New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the 'n' word

New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the 'n' word

What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books’ upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s seminal novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will remove all instances of the “n” word—I’ll give you a hint, it’s not nonesuch—present in the text and replace it with slave. The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun. The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it. “Race matters in these books,” Gribben told PW. “It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”

Unsurprisingly, there are already those who are yelling “Censorship!” as well as others with thesauruses yelling “Bowdlerization!” and “Comstockery!” Their position is understandable: Twain’s book has been one of the most often misunderstood novels of all time, continuously being accused of perpetuating the prejudiced attitudes it is criticizing, and it’s a little disheartening to see a cave-in to those who would ban a book simply because it requires context. On the other hand, if this puts the book into the hands of kids who would not otherwise be allowed to read it due to forces beyond their control (overprotective parents and the school boards they frighten), then maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge. It’s unfortunate, but is it really any more catastrophic than a TBS-friendly re-edit of The Godfather, you down-and-dirty melon farmer? The original product is changed for the benefit of those who, for one reason or another, are not mature enough to handle it, but as long as it doesn’t affect the original, is there a problem?

What do you think, Shelf-Lifers? Unnecessary censorship or necessary evil?

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/

From the replies to the article:

very sad, indeed.

good grief

Only an ignorant Philistine would want the great works of literature to be censored and altered for political correctness.

A question, though. I have noticed that conservatives are always on the wrong side of every issue. Based on this, I would assume that right-wingers favor the censorship and defiling of this classic, clearly the wrong thing to do. But another thing I have noticed about conservatives is that they tend to be racist and hateful. Based on that, it seems they would want to leave the currently-considered-ugly word in there. So which is it?

"How were things done in 1840?"

According to this litmus test, them "slave" chilluns shouldn't be reading at all, so there's no problem with them taking offense from the n-word.

:sarcasm:

few words. and the teachers can give it to the kids.

i dont think much in dismissing a young child being ostracized in class by a mere word

let's get the poison out of all the books!

a completely different time in history. And not one that our children should be protected from. They need to know the history of this country and what we have done to each other so that they may hopefully avoid it in the future.

feels when discussions of slavery and other appauling history is discussed. i dont have the answers. but it is something i think about. i know there were times when i was young, and there would be female history that made me uncomfortable. again, not saying that it should be revised. i am open to all learning, all discussed. but feelings are there.

i dont have the answer uncommon.

but i am not trippin if they take the word out and the kids read in class, as opposed to not having book in class.

just not a huge outrage for me.

What function does that serve?

And all I see being attacked is the stupidity of censorship defenses.

I agree there should be a rather interesting, and lengthy fore-word explaining the times and language usage.
I find it laughable that it's a bigoted southern state making a big flap about this.

I would honestly think that if you're going to substitute a word, it should be Negro, not slave.
Since there slave references (as in he was a slave)

The entire point of the word being used, even at the time, was to POINT OUT IT'S RACIST NATURE!

of course this discussion is in fact moot.
States where parents are still educated aren't going to do this.
it's only the illiterate, bigoted red states that will care.
after all they can't have it look like they're the racists that they are.

If this allows more kids to read it, then so be it.
I seriously doubt readership will increase / change. it'll just be a victory for the conservative assholes who like to butcher disagreeable literature.

*sigh*
we are forced to compromise once again on a perceived victory (additional readers) but really, we have failed, and been defeated again.

If what you suggest SB were to happen, i'd be happy.
But We both know it probably won't

i think the only thing it is about solving is allowing book in school to read. i also wondered why slave instead of negro. using negro would still have the same feel, yet not quite as harsh. yet, that may well be the reason why he chose slave instead.

i dont see it as a win, lose, victory or defeat. if not playing the game, then doesnt end in loss. i live in the south for two decades. from calif. it is not all black and white, bigotry and hate. it is much more complex than that.

sigh.... my 15 yr old is rushing me to leave so HE can drive us to school. a trip being with a driver that does NOT know how to drive, lol. a whole new experience.

or just racism?

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned, and as I stated elsewhere, this is just figleafing, and it is absolute bullshit.

Shouldn't Captain Ahab be fighting a whale other than Moby Dick? Someone might get offended by that. Shouldn't it be Moby Phallus? Or (if you listen to a certain rapper) Emenium Dick? or Moby Penis?
I don't know. I'm too offended by just about everything to think straight. I need to lie down with some tea.

No more of that disgusting "beast with two backs" thing....

