Von's interpretation was more clarifying than my own. Holmes is recording his own stream of consciousness , as his thoughts follow one on another without logical progression. It is an unbroken sentence just as his thoughts follow each other in an unbroken way. That he can do this with skill is the art of the sentence.
On that point, we agree that it is indeed an art. Just as the impressionist goes to the canvas with something which few can relate to but because it is, after all, part of what constitutes art, the same can be said for the impressionist, satire, biographical, etc writers who go to the parchment. “The long sentence” is the writer’s form of art.
Clements' book "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" was banned in its original printing because of an extremely racist line spoken by Tom in a conversation with his Aunt Polly. In Clements day, this was not considered racist at all! Hal
I'm confused, Hal. I can see that being a reason for banning it today, but if back then it was not considered racist, why the ban?
I got my degree at night while working full time. I took an American Literature course when I was in my mid 30s. The instructor read a passage out of that book that used "The 'N' Word" ten or twelve times. It was shocking. I'm not coming down on the side of censorship. I'm just stating a fact. When she read that passage out loud, it was beyond offensive to my late 20th century ears.
Sorry, still confused, Hal. You said it was banned in its 'original printing'. I take that to mean it was banned back then when it wasn't considered racist, hence my question.
Which brings up an interesting question. I do not recall Twain saying that Huck and Tom were white even though it is indeed probably correct to make that assumption, but what if not? With that idea in mind, would it be as proper as it is considered today for a black person to use that particular slang? Would the books be banned if indeed the characters were assumed to be black? Moreover, if Clements himself were black, would those books be banned?
The emotion behind the "n" word is what gives it it's status today, but didn't it evolve from the Spanish word for black or "negro"? It seems kind of innocent if looked at that way.
I believe that this is correct, and it is the overwhelming emotion behind it that has made this one word hated so much, but still used frequently by the very people it refers to. There have always been names for every different race, many of them were corruptions of the original word, which might have been in a different language, or just got shortened from use. English were called “Limeys” because they carried limes along on their ships to prevent scurvy. Chink is a corruption of Chinese, Spic for Spanish, and so on. For some reason, none of the other words seem to matter or be as offensive as the N word, nowadays, even though they all should be considered the same way.
It's innocent only if you ignore the intentions of the person who uses it. He uses it to degrade. Remember George Wallace using the the word 'nigra'? He wanted to say the 'n' word and he.couldn't bring himself to use a more respectful term..
"His hair was perfect." I was a HUGE Zevon fan; RIP, Warren. (My phone ringtone is Werewolves of London. )
Odd questions, Bobby. We assume Huck and Tom were white because in that era no black person could be the hero of a book. The majority of readers and buyers of books would not accept it. Blacks use the term today to defuse it although I think this just perpetuates the ugliness. If blacks were to use the term long ago it would be because they had no other. If Clemens were black he'd never have been published. I can't show evidence for any of the foregoing - just my opinions.