# Huck Finn... censored!



## MA-Caver (Jan 4, 2011)

> By Mike Krumboltz mike Krumboltz               1 hr 24 mins ago
> Acclaimed by critics, scholars, and -- of course --  readers, Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is one of the  great American novels. The book has been reprinted countless times,  adapted into movies, and translated into just about every language under  the sun. But should it be updated for today's times?
> News that the manuscript would undergo some changes sent shockwaves through the Search box. According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books plans to release a version of "[COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Huck [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Finn[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]" that cuts the "n" word and replaces it with "slave." The slur "injun," referring to Native Americans, will also be replaced.
> 
> ...



Granted now-a-days saying the N-word is politically incorrect. Back during the time line of the novel it was NOT. While fiction Huckleberry Finn is a historically accurate novel, in the lifestyle and goings on of the day. How people talked to one another, acted and lived their day to day lives as best as Twain can remember when he was writing the story, going on his memory as a boy growing up in the south. 
Whites commonly referred to blacks as n------ or negros. Slave was their status not their race. Everyone now knows that blacks today have elevated themselves far above that status enforced upon them so long ago. A look at the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington D.C. will attest to that. 

Injun (Joe)... more-n'-likely Twain's writing of the phonetic pronunciation of the antagonist's name. 

The book is a classic and should remain as it is written! 
People need to get over it. If an author wrote something akin to it today then yes, he should be vilified and shouted down and made to give an apology (along with the publisher who printed the book and then the distributor who put it in the stores). 

Sigh, people need to get over it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 4, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Granted now-a-days saying the N-word is politically incorrect. Back during the time line of the novel it was NOT.



Of course it was, at least in the sense that everyone understood it was derogatory.  Twain's entire point of juxtaposing Huck's "just a ******" dismissiveness of Jim with Jim's intelligence and ability was to underline the ugliness and absurdity of the term and the ugliness and absurdity of the racist society the book takes place in.  This was the same author that wrote "The War Prayer" after all, he was not going for an idyllic recreation of his youth.



MA-Caver said:


> The book is a classic and should remain as it is written!



Definitely.  The reaction to the book proves that no one is really understanding it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course it was, at least in the sense that everyone understood it was derogatory.  Twain's entire point of juxtaposing Huck's "just a ******" dismissiveness of Jim with Jim's intelligence and ability was to underline the ugliness and absurdity of the term and the ugliness and absurdity of the racist society the book takes place in.  This was the same author that wrote "The War Prayer" after all, he was not going for an idyllic recreation of his youth.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely.  The reaction to the book proves that no one is really understanding it.



Right... as Twain was making a social commentary on the idiotcy of the people who use the n-word to label Jim and other slaves or anyone of color. 
As I understand it... Huckleberry Finn was an anti-slave book to begin with. 
Also I didn't mean to say that Twain was writing a idyllic recreation of his youth, but to say that he drew upon his memories of how things were in those days. Radically changed from when he was a boy to his age when he wrote the book. 
Same as with me... I grew up as a boy in the mid-late 60's early 70's... things today are NOT of the way when I was young and naive... yet if I were to write a book about a boy growing up during that period I would likewise draw upon my own memories of the way things were back then.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm of a mind to burn every copy I can find of the expurgated version.

Eat that, irony!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 4, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I'm of a mind to burn every copy I can find of the *expurgated* version.
> 
> Eat that, irony!



expurgated ... good word :tup:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 4, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> expurgated ... good word :tup:



Thx. I learned it from Monty Python.


----------



## crushing (Jan 4, 2011)

Hopefully this release of the book is clearly marked as being adulterated and the version as the author intended remains available.

I read about this on NPR's site earlier today, and this may seem silly, but I began wondering if such changes to this book are more Nineteen Eight-Fourish or Brave New World.  It's been a while since I've read either book, so I did some googling and ended up at Wikipedia (slap my hands if you will) where I saw this interesting quote from Neil Postman comparing Huxley and Orwell:



> "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."