I know several who still use it in their classes, and the language promotes an open, and educational discussion ranging from language and its historical usage to race relations then and now.

this controversy around here.

of young aged children and encouraged to read. the south, that has race/bigot issues is trying to do something positive. young children will be made aware and possibly discuss the issue. they will be able to read the book.

in another threAD about finland schools being better than ours is a subthread about the reason WHY the scores are skewed. asian americans top of list. white american positioned fourth, above finland. showing it is not our schools that are not educating our children. mexican groups low on list and blacks lower.

i point that out and am called a racist

i want the black and other minority groups to be comfortable in their school environment. i want whatever needs to be done to help these kids.

and i really dont give a shit if the "pure" readers are appauled that a word was changed so these young students in the south can now read this book.

it. is. not. a. BIG. deal.

i love books. my kids have always had free access to all.....

and it doesnt bother me.

yes or no?

you simply dont appreciate my answer.

nice tact. I will take your non-reply as acceptance.

Have fun with that.

Censoring is a black and white issue. either you approve of it or you don't. Which you still haven't answered.

the limiting of free speech, regardless of it's content, leads to an ignorant society.

If we keep certain words, phrases or concepts from the general public, then people are stunted in their view.

If we aren't able to use various situations, words or experiences as something to learn from then we live in fear of the outcome of their use.

I have grown up hearing the N word for a good part of my youth, however, I don't use it and condemn it's use, but I also know that we still have free speech of sorts. And as a result, it being kept in the text should be used by teachers instruct their students in it's history, negative connotations and why people in a free society observe it as hate speech.

If we ignore and remove it without reason other than believing it bad without explanation, people will just go and replace the word with something else without knowledge of its history.

Racial epithets and their like will always be around, but learning why they are hurtful, in the context of a piece of literature and also in the context as to why it was used in general society (Of Mark Twains time), is how we learn to progress as a civilization.

Shielding people, children from it's history only breeds more ignorance.

So again, yes, censoring is a black and white issue to me.

the putting me in my place and discounting what i said..... immediately. so the rest of your post is unread...

live in ignorance.

Enjoy!

You should have been more up front in your comments. It is uncivil to bait someone and try to provoke them, which is what you are doing. I don't know whether it is against the rules or not. Maybe it is okay, but I disapprove.


If you two know each other, I apologize for intruding on your fun.

I asked the poster a simple question which he refused to answer, then I went on to explain my position.

how is that baiting?

it's either censoring or it is not. It's really that simple.

~and~

"So again, yes, censoring is a black and white issue to me"

How do you feel about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

How do you feel about advertisers lying about their products?

etc...

Tells me all I need to know about your appreciation for art - and free speech. :thumbsdown:

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Two thumbs down means double the disappointment.

while yelling fire in a theater has nothing to do with censorship it does carry the potential of hurting people.

However, contrary to popular thought, yelling fire in a theater is covered by freedom of speech. Again, if someone yells fire in a theater just to cause a disruption without an actual fire, then it's a crime that falls under "causing or inciting a riot".

And comparing the written word with someone acting like and ass because they can isn't a good example.

Advertisers are also covered under freedom of speech. One has to challenge said advertisers on their claims in order for them to be falsehoods. If Tide claims their detergent is "the best", then it's up to us as citizens to call them on it.

Also, if you are unable to determine the difference between hyperbole and the truth, then there are other issues at hand.

However, trying to compare advertisers lying with the censorship of literature is very weak.

How did I contradict myself?

Are you talking about freedoms or censoring?

Since you didn't elaborate, I can only assume you are referring to my comment regarding someone yelling fire in a theater as being stupid. Of course it is stupid, but it doesn't mean it's still not protected by free speech. If you want to go yell fire in a theater, knock yourself out.

And because I think that is stupid, doesn't mean it equates to censorship. It just means I have an opinion and believe the act dumb.

Just because someone can yell fire in a theater, doesn't mean ethically one should do it, but I will not prevent you either.

I agree literature and advertising are strange things to compare, but you stated "regardless of content," so I disregarded the content.

If Oreo Cookies were to write on their packages, "Only one calorie each!," I would not be against censoring that. You seem to agree, Oreo Cookies should be sued in such a case.

and it's not censoring, but false advertizing.

the censorship apologist don't get it.

but god forbid it happens to them.

People have forgotten what it means to stand up for something. They think standing up for something is only for things that concern them.

Really sad.

Cheers.

you are standing up for. meaning, differeing opinions. i am ok so this edition gets into the schools for the kids to read. you prefer no revision so consequence is kids dont get it in school

you stand up for one thing
i stand up for another

what is really sad, is we are in a world today that if a person does not agree with another, it cannot ever be simply a differing of opinion. but resorts to putdowns, name calling, dismissing.... and a total lack of understanding, or any kind of desire to understand another's position.

