

What? Academic study of literature should be taught in class? Hey, they are academic, other kids, you understand the concept of graduation? Kids do not have condition to study academically any work.
And literary merit means what Academics find, what are you talking about? Who discovers it ? And not teached, they decide to use a book by its merits, it is a reason to let be read, not what to be taught.

Analysis should be taught, and was taught in my classes limitedly. That is the merit of reading, not 'it is beautiful'. The criterium 'it is beautiful' leads you to read different writers whose style you like because it is subjective, not to literary merit.

You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature.

And how do you discuss something, which is the best way of getting people interested? By just letting them say, 'I found it nice to read', and then what? What are we doing on this forum then? Something that doesn't matter? We could as well do away with this forum as we know that the books we read have literary merit. As that is the only thing that matters, we can stop discussing them. Clearlyb , that is not at all the point of literature.

No, no message at all. The message is over. Everyone knows black people are humans as white people. So Twain lost its function.

Twain has not lost his function. Maybe as a renewing idea about slavery, he has, but otherwise not. Why would people still be studying it then if there was no purpose at all?
As I said, it is about educating people.

[JCamilo]

No Milton did not intend a freedom fight in Lucifer, but intended to make people realise it was easier to follow Lucifer than God. That was also a message and a very powerful one at that.

Which means: the message was threw out of the window. The main reason the most influential readers of Milton and today readers still with him is unrelated to his message.

And how is that? Literary merit is not so narrow as 'it is beautiful' alone. Literary merit includes something to think about. Books which have been only well written rarely get into the classics list. Examples are all those that were once popular and now forgotten. Take Radcliffe for instance. Imensely popular in her day, but now not anymore. Certainly not due to her writing style which I would call enjoyable and pretty.

Literary merit is and often is about how well written a book is. Not about the message it conveys. That is why you can read Virgil until today, find beautiful and not pray for the roman emperors.

Of course academics are in the minority, although literature would never have turned into a science if 'it is beautiful' was the only criterium available to the literary science.

Literature is not a science. Neither literary academic criticism really aim or claim to be one.

Analysis should be taught, and was taught in my classes limitedly. That is the merit of reading, not 'it is beautiful'. The criterium 'it is beautiful' leads you to read different writers whose style you like because it is subjective, not to literary merit.

Analysis is not taught, not even touched. No teacher in classes have studied at depth the academics of literary theories to taught and explain it.
And congratulations: Classicis or the cannon is composed by different writers which merit is hardly subjective.

And how do you discuss something, which is the best way of getting people interested? By just letting them say, 'I found it nice to read', and then what? What are we doing on this forum then? Something that doesn't matter?

The best way to keep someone interessed on reading, the best argument is often the text itself. Discussing is hardly as interesting as presenting more and more texts.

We could as well do away with this forum as we know that the books we read have literary merit. As that is the only thing that matters, we can stop discussing them. Clearlyb , that is not at all the point of literature.

The point of literature is not this forum neither discussing about it. It is writing and reading texts. And do not move goals, this forum is not about reading books (as in the class) and neither about formal education.

Twain has not lost his function. Maybe as a renewing idea about slavery, he has, but otherwise not. Why would people still be studying it then if there was no purpose at all?
As I said, it is about educating people.

Congratulations: Twain did not his function, because the so called message against slavery is not what matters in his book. The message lost its function, the book does not? Why, because his literary merity sustain it beyond any moral lesson. Just like sustain Benito Cereno, where black slaves mutiy is evil. So, I am glad you agreed, the books are not there for the moreal lessons.

And literature class for education will lose purpose. Several politicians, philosophers wrote with deeper than Twain about the subject. Read them.

[kiki1982]

Which means: the message was threw out of the window. The main reason the most influential readers of Milton and today readers still with him is unrelated to his message.

The message has not been thrown out of the window. Where do you get that from? As long as the work exists, the message exists, maybe it has lost its relevance to people who know what the message is, but it stays relevant for one who wants to learn about the change of perception. AT any rate, it does not have to necessarily be about God and Lucifer, it can be extended to many more relevant things.

Literary merit is and often is about how well written a book is. Not about the message it conveys. That is why you can read Virgil until today, find beautiful and not pray for the roman emperors.

I can say nothing of Virgil, but there are many more novels that are meaningless if read only for their literary merit. And what do you say of Kafka who is so bland? Is he not allowed to have literary merit without lyrical language yet incredibly dense thoughts behind his prose? He is the blandest I have ever read. Granted, he has occasional lapses of sheer brilliance in grammatical construction, but not at all the greatest part of his books. Where is his literary merit? He even repeats himself endlessly, even repeats words in the same sentence up to three times. I would argue he has brilliant moments which admittedly make you cry with admiration (single sentences, that is), but some stuff is just bland and honestly not very well written at all. Is he then not a good writer? He is a brilliant writer.