 
The plan to release this book, even in the modified format, means there is a demand for it, and that means that there are people reading books, which is a good thing.  Unfortunately, this book will lose a lot of impact, along the lines that EH describes, with such changes.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

I don't believe books like that should be rewritten. That was how people thought back then about blacks and natives. If thats the case nobody should read books like Roots, or watch the miniseries, it should be rewritten because it has N words in it. That's the way it was back then if you're gonna write about that time period when they had slaves and used n words.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 4, 2011)

crushing said:


> Hopefully this release of the book is clearly marked as being adulterated and the version as the author intended remains available.
> 
> I read about this on NPR's site earlier today, and this may seem silly, but I began wondering if such changes to this book are more Nineteen Eight-Fourish or Brave New World.  It's been a while since I've read either book, so I did some googling and ended up at Wikipedia (slap my hands if you will) where I saw this interesting quote from Neil Postman comparing Huxley and Orwell:
> 
> The plan to release this book, even in the modified format, means there is a demand for it, and that means that there are people reading books, which is a good thing.  Unfortunately, this book will lose a lot of impact, along the lines that EH describes, with such changes.


Well there's a reason to censor a book and a reason not to. IMO to censor a book would mean to change a mis-stated historical fact or other item of mis-interpretation. But these types of censorships after their own fashion should be limited to non-fiction. 
Fiction is just that... something someone made up out of their imagination. If the setting is real then I think the author is incumbent to ensure everything is true to the surroundings or circumstances. Books like historical fiction where the author places fictional people among real-life individuals to tell a story of what happened that actually took place... these should be left well enough alone... provided that it is accurate as far as the actual persons and their actions/circumstances are concerned. 

A reason NOT to censor a book is because it offends someone's sensibilities. Sure the N-word is offensive... but it depends upon who speaks it. A white person saying the word is offensive to those who built a sensitivity to it. I still find it odd that blacks seem to take little or no offense when another black calls them or refers to another by that term. A double standard if you will... but that is another thread in-of-by-itself. 
Point is writing a story tells the author's point of view. Don't like the viewpoint. Don't read it. Much like a television show or a song on the radio or a movie in the theater. 
A novel such as Huckleberry Finn has long been a staple among many a school's reading list. Now someone is sensitive to what is within. Well that IMO is just too damned bad. Why not censor Tale of Two Cities by Victor Hugo while you're at it since it describes mob murder by decapitation. 

A classic is a classic. A new forward could be added to the book letting would-be readers be forewarned that they may be offended by whats inside. But changing something that has been around for over 125 years just because a word or two is no longer the proper thing to say is just wrong. Grandfather it in and leave it be. Just like with any work of art don't listen, read, look or even acknowledge it if it offends you. 

As to being desensitized as Huxley fears... it isn't likely. Values start in the home and are instilled during childhood. True they'll change over the years but some will remain. Thus, some will find either offense or enlightenment whatever they come across.


----------



## Stac3y (Jan 5, 2011)

Disgusting. The book is a work of art, and was written the way it was purposefully. I sincerely hope that librarians refuse to purchase the mutilated version.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Stac3y said:


> Disgusting. The book is a work of art, and was written the way it was purposefully. I sincerely hope that librarians refuse to purchase the mutilated version.



Considering the current state of affairs....

Thankfully most have several copies already in the shelves and limited funds to replace them frivolously...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 5, 2011)

I've read statements from those proposing to change Huck Finn as described, who are Twain scholars interestingly enough.  Their stated rationale is that they would rather have children exposed to the bowdlerized version than not being exposed to the book at all - because as it stands, Huck Finn is increasingly being banned from the schools for the use of the word alone, context be damned.  While logical enough, I still think this is the wrong response.  However, I'm also not sure the correct response will ever be successful.  People don't deal well with context and nuance, and I'm afraid that the reactions of most of the parents driving these decisions will stop at the word and go no further, no matter how well we try to educate them on the point of the book.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I've read statements from those proposing to change Huck Finn as described, who are Twain scholars interestingly enough.  Their stated rationale is that they would rather have children exposed to the bowdlerized version than not being exposed to the book at all - because as it stands, Huck Finn is increasingly being banned from the schools for the use of the word alone, context be damned.  While logical enough, I still think this is the wrong response.  However, I'm also not sure the correct response will ever be successful.  People don't deal well with context and nuance, and I'm afraid that the reactions of most of the parents driving these decisions will stop at the word and go no further, no matter how well we try to educate them on the point of the book.



That is sadly true.

I remember a case a few years back, a teacher got into trouble making the kids read 'Nappy Hair'. I think the teacher got canned, though the book was a critically acclaimed novel by an african-american author....

brb, searching...
http://www.adversity.net/special/nappy_hair.htm


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

I don't think that there is anything wrong with providing a 'Forward' at the beginning of such books to explain the use of the language at the time and to put them in context, explain why they are historically significant despite terms that might today be offensive.

If I were a teacher, I would embrace such novels as an opportunity to expand students' understanding of the world in the context of those times.  In what way could this be a bad thing?