I will always vehemently disagree with anyone who chooses to look the other way on censorship or tries to parse it via terms to make it appear not censorship.

This is not a matter of disagreeing. What the removal of the "N" word from a work of literature is censorship.

If you even read the book you will understand Twains stance in regards to the essence of race relations and how the use of the word is a device to show as such.

Removing the word changes the entire intent of the meaning and the force by which it was written, especially in the era it was written.

By shielding our "children" from the past and they will never learn to proceed with knowledge into the future.

Good day.

there wont be any kind of discussion. so about all you say is moot. which takes me to my position.

it gets in the schools. and discussions can commence.

oh

and you have a good day, also.

such as Oreo Cookies claiming to be one calorie each, should the government be allowed to censor the lie, or should Oreo be allowed to make any claim they wish?

You seem to be pro-censorship in some cases.

This changes Twain's point greatly. His use of the word changes according to character and individual character growth to supplement the theme. Huck calls Jim a nigger in the beginning of the book, but does not use that term after he grows enough to see Jim as a human as they go down river.

Why can't kids in the south read the book as is?

read the book.

they are trying. imperfect, maybe, i dont know.... i am not sittin in the middle of the issue. BUT it is something the south is trying to do that is positive.

whatever

as i said, clearly in my post. not a big deal

Or are you saying that an English teacher in the South would not take the opportunity to point out the racism of the south but instead engage in "niggers suck" discussions with the kids? I really don't get it. Changing a novel which satirizes the racist views of the south does little to change anything other than to not have the satire out there.

I am currently prepping my final discussion of Huck Finn with my juniors. It is a big deal. I use the use of the word to point out the dynamic nature of Huck's character compared to that of society/Tom. We will look at the line by Tom "...and besides, Jim's a nigger, and wouldn't understand the reasons for it, and how it's the custom in Europe" to contrast Huck's realization that Jim deserves to be treated like a human. I will read the page before the "All right then, I'll go to hell" line of Huck to show the differences in views about blacks. It doesn't have the same impact if you remove the racist language.

Anyone who thinks Twain was racist and his use of the word was as well, doesn't understand the novel. It is a big deal. Twain would bitch these people out.

i am from calif. i have lived in texas for a couple decade. their relationship with bigotry is complex. very complex and not going to try and wade thru. living here i know what their intent is. though it is superficial, the good intent is there.

and the kids will be able to read the books.

what i have seen in the classes, is teacher will probably bring it up anyway and discuss the revision and why it was taken out and the controversy. that is how i have seen classrooms operate in this area.

You seem to argue that your main point is:
1. THE CHILDREN and protection thereof.
2. Somehow the south banning a word to make up for their racist past
3. That even if they take out the word it will still be discussed.

I have no idea how all of those are consistent with each other as a main point.

This is censorship and none of the reasons you give (hell, you even call it "superficial") are good enough to warrant censorship. I would argue that no reason is good enough for that, btw.

i dont know what the argument is for the people not putting into school. i am not there.

you want to be outrage, fine. everyone on the board want to be outraged. fine

i am not

that is it. nothing mroe. nothing less.

I think the problem is NOT facing this sort of thing head on. Race was ignored at our school, to everyone's detriment. I think high school students are old enough to handle a thoughtful discussion about something like this as long as it is presented appropriately.

the HUGE deal posters are making of my post is way too much energy for the position i hold here.

When does Huck stop calling Jim a "nigger"? Why do you think he stopped doing it?

the correct spelling is 'appalled' :bounce:

was used for a reason, and it's important to discuss that in the context of the time, culture and world of Twain. It's even more enlightening to discuss those things in comparison with today.

I'm of the opinion that works of art should be left as is.

Birth of a Nation is a classic (and racist) movie. It should be studied as is. Not changed to be made more palatable to today's world.

at the least, this will allow kids to read adn allow the conversation you bring up. unrevised, the conversation wont take place.

it is that simple

this edition is for schools, to get the books in the schools.

argue keeping it out of schools, but arguing getting it into the school with revision doesnt makes sense to me.

We need more people to PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

i know it is a real popular thing to say.... fuck the kids..... on du.

ya

i think about children.

so vehemently against having this version available to schoolchildren.

When I was in my 20's I was in England for a summer doing Ag field work. I was appalled by all jokes about Irish people. I am half Irish and it really really got me down.

I find it outrageous that all these posters here in DU think that it is OK to humiliate African American children in school making them read a book with so may uses of this deplorable word. It is a very bad thing to do to a person, especially at this vulnerable time in life and especially when clearly, we as a society are not finished with racism yet.

