Huck Finn... censored!

[MA-Caver]

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.

(rest of the story)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110104/en_yblog_newsroom/huck-finn-gets-some-changes

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Eat that, irony!

 

[MA-Caver]

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

Eat that, irony!

expurgated ... good word :tup:

 

[bushidomartialarts]

expurgated ... good word :tup:

Thx. I learned it from Monty Python.

 

[crushing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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=DjRXAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22the%20rights%20o'%20man%22&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=%22the%20rights%20o'%20man%22&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.

There you go, making perfect sense again...

 

[CoryKS]

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.