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think that there is anything wrong with providing a 'Forward' at the beginning of such books to explain the use of the language at the time and to put them in context, explain why they are historically significant despite terms that might today be offensive.
> 
> If I were a teacher, I would embrace such novels as an opportunity to expand students' understanding of the world in the context of those times.  In what way could this be a bad thing?



You are projecting your own (keen) ability to reason onto others.

However I have found that very few people are indeed willing to actually read and think over (or listen for that matter) a position that is not their own.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> You are projecting your own (keen) ability to reason onto others.
> 
> However I have found that very few people are indeed willing to actually read and think over (or listen for that matter) a position that is not their own.



Unfortunately, I think people are making a mistake when they consider the use of such words.  It is not the *word* that is offensive _per se_; it is the meaning attached to it.  Simply changing the word so that it does not offend the eye does not affect meaning, it only perfumes the stink of racism, bigotry and other forms of hatred.

Some people think that if they banish the word, they will banish the negative meanings behind the word; I think this is short-sighted and ultimately futile.  Some people will hate, and that is unfortunately part of the human condition.  Far better (in my opinion) to deal with hatred head-on and discuss it, rather than to pretend it just isn't there by expurgating the words that were once used (in some cases still used) to express that hatred.

This example of the use of the dreaded word is from "Punch," a British magazine of some note, from June, 1860.  It takes the imagined southern US beliefs about black people to task by way of ridicule.  Expurgate the evil word, and the article (a poem) loses all meaning.  Is it so harmful to view the word itself, that we would throw away the lesson it teaches to avoid offending young eyes?  I think we give young people too little credit for being able to understand context and meaning if that is the case.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dj...=PA41#v=onepage&q="the rights o' man"&f=false

I like this example, because it gives us many avenues for discussion, if our minds are open.  We can talk about the British view of slavery, or of their view of the Southern slave-holder.  We can talk about how bigotry not only existed within the realm of white to black relations, but also with regard to UK to American relations.  There are references here as well, to important court cases of the time which asserted that slaves were chattel (property) as well as not-so-subtle references to the "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the USA.  I could have a debate on this poem alone that we could spend hours, days, on.  And to expurgate it from history for the use of a word?  To render it from a saucy and funny poem into unintelligible gibberish by changing the dreaded word to a less offensive one?  This makes no sense to me.

It's not the word - it's the meaning behind the word that should offend.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think that there is anything wrong with providing a 'Forward' at the beginning of such books to explain the use of the language at the time and to put them in context, explain why they are historically significant despite terms that might today be offensive.
> 
> If I were a teacher, I would embrace such novels as an opportunity to expand students' understanding of the world in the context of those times. In what way could this be a bad thing?


 
I remember when I had to read the book in high school and the copy we were given _did _have a forward with the book addressing that.  I don't remember right off who the publisher was or anything like that though.

If the job of education is to (strangely enough) educate young people.  I think that it is a great disservice to change the book purely for PC reasons.  The book is in a historical setting and is true to that setting.  Also, the book uses the language to illustrate a point about the absurdity of it.  Why not actually teach that lesson to them instead of just trying to cover it up?


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 5, 2011)

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-G. Santayana

They should keep the original language in place, so that today's readers can get an understanding of what it was like back in those days, both from the time that Twain wrote it, as well as during the time of the days of slavery. 

Trying to deny that something happened doesn't take away from the fact that it did happen.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Unfortunately, I think people are making a mistake when they consider the use of such words.  It is not the *word* that is offensive _per se_; it is the meaning attached to it.  Simply changing the word so that it does not offend the eye does not affect meaning, it only perfumes the stink of racism, bigotry and other forms of hatred.
> 
> Some people think that if they banish the word, they will banish the negative meanings behind the word; I think this is short-sighted and ultimately futile.  Some people will hate, and that is unfortunately part of the human condition.  Far better (in my opinion) to deal with hatred head-on and discuss it, rather than to pretend it just isn't there by expurgating the words that were once used (in some cases still used) to express that hatred.
> 
> ...



There you go, making perfect sense again...


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 5, 2011)

I'd like to meet the person who thinks he knows better than Mark Twain how Mark Twain's novels should be written.  I'd rather see the book banned from schools than edited by morons.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2011)

To be frank, I find the idea that someone thinks my sensitivities need some sort of protection from that word far, far more offensive than the word itself.

I get really pissed when my _Little Rascals_ have the rather typical racial humor of the time edited out, too:

[yt]GhWY6yFJsDY[/yt]


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> providing a 'Forward' at the beginning of such books to explain the use of the language at the time and to put them in context, explain why they are historically significant despite terms that might today be offensive.