I appreciate your posts and kudo's for standing up to Java.

what you post.

sometimes i am really surprised what a nothing post will warrant an outrage.

thank you.

feel uncomfortable is okay?

that is very sad.

Open and free debate of ideas and concepts is the basis to our nation.

If you feel that it's okay to eliminate a word because you feel in todays sense that it degenerates a person, creed or color, that is your opinion, but it is still censoring.

When taken in context, if you actually read the book, you will see that Twains use of the word is meant to show the disparity between races and not to reinforce it.

Perhaps you need to read it or reread it again.

Frankly, the other posters "standing up to me" was of no such thing. He chose to talk around my question rather than answer it.

to schoolchildren. You don't have to buy it.

I think that if you are going to compel children to read a book in school, then having a version that is not an assaulting them on every page is a good beginning.

Where did you get the idea that the original version was banned?

Clement the XII for those who are interested.

Nazis

Going PC because it is easier to censor a book than to sit down and have a frank discussion with kids and students.

Meanwhile these are the same kids who are brought up with the music of NWA and other such groups and songs. Hmm, who is it being offended here?

Cowardly. Lazy. And just plain dumb.

Native American Joe just does not have much of a fucking ring to it.

But that's not the point.

The point is the way these characters talk is part of their...well...character. They change the words, they change the meaning. And unless they are Mark Fucking Twain, they need to leave it the fuck alone.

and cross-teach it with Johnny Cash

and I am in accordance with them.

It is embarrassing and dangerous to allow this kind of censorship. We must maintain our link with our past.

The bastard who is making this edition is a greedy literary zero who will now profit from painting over the genius of Twain. Such men as this should be in jail for the fraud they are committing. Gribben is like John Ashcroft putting sheets over the nude statues. He is literary scum.

... the bigotry these people lived with if you censor their language?

Yes. I realize it's fiction, but Twain based the language of his characters on the way he heard people speak. His choice of words was not arbitrary.

Ridiculous political correctness strikes again.

just waay too much of this politically correct bullshit in this country.

I think that it is stupid to do this. It's important to remember where we were as a society.

What do they mean, teachers can't assign the book to their kids?? Seems like it would be a perfect teaching opportunity in the classroom! IMO, kids will get a lot more out of an in-depth discussion than by sticking heads in the sand and pretending it's not an issue. What do they learn from that?

Twain is really spinning in his grave now.

dg

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

paraphrasing Huck. Focusing on the N-word means someone hasn't understood the larger issues in the book - the child abuse, the fact that two mistreated persons form a lasting bond, Huck's moral growth in accepting Jim as a person just like himself and his willingness to sacrifice his immortal soul if it comes to that for him. Despite its being a sequel to Tom Sawyer, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is not a children's book.

I read it in grammar school, had to read it in high school, and recently read it in my late 50s. There was a lot in that last reading that I never saw previously: it's subversive, but not in the way most of its critics believe.

You can't see how far Huck moves in his opinion of Jim- from bigoted stereotype to friend- without it.

Outrageous. :mad:

All this political correctness makes my head hurt.

with "clean" versions of all the movies and CDs that you thought you knew and loved.

Sid

They need to change Twain's words so we can understand them
and not use vernacular southern idioms and accents.

Twain's use of dialect is
1. Awesome
2. Indicative of the Regionalism of the time.

You probably read Burns' "To a Mouse" in the translated form, too, don't you.

I taught the book for a 4th/5th grade class ... it was fun to hear kids read
and struggle with the how he wrote the spellings of the dialogues and then some just 'got it' after I read it to them.

The use of the N word by the protagonists changes throughout the book after they sees Jim is a normal good human being and exposes the bigotry and ignorances of the times.


It should not be censored but the books were even during his time.

On second read, I should have seen the irony. Too many people not getting the point in this thread clouded my judgement.

Considering the author of this piece had to say ""n" word" instead of the actual word they are taking out shows how we have become. Using the word to be racist is one thing, but using it to say what word they are taking out of a book is another. We aren't allowed to say it at all so I guess taking it out of the book was bound to happen.

How about preserving something of historical significance?

Or maybe we should just whitewash every nasty thing in the past and replace it with slightly tamer alternatives. For our delicate sensibilities and all.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: out of :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

Include me in the "It's only censorship if government does it; this is just cheap political correctness" group.

word is, but rather a sign that racism is still very much alive among us. For example, no one blinks an eye at the phrase "paddy wagon". Stop and think a minute - paddy wagon? Ever stop to ask yourself what a "paddy" is?




We don't even notice the phrase "paddy wagon" because the Irish managed to become accepted to white society.