Literature is not a science. Neither literary academic criticism really aim or claim to be one.

It is maybe not an exact science, but it is definitely considered worth calling a science of some sort. At least in the country I come from. Part of the humanist sciences.

Analysis is not taught, not even touched. No teacher in classes have studied at depth the academics of literary theories to taught and explain it.
And congratulations: Classicis or the cannon is composed by different writers which merit is hardly subjective.

Analysis is definitely taught. Maybe not in your country. In mine it was. Not 'how is this writer writing' or 'how well', but really 'what does this character say', 'what does he/she mean' and 'what is the general theme of the book'. Also the different genres (what is a short story, novella, novel, etc).
Literary threory, as I see it, is more popular in de Anglosaxon world. In order to analyse one does not need theory.

The best way to keep someone interessed on reading, the best argument is often the text itself. Discussing is hardly as interesting as presenting more and more texts.

Oh, yes, overload is really going to help. Better slow and good than fast and crappy. As you have admitted that beauty is subjective, you can also see that with the over all majority of texts you will only annoy the average student. Certainly as they are teenagers, they will rather be disposed to not like it for its 'literary merit' than to get interested in some issues that are relevant to them as teenagers.
They did it in our school, I don't see why they shouldn't be able do it anywhere else.

The point of literature is not this forum neither discussing about it. It is writing and reading texts. And do not move goals, this forum is not about reading books (as in the class) and neither about formal education.

So for what purpose is this forum here apart from discussing what we like to discuss (i.e. 'why')?
I learn all the time when I read and I keep learning every day, with every text I read.
The point of literature is partly enjoyment and one gets more enjoyment out of a text by reading it, enjoying it and then talking about it with other people past the 'literary merit'-thing than by stopping at the end of the book.

Congratulations: Twain did not his function, because the so called message against slavery is not what matters in his book. The message lost its function, the book does not? Why, because his literary merity sustain it beyond any moral lesson. Just like sustain Benito Cereno, where black slaves mutiy is evil. So, I am glad you agreed, the books are not there for the moreal lessons.

As I said about Milton, the message stays, but is now a message in the past which can still be discussed.

And literature class for education will lose purpose. Several politicians, philosophers wrote with deeper than Twain about the subject. Read them.

Nope, I can't agree with that. Non-fiction and philosophy is much more uninteresting at first sight than literature in itself. Better a book where you care about the characters than a treatise on how the state should be run or how slavery is wrong or anything like that. A novel is much more personal than a paper of a minister or philosopher will ever be.

[JCamilo]

The message has not been thrown out of the window. Where do you get that from? As long as the work exists, the message exists, maybe it has lost its relevance to people who know what the message is, but it stays relevant for one who wants to learn about the change of perception. AT any rate, it does not have to necessarily be about God and Lucifer, it can be extended to many more relevant things.

Completely. Even the religious discussion is not part of any christian church anymore. There is no relevant moviment, no author, no work inspired by Milton but the reading of Satan as a rebel. The message of Milton is almost some archeological curiosity.

I can say nothing of Virgil, but there are many more novels that are meaningless if read only for their literary merit. And what do you say of Kafka who is so bland?

Sorry, but you are not helping youself. Kafka is not bland and has a huge literary merit. He wrote quite well, his construction of sentences in german is hightly praised. His domain of parabole technique imense, his capacity of parelelism with other works, his narrtive as short story unique, his construction of sittuation and even his characters (K or Samsa, are extremelly well used). The reason Kafka stands is exactly because he writes well, not for any message because there is no message that people can discover for sure.

Is he not allowed to have literary merit without lyrical language yet incredibly dense thoughts behind his prose? He is the blandest I have ever read. Granted, he has occasional lapses of sheer brilliance in grammatical construction, but not at all the greatest part of his books. Where is his literary merit?

So he, Hemingway, Borges, Stevenson... wait, typical short stories writers which merit is suggest with economy the density of the sittuation inside a frame.

He even repeats himself endlessly, even repeats words in the same sentence up to three times. I would argue he has brilliant moments which admittedly make you cry with admiration (single sentences, that is), but some stuff is just bland and honestly not very well written at all. Is he then not a good writer? He is a brilliant writer.

He is very well written. He many not be very well edited, considering he did not took care of it.

It is maybe not an exact science, but it is definitely considered worth calling a science of some sort. At least in the country I come from. Part of the humanist sciences.

