Huck Finn changes

[Parson]

I do not support the changing of Huck Finn. I think to change the language is to lose some of the clout of the book, which in its day, and still today, unfortunately, made/makes some incredibly cogent points about the stupidity of racism.

But everyone here seems to be missing the point. The man that did the re-writing wasn't doing it so that it would be better. He was doing it because so many schools keep it out of the curriculum and the school libraries because of the N word. The real villains here are the PC police, who are kicking it out of the school libraries to begin with, not the poor soul who is trying to find a way to get it back in.

 

[littlemissattitude]

The story reminds me of when I was 12 or 13 and read Farenheit 451 for the first time. I read in as part of an advanced reading class in junior high school and bits of the text were literally redacted with black marker. My friends and I were all offended by this and several of us checked out complete versions from the library or bought them with the support of our parents. The funny part was that, when we read the regular parts it was hard to figure out exactly why it was censored in the first place.

Whoever carried out that bit of censorship certainly did not get Bradbury's point, did they?

Also, it's a funny thing to me that people who want to censor or ban books don't' understand that the quickest way to get people, especially teenagers, to seek something out is to try to ban it.

 

[philoSCIFI]

Is selective editing a bad thing? One person points out that this is not much different than editing a rated r/17 film for tv. Is that ok?

Yes. That's wrong too; it's just as bad. No, it's not okay.

I would honestly like to hear an argument for the ruining of works, because I can't seem to genuinely understand the other side. Enlighten me.

 

[BookStop]

Oh, I'm not for it, philo, just pointing out what was said

 

[steve12553]

The thing that bothers me is that I've not read every book in the world and what if the only copy of a significant work that I can get has been censored. I don't want to miss out. I read Huckleberry Finn many years ago and it did not turn me into a racist. I had positive feeling toward the character of Jim just as the author intended. Had the language been more politically correct I don't think his character would have been as sympathetic. He would have appeared less downtrodden and maybe many of the people reading the book might just miss the point. Good, bad or indifferent let the reader read the authors work and judge for himself (notice the lack of PC). I don't want to be sheltered. I want the right to judge for myself. Changing that particular word is in reality saying that a particular group of people are not smart enough to understand what's being said. Were I in that group, I would be insulted more by the attempts to censor and overprotect me. I could take it and I believe that most people of any race and ethnic group could to.

 

[mosaix]

I don't want to be sheltered. I want the right to judge for myself. Changing that particular word is in reality saying that a particular group of people are not smart enough to understand what's being said. Were I in that group, I would be insulted more by the attempts to censor and overprotect me. I could take it and I believe that most people of any race and ethnic group could to.

Out of interest, has anyone in that group posted a response in this thread?

 

[Parson]

Out of interest, has anyone in that group posted a response in this thread?

I think that it is wonderful that this question has to be asked. We may be seeing the beginning of a time when a person is judged by the quality of the character and not the color of their skin.

I often mark "other" when taking surveys out of protest toward racial profiling. It is of NO INTEREST to me if whites, Latinos, Africans, etc. have different views. I want to know what HUMANITY thinks!

 

[mosaix]

I think that it is wonderful that this question has to be asked. We may be seeing the beginning of a time when a person is judged by the quality of the character and not the color of their skin.

I often mark "other" when taking surveys out of protest toward racial profiling. It is of NO INTEREST to me if whites, Latinos, Africans, etc. have different views. I want to know what HUMANITY thinks!

The point of my question was that I thought it would be interesting to know the opinion of someone that may have been on the receiving end of the word 'nigger'.

 

[Connavar]

I have been called the N word several times in my life and about this book in hindsight im angry at PC police. In school i was told many times how offensive this book was so that i never choosed to read it when we read american,british classic books.

I think even children need to read the original works no matter how offensive a book is. In the end only the quality of the book will matter. Plus without historical realism,relevance why would we read classic books.

 

[soulsinging]

Out of interest, has anyone in that group posted a response in this thread?