Americans don't associate it with the Romany at all, since so few Americans have ever encountered any Romany. In this country, gypsies are almost as mythical as elves!

I dislike censorship but I don't have to live in this society with the possibility of being called that very word (although I've been called a "n-lover"). We Whites can argue this point among ourselves until the cows come home but I'm thinking it's African Americans who should decide this one.

And ignore the opinion of white parents?

How about biracials? Would you give them half a vote?

After all, it is their kids who will have to sit and squirm every time the N-word is read aloud in class.

And why the snarky comment about biracials?

If you are going to give the opinions of blacks more weight than the opinions of whites, then logically you would give the opinions of biracials more weight than the opinions of whites but less weight than the opinions of blacks.

My problem is with your whole concept of studying the color of someone's skin before deciding what you think their opinion is worth.

Or should we take a completely color/race/ethnicity-neutral stance on those and let the opinions of the groups most offended be lost in the argument because we dare not take into consideration their ethniticy when seeking opinions?

Sometimes taking a completely color-blind approach to a controversy just allows the majority White opinion to prevail due to sheer numbers.

Despite the fact that they are black themselves, I do not agree with them.

because this edition is being offered to schools as an alternative. It would be censorship if there were no more versions of the original published.

The man should be ashasmed of himself for CENSORING -- and yes, that is exactly what this move is -- an author's words. That it is an author who is not around to object or to defend his work makes it especially disgusting.

To say that there is no room ever for the word "nigger" (or any other loaded word) completely ignores the single most import qualifier: context.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

misogynistic language.

when you dumb down education and we are overrun by fucking idiots.

:argh:

It makes no sense.

And editing it will totally kill the story.

education take over. Stupid shit right here.

What a waste to eliminate the opportunity for a great class discussion on why those words are in there in the first place.

and are afraid to use their words and be civil while having a meaningful discussion under the tutelage of a teacher. But then again, most teachers are forced to spend their time preparing for meaningless standardized testing, so there isn't much real teaching going on anymore.

igger" in it is no reason to censor it. Indeed, it is a good reason to not to censor it. This is erasing history, attempting thought control, and cheapening the works of the greatest American author. It is only offensive if it is meant to offend.

Ted Turner colorizing b/w films. I don't get it. What's next....colorizing "Raging Bull?"

-PLA

Guess what, I can read for myself and I don't need someone deciding what I can or cannot handle.

Wait -- we don't use that word either. :evilgrin:

Seriously though, profoundly dumb decision that neuters that work.

This was driving my son absolutely crazy.

Huck learns that Jim is one of the most honorable people in the book. He feels terribly for the tricks he played on him, and learns that society is wrong having slavery.

Seriously asinine, this decision. Do NOT censor Mark Twain.

don't even bother arguing. You KNOW it's censorship. Stupidest idea EVER. What's next a bastardized version of Slaughterhouse-Five? A version of Catcher in the Rye where Holden is a fine young man who makes straight A's and goes on to be president? WTF. :wtf:

This is unfair. Why censor the linguistic norms of Twain's era when that word continues to be used by black rappers in this age? Wikipedia has an entire section on how the N-word has been used in classic literature. I have mixed feelings toward this. For one thing, the idea sorta remains intact. For another, students should be able to learn about the evolution of the English language...it's true that now-pejorative terms like the N-word and "feeble-minded" were acceptable discourse in the old days.

publish a clearly marked "censored" version along with the original.

I say we pulp these books and recycle them into unexpurgated editions. So there.

I agree. A lot of people won't read it because of the words which were commonly accepted back then and are no longer.

It's no different from updating the king james bible to whatever most people are reading now.
Language and mores change, like it or not.

was not something that I thought many DUers would defend.

or burned out of the books, since times have changed and we don't do those things so much?

Not attacking, just trying to find something close to compare it to...

The original will always be around and believe it or not, classics have always been presented in a variety of formats, with a variety of editorial choices, and even adaptations. Do you really think only the original hand-written words of Shakespeare are the only versions ever produced?

because the Holocaust was even more unpleasant than the N word.

First off, I've never heard even rabid nazi's scream "holocaust" as a slur--the true equivalence might be removing the casual use of an anti-semitic slur when discussing the Holocaust. The central theme of Huck Finn is slavery and it sounds as if the book isn't being edited to remove that at all.

Second off, it's a big leap from a special edition with edits to "removing all references..." No where in the story did it say that the N word was being removed from all new editions. You are aware that for probably 100 years or more, various editions, adaptations, and derivative works have existed? There were movies made, some used the N word, others did not...Huck survived. The "Original" (very unlikely the first edition wasn't copyedited/proofed by someone other than Clemens) still exists despite these things also existing.