Which Coutry? German? It is just not, either something is science (unless you mean science as Dante said he was a scientist) or not. It is just a field of discussion and even science, you barelly teach to kids.

Analysis is definitely taught. Maybe not in your country. In mine it was. Not 'how is this writer writing' or 'how well', but really 'what does this character say', 'what does he/she mean' and 'what is the general theme of the book'. Also the different genres (what is a short story, novella, novel, etc).

Lol to a country who teaches real analyses of literature to kids who are reading Mark Twain for the first time.

Literary threory, as I see it, is more popular in de Anglosaxon world. In order to analyse one does not need theory.

That is academic teaching.

Oh, yes, overload is really going to help. Better slow and good than fast and crappy. As you have admitted that beauty is subjective, you can also see that with the over all majority of texts you will only annoy the average student. Certainly as they are teenagers, they will rather be disposed to not like it for its 'literary merit' than to get interested in some issues that are relevant to them as teenagers.

I never said beauty is subjective. So, now we should avoid Twain because the repulse of classics. Good.

They did it in our school, I don't see why they shouldn't be able do it anywhere else.

No wonder many countries are worried with the decrease of reading habits...

So for what purpose is this forum here apart from discussing what we like to discuss (i.e. 'why')?
I learn all the time when I read and I keep learning every day, with every text I read.

It is not education. You may learn everyday in your home. It is not school.

The point of literature is partly enjoyment and one gets more enjoyment out of a text by reading it, enjoying it and then talking about it with other people past the 'literary merit'-thing than by stopping at the end of the book.

Most of people like to talk about books they think are good. They seek literary merit. And the purpose of literature is not it at all. Even the idea of solitary reader is strong and literature predates social forums.

As I said about Milton, the message stays, but is now a message in the past which can still be discussed.

And are by the vast minority who cares about it.

Nope, I can't agree with that. Non-fiction and philosophy is much more uninteresting at first sight than literature in itself. Better a book where you care about the characters than a treatise on how the state should be run or how slavery is wrong or anything like that. A novel is much more personal than a paper of a minister or philosopher will ever be.

It may shook you but if you erase all novels of literature the loss will be imensally inferior to erasing all philosophy texts. Some of the best writers ever where philosophics. Plato is probally more influential and interesting than all american novelists. And this is irrelevant: if you want to discuss philosophical subjects, they will be better than artistic presentantion, which is often shadowny.
In the end, you need texts which literary merit allow them to manipulate characters so you follow them and not discuss philosophy. In the end, down with moral.

[kiki1982]

Completely. Even the religious discussion is not part of any christian church anymore. There is no relevant moviment, no author, no work inspired by Milton but the reading of Satan as a rebel. The message of Milton is almost some archeological curiosity.

Well, you see, a message can actually be read differently and become relevant again. As is the case with Twain. You have just stated yourself that Satan is now viewed as a rebel whereas he started off as a means to an end.

Sorry, but you are not helping youself. Kafka is not bland and has a huge literary merit. He wrote quite well, his construction of sentences in german is hightly praised. His domain of parabole technique imense, his capacity of parelelism with other works, his narrtive as short story unique, his construction of sittuation and even his characters (K or Samsa, are extremelly well used). The reason Kafka stands is exactly because he writes well, not for any message because there is no message that people can discover for sure.

Like I said, he definitely has great moments, brilliant moments even, which he is rightly praised for but his language is bland in most places. I do not mean bland as in not worth reading, I mean bland as in normal. There is nothing Ghoethe-esk about him. I have read him in German. The claim that there is no message in him is utterly ridiculous and so utterly ridiculous that the most easy guides you can buy in German (Koenig for example) which are made for school students actually put a lot of messages forward. Fro anti-semitism to his disclike for admin, to whatever seems relevant.

He is very well written. He many not be very well edited, considering he did not took care of it.

That is one aspect of his merit though. You are not helping yourself either here.

Which Coutry? German? It is just not, either something is science (unless you mean science as Dante said he was a scientist) or not. It is just a field of discussion and even science, you barelly teach to kids.

Any Belgian will be able to tell you.

Lol to a country who teaches real analyses of literature to kids who are reading Mark Twain for the first time.

It is not about Twain himself, but about learning to 'read' if you get my meaning; You can only learn that by practising.

That is academic teaching.

And why is that academic teaching? In order to think you need a brain, not a finely tuned computer.

I never said beauty is subjective. So, now we should avoid Twain because the repulse of classics. Good.

Oh, so you are talking of the Platonic kind of beauty! Of course, I see! They're really going to get that if you tell them.
As to the rest, you twist my words to suit your own purpose.