Sequel September: Huckleberry Finn

So far, I have shared examples of a sequel that mostly lives up to the original, and another that was worse. This week, I will go over a third scenario: where the follow-up surpasses its predecessor. This takes us to a legend who put American literature on the map: Mark Twain.

The book of Tom Sawyer is an adventure novel about the shenanigans of its titular character and his friends. There isn’t much of a deeper meaning, nor is there meant to be. It’s an overall fun read.

Huckleberry Finn provides a story with a better adventure, a more likable protagonist in the picaresque style, and a greater deal of meaning. Remember my four principles of sequel writing? Refresher:

• A sequel should maintain a critical balance, one part honoring the traits that made the original good, and the other part creating a new story with its own identity.
• A sequel should demonstrate the reasonable consequences of what happened in the previous installment.
• A sequel should reinforce the messages and spirit of the original, while also expanding it and showing new challenges.
• A sequel should learn from the shortcomings of their predecessors, so that the following works and the series itself improve.

And now, the fifth rule: The first three rules can be broken if doing so improves the work. (The fourth rule cannot be broken with this justification; refusing to improve the work cannot improve the work, that’s a paradox.)

If the author believes that a subsequent installment should not carry on the spirit of the original, or mimic the traits of its predecessor, then it does not have to. For instance, if a different direction or message is desired, or if the work is meant to stand more independently.

Which leads us to Huck Finn. A story with a different protagonist. Meant to engage in a larger number of subject matters, such as alcoholism, neglect, bloody feuds, and slavery. The carefree spirit of Tom Sawyer would not be appropriate, nor would honoring the traits of romanticism, nor would reinforcing the message (or lack thereof).

This is what differentiates the two. Huck Finn is so much of a u-turn of the original, it actively works against it. Especially with Tom Sawyer’s behavior at the ending, showing how his romanticized views of the world are childish at best, and impeding sense and goodness at worst. The first book is meant to show an idyllic view of the Antebellum South, and the sequel is meant to slap you out of the daydream and scream, “No, this place and time sucks!”

Great literature knows how to subvert the expected. In this case, the book subverts its own predecessor, a ballsy move. A sequel going against the original should have a good reason for doing so – and Huck Finn did. Making a stronger story, with higher quality character development and meaning.

The eponymous character learns the foolish ways of the adult world, and how easy it is to trick people (like with the preacher), pulling off cons that put Tom’s stunt with the fence to shame. He witnesses violence that disillusions the games of playing pirates and robbers, finding the grim reality behind it in a way that the murder in the first book does not cover. He undergoes internal conflict about his friendship with Jim, and the prejudices of the time, juxtaposed with Tom’s terrible companionship.

Some say this sequel ruined the original in its portrayal of Tom Sawyer, and to that I say: the character was not a good-hearted person even in his own novel. He let his aunt believe he drowned, putting her through torment as a prank. His book only seems favorable to him because it is from his perspective, and changing the focus to Huck shows the outside view of how he really is.

Tom Sawyer is a good book, Huck Finn is better. This duology serves as an exemplary case of the fourth and fifth principles.

Which of these novels do you prefer? Are there other cases you can think of where the sequel was better than its predecessor?

Note: all works and characters are the property of their respective owners. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, commentary, and or parody. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.