I understand that some DUers want to protect our children from the horrible legacy of racism that is evoked by the N word. It's similar to pretending that the colonists and Native Americans lived in blissful harmony and shared their food every Thanksgiving. Fortunately the majority of DUers prefer to teach a more realistic version of our past.

It is also vandalizing someone else's ART. Writers choose the words they choose for a reason, and it is outrageous for any of us to go back and change those words, while still calling it the original.

It is like the fundies who put pants on Michelangelo's "David."

when it's clear that Anne is hiding because her mother wanted her to take a bath.

Colleagues taught "Romeo and Juliet" as written to younger students.

Twain wrote in Modern English. Unless "HF" was for Elementary students, I can't think of a reason---artistic, educational, cultural, social---to alter his words. HE WASN'T PROMOTING SLAVERY, FGS.

Thought they were kind of ok, but somewhat boring (I think we read the Prologue, which is good, and the Knight's Tale, which is very dry).

When I read the original, full text of the Canterbury Tales in college (in modern English and Chaucer's English), I was literally laughing out loud and deeply moved by its complexities (the Pardoner's Tale) and controversies (e.g., is the Prioress's Tale anti-semitic?).

I'm glad I had the opportunity to read the original later, because if my only experience had been in high school, I wouldn't have a very high opinion of Chaucer today.

What did the edited version do with "The Wife Of Bath"?

You nailed it, BTW. NEVER alter a writer's work!

Biker's Old Lady

Despite there being literally thousands (tens of thousands?) of revisions of Shakespeare's work (from minor "edits" to modern adaptations) the original still exists...it isn't censored, and in fact, the existence of all those bastardized Bard materials arguably have helped maintain and enhance the originals. The same with Huck Finn...if the altered version sucks, it will go out of print like 1000s of crappy Shakespeare adaptations over the centuries have.

If it somehow maintains the power of the original story and succeeds in getting a few more school boards to allow it in, that only enhances Twain's legacy and undoubtedly will lead at least a few students into exploring the original work.

i thought it a good thing the kids would be able to read the story, too. and teachers would get into class.

i am really surprised (maybe not), the outrage with this

Even though I post infrequently, I read an awful lot of your posts and always find your views consistent, even when I disagree.

I guess I'm confused by the people screaming "they can't print this! It's censorship!"

Censorship is actually attempting to stop the publication of something. The publishers of this new book aren't attempting to stop anyone from publishing the original text. The only people trying to infringe upon someone's right to free speech are the one's screaming censorship...weird!

tonight with hubby and 15 and 13 yr old. i brought up your point. it took us all over the place. last year son had a list of censored books and he was to chose one on the list to read and do a report on it about why censored ect... huck was on it. along with 1984. farenheit. but he had read most of the books and chose the shining. i have faith in the teachers to come thru. it is what i see.

i have to have consistent. if i am a hypocrite, just hit me up side the head. so thank you again.

censorship - counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy
Synonyms: censoring, security review
2. censorship - deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
Synonyms: censoring

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/censorship

To be censorship, they'd have to be doing something to the original or at least be attempting to stop people from reading the original. That is not the case here. This new edition is not a replacement for the original. Reader's Digest doesn't censor books when it condenses them (I will agree that a "condensed" book almost always sucks, but it isn't censored, merely edited).
Anyway, whenever using the dictionary, the 1st definition listed is primary, and in most instances it informs and shapes the secondary definition. There is nothing being done here to ban the original, nor is anything deleted from the original. The fact of the matter is that virtually every classic book ever is NOT the "original"...authors often write numerous drafts, editors add, delete, and change text, even printers sometimes alter content. Beyond that, many classics have been updated, translated, re-edited, revised, and been significantly altered over time.
I personally think the original is fine, but I also find it hilarious that two contradictory defenses of the N word in the book are often used by the same people. If you're going to argue that the N word was very commonly used and didn't have the power it does now, then you can't also argue that changing the word destroys the "integrity" of the original. You can make as valid an argument that not revising the book to reflect the changes in meaning and emphasis over time destroys the integrity.
That's all pretty academic, but the point that many seem to be missing is that this new edition is being edited by a renowned Twain scholar who is extremely vested in preserving the "information of value" in the book. We certainly don't know if he will succeed or not, but it seems highly ironic that the very people screaming censorship are the only ones attempting to stop the publication of anything.

because there are many other more accurate textbooks available?

against a system he recognized as being totally wrong. He clearly shows this with his use of the language of the time and Huck's relationship, which becomes very protective of Jim as the story progresses. It is wrong to change the language/setting because that is the story from the historical perspective.