No idea, but some of the comments on yahoo's reporting of this story indicate that it can be uncomfortable for African-Americans to read in class. It kind of reminds me of a class I took in college where we watched Thelma and Louise (I think). The prof admitted that the rape scene in that film had, in the past, sent women running from the room in tears because it dredged up such painful memories. Even though the film as a whole was a critique of sexism, that doesn't mean that such portrayals of the act aren't awful for victim to experience. I could easily see a young minority that has experienced racism finding it very hard and alienating to read about it like this. Furthermore, I know some Afr-Amers, esp in predominantly white schools, that have been made horribly uncomfortable on top of this because well-meaning but utterly tone deaf teachers single them out in class to talk about how it makes them feel and essentially speak personally for the whole black experience.

Does this justify changing the text? Probably not, but I'm not entirely sure. Does losing the world really alter the powerful message of the book? Is it worse than the possibility that a lot of kids will never read this at all because of that one word? I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I don't think it's quite as simple as some people wish it to be.

Also, the word had different meaning when Twain wrote the book. The book as a whole is a critique of racism, not the use of that word. When he wrote it, that was just what they were called, kind of like today people just say 'black' or Afr-Amer'. My understanding of its colloquial use is that it didn't really become the emotionally loaded and hateful term we know it as today until later, under Jim Crow and the like. In some sense, the instant emotional reaction it evokes now is LESS true to Twain's intent by obscuring and distracting from the book's greater message about slavery and prejudice. It's possible using a less loaded term more in keeping with modern language would actually more true to what he was trying to accomplish.

 

[JunkMonkey]

No matter what we do or say language changes and words change their meaning. No-one in the early 21st C would use the word 'ejaculate' to mean 'speak suddenly' yet when Arthur Conan Doyle was writing that's exactly what it meant.

"What on earth does this mean?" I ejaculated after I had twice read over the extraordinary announcement.
Holmes chuckled and wriggled in his chair, as was his habit when in high spirits.

'The Red-headed League'

Personally (as a father of 3 kids under 10 years old) I'm all in favour of gently steering children away from books that they are not ready for - and hopefully being prepared to explain uncomfortable parts when we come across them. (Have you read Hugh Loftis' Dr Dolittle recently?) But I'm also all in favour of restoring all the 'Gropecunt Lane's back to the map. Why are we so afraid of particular words? Or words that sound like other words? There are several reported cases where people have been accused of 'racist' language when they used the word 'niggardly',a word which has nothing to do with the word 'nigger' except sounding a bit like it.

​

 

[Parson]

Also, the word had different meaning when Twain wrote the book. The book as a whole is a critique of racism, not the use of that word. When he wrote it, that was just what they were called, kind of like today people just say 'black' or Afr-Amer'. My understanding of its colloquial use is that it didn't really become the emotionally loaded and hateful term we know it as today until later, under Jim Crow and the like. In some sense, the instant emotional reaction it evokes now is LESS true to Twain's intent by obscuring and distracting from the book's greater message about slavery and prejudice. It's possible using a less loaded term more in keeping with modern language would actually more true to what he was trying to accomplish.

Well said!

The question is does the increased sensitivity to this word make it a hindrance to understanding the story, and more importantly, to the critique that Mark Twain was making in this story. If so, then perhaps we are conducting our own little Fahrenheit 451 by leaving it in and making inaccessable for others.

 

[Thadlerian]

No idea, but some of the comments on yahoo's reporting of this story indicate that it can be uncomfortable for African-Americans to read in class. It kind of reminds me of a class I took in college where we watched Thelma and Louise (I think). The prof admitted that the rape scene in that film had, in the past, sent women running from the room in tears because it dredged up such painful memories. Even though the film as a whole was a critique of sexism, that doesn't mean that such portrayals of the act aren't awful for victim to experience. I could easily see a young minority that has experienced racism finding it very hard and alienating to read about it like this. Furthermore, I know some Afr-Amers, esp in predominantly white schools, that have been made horribly uncomfortable on top of this because well-meaning but utterly tone deaf teachers single them out in class to talk about how it makes them feel and essentially speak personally for the whole black experience.