I have a book about the Beothuk people of Newfoundland and the europeans of the time with offensive words in it (because thats how they thought back then) where the author does just that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Most kids reading Huck Finn would be in high school and Im pretty sure most of these kids have listened to a rap song at some point in their lives.  Since most of the rap songs Ive listened to have that word in it.  I think by editing the book your doing a disservice to young kids.  They need to know the real meaning of that word and how it was used and only then when they learn the history can they decide if they really want to use that word or not.
It just sucks that now days schools are more worried about being politically correct and getting kids to pass stupid test that dont teach them anything then actually teaching a kid to think for himself and prepare him for the future.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Most kids reading Huck Finn would be in high school


 

Another indication of how the country is going to hell-that was part of my 6th grade curriculum 40 years ago.....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Another indication of how the country is going to hell-that was part of my 6th grade curriculum 40 years ago.....


 It may be younger I honestly dont remember reading Huck Finn in school.  I know I mush have but I just dont rememeber


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I get really pissed when my _Little Rascals_ have the rather typical racial humor of the time edited out, too:
> 
> [yt]GhWY6yFJsDY[/yt]


 
So they censored out the word "fried"?  The title says "Stymie wants some Fried Chicken", but he wishes simply for "some chicken".  He may be dreaming of the lemon chicken piccata his father makes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> So they censored out the word "fried"?  The title says "Stymie wants some Fried Chicken", but he wishes simply for "some chicken".  He may be dreaming of the lemon chicken piccata his father makes.


It's this type of censorship that got me fuming in the first place. If they made that today then okay... SOME chicken instead of FRIED chicken. Back then people written in the stereotype... besides I'm with Stymie... fried chickin is good!" 

Are they going to eliminate the episode in M*A*S*H where a white soldier was slowly turned into a black soldier from the prank/lesson brought on to him by Trapper John and Hawkeye when he asked Hawkeye on the operating table to "make sure he got the right color blood... wouldn't want any of that "darkie" stuff in me"... so they sedated him while he was recovering and used a dye that increased in pigment and sponged it on his skin...slowly turning him darker... when he got upset he called for the doctors angrily demanding an explanation, accusing them of using the "wrong colored blood". Both doctors offered him a lunch (that "he'd been asking for all morning") of fried chicken and watermelon. 
To drive their point home they told the story of Dr. Charles Drew who invented the separation of blood (Plasma)... and died enroute to another hospital after being rejected by the nearest one, though he was bleeding to death from a car accident... the hospital that rejected him was for "whites only". The M*A*S*H doctors left the soldier lying there on his bed to think it all over.

Wonder if *that* show will be censored or why not, just ban it altogether for it's ANTI-racial overtones?? 
There are several other shows that may face censorship ... All In The Family (might be banned altogether) to name one. 

Stupid crap like getting offended by the past and altering it shows we've (collectively as a functional society) *still* got a long way to go.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 6, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Stupid crap like getting offended by the past and altering it shows we've (collectively as a functional society) *still* got a long way to go.



If you're going to talk about M.A.S.H., you can't ignore the entire controversy around the character of "Spearchucker" Jones in the original books and the movie.


----------



## granfire (Jan 6, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> It's this type of censorship that got me fuming in the first place. If they made that today then okay... SOME chicken instead of FRIED chicken. Back then people written in the stereotype... besides I'm with Stymie... fried chickin is good!"
> 
> Are they going to eliminate the episode in M*A*S*H where a white soldier was slowly turned into a black soldier from the prank/lesson brought on to him by Trapper John and Hawkeye when he asked Hawkeye on the operating table to "make sure he got the right color blood... wouldn't want any of that "darkie" stuff in me"... so they sedated him while he was recovering and used a dye that increased in pigment and sponged it on his skin...slowly turning him darker... when he got upset he called for the doctors angrily demanding an explanation, accusing them of using the "wrong colored blood". Both doctors offered him a lunch (that "he'd been asking for all morning") of fried chicken and watermelon.
> To drive their point home they told the story of Dr. Charles Drew who invented the separation of blood (Plasma)... and died enroute to another hospital after being rejected by the nearest one, though he was bleeding to death from a car accident... the hospital that rejected him was for "whites only". The M*A*S*H doctors left the soldier lying there on his bed to think it all over.
> ...




It's the same reason why Archy Bunker can still talk about 'Jungle Bunnies' and all the good stuff: In the end he eats his words...


----------