When my youngest son was in 5th or 6th grade years ago, he had to read Tom Sawyer that was contained in a school textbook. He struggled with it, labored through about half of it and had nothing to discuss of interest in the story.

I started to read his textbook(updated with the rough edges taken out)but got bored myself. Went to our bookshelves and handed him Tom Sawyer in the original. He started to read. He looked tired the next morning. He had spent the night non-stop reading the original. Told me he couldn't put it down. He was fascinated with the character of 'Injun Joe.' Giggled about the fence painting scheme and the life that a Tom Sawyer of Twain's day lived. He went to school taking the original with him for class discussion.

He still reads Twain. Mark had to walk a fine line during his own times. Much of his protest work was not published until 75 years after his death. In his own words, I didn't want to die,only to be dug up and hung later. One book, Letters Penned In Hell, was published in the late 60s and was all protest.

We have to read these things in the original format for them to be useful. Twain did it right the first time. He should be neither censored nor updated.

"It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.
...
Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it."

The character was Indian, and I loved ordering Jumbo burgers when I was a kid. Tamil people are Caucasian but have some of the darkest skin of anyone.

A restaurant in San Diego that used to be the Sambo's of my youth is now The Breakfast House a.k.a. Perry's Cafe.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&expIds=17259,24283,27586,28045&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&cp=13&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=perry%27s+cafe+san+diego&fb=1&gl=us&hq=perry%27s+cafe&hnear=San+Diego,+CA&cid=11869193113554274246

The original Sambo's is still in business.

http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/610/index.htm



http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/610/510tv.htm

BTW, the original book titled "Little Black Sambo" technically IS literature, unless you exclude all childrens' books from that category. ;-)

You can read it at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1330

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Black_Sambo

so while it's true that Sambo was a Tamil character, that doesn't negate the problematic nature of the book itself.

as a character.

Maybe that will make these teachers and parents happy. Just expunge Jim from the text altogether and make it about Huck a-gittin' hisself inta all sortsa mischief on the river and such like.

:evilfrown:

On another note, though, I do have to say that I know Prof. Gribben. He's been very generous with sharing information with me in my own Twain research and, like the article says, he's one of the best, most well-respected scholars out there. Seems to be a pretty decent person in general.

I don't want to smear him and I know his intentions are good. I just don't agree with his solution. It's more difficult, perhaps, but I think what's needed are ways for teachers to teach the book so that they encourage classroom dialogue about race in America; about the language Twain uses (both in terms of race and class...ironically, it was Huck's low-class vernacular that got some people in a tizzy when it was first published); historical perspective on race in Huck's time (1840s, I think), Twain's time when he wrote it (1870s-'80s), and our time; a close look at how Huck's perception of Jim changes throughout the book (he chooses to go to hell rather than turn Jim in as a runaway slave, something his Sunday school taught happens to whites who help runaways), etc.

as a bedtime story, I didn't read the N word. To them it was just a nice little adventure story to which "context" and social commentary are not part of the equation. It added nothing to the story for them and just would have created confusion. I'm not seeing it as a big deal if it is simply being offered as an alternative.

My sons would have been about six and three at the time and I assure you they are no worse off having not heard the word nigger in a bedtime story. But again, thanks for all your advice.

to edit American literature or history, because there are lessons still to be learned. We have in no way earned any right to censor derogatory language to make people more comfortable. It is in this discomfort and disgust with the dehumanization of people that we have any hope of improving ourselves.

That is very much a right! No one has the right to claim an edited version is the original, but editing, adapting, updating classic literature is something people have been doing for millenium. This new edition may or may not be a good retelling of the classic Clemens story, but it is certainly within the rights of the publisher and author to attempt.

It isn't censorship to produce alternative versions...no where in the story did it even hint that use of the N word would be henceforth banned in all editions of Huck Finn. I don't know if the new book will be successful at showing the dehumanization that slavery wrought (on slave owners as well as slaves themselves) but actually, it would be censorship to say "you can't print that version".

And I suppose Moby Dick will have to be re-titled Moby Penis

that is the way people talked at the time. This is where our country came from and people nowadays should be able to read it the way it was. :argh:

...she'll clothe Venus in the Half Shell in a potato sack and then beat her with a stick.

While nude.

I'll take the original Huck anyday.

What next? Censorship IS alive and well.

Instead of the word being replaced with slave, they should take it step further and replace it with "the awful, awful n-word that you kids should never ever say." It'll be just as ludicrous.

It's not a synonym in the context of Huckleberry Finn.