Does this justify changing the text? Probably not, but I'm not entirely sure. Does losing the world really alter the powerful message of the book? Is it worse than the possibility that a lot of kids will never read this at all because of that one word? I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I don't think it's quite as simple as some people wish it to be.

Perspective. Thank you.

 

[J Riff]

Course, it's as nothing compared to the rewrite of history.
IS there a kid not aware of zombie-heads exploding everywhere...is there one who hasn't seen hundreds o' graphic murders on TV?
Probably not a good idea to keep the kids away from this hyper-violent, low-IQ stuff, since it IS the norm. I blame society, and Hollywood in particular.
Huck should be re-done...as a Zombie kid.

 

[Connavar]

.
Does this justify changing the text? Probably not, but I'm not entirely sure. Does losing the world really alter the powerful message of the book? Is it worse than the possibility that a lot of kids will never read this at all because of that one word? I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I don't think it's quite as simple as some people wish it to be.

One word change here and there is not a big deal but the real problem,what is worriying is what might happen if we decide to change more than that and who decides what people should read of old works like this.

Kids never reading Twain is not a big deal, you choose what you want but censoring original works,re-writing history can never end well.

In this case its small time press but if the idea become mainstream is the worry. Its not simple but i rather see you dont read classic lit rather than trying to change them.

 

[fjeronimo]

In this case its small time press but if the idea become mainstream is the worry. Its not simple but i rather see you dont read classic lit rather than trying to change them.

I couldn't agree more. If somebody is not ready to deal with certain works of art, they should avoid them instead of society trying to modify the "offending" objects.

Making a parallel with the cinema industry, it kind of reminds me of some of the "politically correct" nonsense that is unfortunately gaining strenght in these last few years, with such ridiculous proposals as digitally removing the Twin Towers from any (old) movie that displayed them because it might remind people of the 9/11 tragedy or deleting any signs of smoking and/or drug usage from movies so as to not "encourage our youth on those deviant practices"...

I even heard rumours (but I'm not sure if they are true) that some more extreme measures were also being proposed so that people with different phobias (like fear of heights) wouldn't be alarmed when watching certain classics...

If the snowball starts rolling, where will it stop?

 

[thaddeus6th]

Rather boringly, I agree with the majority view here. Revisionism is bull****. Better to ban a book than try and force it to conform with the Zeitgeist of today rather than the spirit of when it was written.

 

[steve12553]

soulsinging' s point about the comfort level of an African -American student having to read it out loud in a mostly white class is legitimate. There are definitly situations where people will be put ill at ease because of something like this. But... this in no way shape or form justifies censorship. Political Correctness is a trend that is very scary. Scarier that any horror book or movie mentioned on this site. If something is censored that means someone has to censor it. How would you find people qualified to censor anything that don't have some sort of agenda. If someone wants to exercise an agenda let them write or produce their own work with their own name on it. We have the right as rational beings to read not only things that make us happy and comfortable but also things that make us angry and things that make us think. We also need to be as aware as possible of the past so we are not doomed to repeat it. There are things that have been written that can and certainly have offended me but don't ever tell me I'm too sensitive or weak to read them. There may be a need to hold back some works until a person (specifically a child) is ready but don't ever permantly deny them access or tell them what they should think or feel about something. If this world continues in theis PC direction we'll be seeing Bradbury's firemen before we realize it.

 

[thaddeus6th]

The funniest post on censorship I ever read was on another site, ages ago [no link, I'm afraid]. A young Chinese woman worked as a censor, and failed to remove a Tiananmen Square reference from an external media source. She was hauled in front of her superiors to explain, and stated that she had no idea what happened at Tiananmen Square because it had been so effectively censored when she was a child.

 

[Contrary Mary]

One word or two is one thing. But the precedent of censorship is scary. Start editing any word out of any book that might offend anyone, and we will soon have nothing left.