As someone who has read "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" I found it very hard to judge this book in any way that doesn’t become a list of comparisons to the original. However, given that the author is the one who decided to re-write an existing story from a different perspective, I think this type of review is not only acceptable but inevitable.
Despite the hype and near universal praise given to "James", my experience was that of a shallow story that oversimplifies or removes any complexity found in the original. Jim is made to be an unrealistic genius as a way for the author to cheaply juxtapose how stupid and bad slave owners are (did you still need convincing?) and the poor writing and plot is there to support the unsuccessful attempts to mimic the satire of the original without an ounce of subtlety. Whereas Twain is able to build a world around a river with beautiful prose and get inside the head of Huck as he deals with the complex issues of his day, Everett has a utilitarian style with no beauty or emotion that is only good for getting characters from set piece to set piece in this dialog heavy narrative without any time spent on reflection or down time.
"James" adds no value, no new insights or any interesting perspectives for readers who have already read "TAoHF" and is a cheap knock off for those that haven’t. At its best "James" is a springboard to Twain, at its worst it’s an easy distraction that deludes people into thinking they have learned lessons that Twain had to teach without putting in the work of reading a moderately old book.
by TheFox776