The book is a great teaching moment... so many kids who casually use the N-word, have NO idea of the offensive context. Sometimes stating something is wrong, is not as powerful as painting a picture with words...which Twain does brilliantly.

Source: CBS

CBS) Mark Twain defined a classic as "a book which people praise and don't read." And for years, the "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has fit that category, removed from school reading lists across the country for the use of the "n" word.

Publishers Weekly reports that Twain Scholar Alan Gribben has partnered with NewSouth Books to release a version of "Huckleberry Finn" that replaces the "n" word with "slave." It also removes the word "injun."

The idea of a politically-correct version came to Gribben, 69, when he would give public readings of the work and would sub in the word "slave." The slur appears in the book 219 times.

"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind," Gribben told Publishers Weekly. "Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/04/entertainment/main7212343.shtml

---

I used be against the idea of book burning, but these should be torched immediately. This just an attempt to white wash the ugliness of the past.

books of the 20th century?

Fucking stupid.

bullshit

Has a book been censored so that it is more "acceptable" to teach?

The author, J.D. Salinger, was still living at the time. He successfully sued to stop publication of an edition in which Holden was depicted as an adult.

Who will stand up for Mark Twain?

help...except I just bought the Autobiography of Mark Twain and had to wait a month because they didn't print enough for public demand. Twain is America's greatest writer, and he doesn't need Mr. Gribben's help, or anyone else's.

This is something my wife and I were discussing by chance this very night! We were talking about getting our daughter (7th grade) some additional books that were not being done in school and we both thought of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. Luckily enough I still have my childhood copies of each - unadulterated and in good condition - to allow her to read the true versions.

Why not start clothing Michelangelo's David? or touching up Da Vinci's Mona Lisa? The urge of some people to try to re-write history to portray their belief systems in a better light is appalling, but on the plus side, its an invaluable tool for us as parents in explaining why neither my wife nor I are conservatives!

Blazing Saddles alone......

shown in public. After she says (paraphrasing), "It's twue what they say about black men." the sheriff (the screen is totally dark here) says, "Lady, you're sucking on my elbow."
But Mel Brooks made the cut, not some censor.

I came across that little tidbit too, when I was looking up the line I quoted last night. One page said that it was Brooks's wife, Anne Bancroft (I did not know that!) who told him to cut the line about the elbow (or arm - the story varies a bit from source to source).

http://openlibrary.org/search?q=mark+twain

or

http://books.google.com/ebooks?q=mark+twain&as_brr=4

Gutenberg is a good site, but so slow I try to avoid it - assuming its maxed on bandwidth I'd rather give them a break.

I've haven't got an ebook reader, but have good epub software on my computer. Having more or less instant access to all the classic literature is amazing...

:thumb:

I must explain. I have a 9 year old daughter and I like to read these sorts of books to her (Dr Doolittle, for instance). I remember as a kid being horrified by all the racist language in these older classics- this was the 60's. So, I was releived to have versions to read to my daughter that are not filled with degrading language. And I am also of the opinion that rap lyrics should not be allowed either.

Sorry folks, I hate degrading language. It is especially innappropriate to read aloud this sort of language to children.

and books that correctly portray the past you're doing a disservice to her understanding of history. You ever think your views on race were shaped by being horrified by those books?

Save me from well-meaning, but misguided people like you.

to your own child in your own home and the word itself having been changed in every new copy of a book is vast, and important to recognize. I am not interested in forcing you to read out loud a word to your daughter that you don't want to read. I object in the strongest terms possible to the postmortem change of this word in this book in this cultural environment.

centuries, so, yeah, he really needs the help of a "scholar" to help popularize his writing by whiting out a bad word here and there...
Not

I heard that, I though. Could be wrong.

I'm sorry but people who can't handle the n word in work of literature might as well stick to the movie version or comic versions. This is a novel written in a time that was brutally honest in its reflection the times. Rewriting it is just pathetic. We cannot change our past and trying to rewrite it by changing words in classic literature does a huge disservice to the authors and their readers.

use the term 'n word' in their post amuses me.

But I agree that it's kinda dumb that it is so taboo that people won't even use it in a discussion about its use.

doesn't understand the novel. I'm amazed that a so-called Twain scholar would lend his name to this.

Talking Points Memo passed along this tidbit, originally on Roll Call: It was in the same news cycle that reports that Mark Twain's 19th century work is being censored. For not being politically correct by 21st century mores.

The Repug that wrote and circulated the ugly racist parody song, 'Barack the Magic Negro' is now CoS for incoming Representative Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN. How's that for PC.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202065-1.html

or is it more like censorship.

absolutely censoring and revisionist history