Editing Twain

[Enigmatic]

It was reported recently that new editions of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn will remove a certain word and replace it with the word slave. Proponents of the editing say it is removing a racially insensitive and offensive word that has no place in modern society. Others say that is is wrong to censor these books and that you cannot and should no remove supposedly offensive remarks from literature and history.

Where do the fine people of 10000 Islands stand on the matter?

[Guy]

Well, this one has actually got me thinking.

Literature also serves as an historic piece, which can reveal a lot about the time period through the author's language. Although I am sure we will still be certainly aware of the mistreatment of blacks, if publishers are going to be expected to censor those words where will it end?

Though on the other hand, if the usage of that word causes extreme
discomfort for blacks... Well, it's hard to blame them for wanting this change.

I'll have to think about this one.

[Takaram]

Complete rubbish, I say. Honestly, the two words are used in completely different ways! "C'mere, you slave!" sounds completely wrong.

[Consortina]

Interesting: Don't we know the case already from www.amazon.com/Day-They-Came-Arrest-Book/dp/0440918146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294277070&sr=8-1 (In case you haven't read it: Do it now. I'll wait.)

Censoring Twain is a horrible thing to do. The book was written during a time where the n-word was commonplace and so was the abuse of the population to which it refers. It is understandable that some people (black and white) will feel bad when reading offensive remarks. But this is reality. People talked like this back then. You might as well remove Auschwitz from history books because Jewish kids shouldn't be reading sad stories about what happened to their grandgrandparents.

[Guy]

But this isn't a history book, and changing one offensive word is not going to change the context.

[Takaram]

The book has extremely important historical connotations. It was meant to give an idea of just how horribly slaves had it, and to remove an abusive word commonly used during the times in the name of political correctness is ridiculous.

[Enigmatic]

I don't know, Guy, I think it would hurt the context. It's changing the language to something other than what would have been the norm. It's changing the voice of the characters and the voice of Twain.

I find it deplorable that we've become/are becoming a society that is scared to be offended. Offense is necessary to our well-being. If we shy away from that which offends us then we give it power over us. We fail to learn about it and from it and fail to eventually overcome it. I'm glad we're a society which spurns the mistreatment of a particular race of people and insulting language, but that doesn't mean we have to run from objectionable words or phrases.

Furthermore, it's not as if the word has been completely removed from the modern world. You still hear it in a variety of contexts, some offensive and some not quite as offensive depending on who you are. By editing the word of Twain's work, are we not sending the wrong message. The word is acceptable in a song or from a comedian or in a movie, but not in a work of classic literature? What about in a historical work on slavery or the Civil Rights movement? Can we use the word then? When is it acceptable to use it? Is it acceptable at all? Why is it acceptable for African-Americans to use the word, but not for whites? What about Uncle Tom's Cabin? That book helped popularize several stereotypes about African-Americans and women that can be considered negative . It also uses the same sort of language that's being edited out of Twain's work. Should we edit that book to do away with the word? Where is the line?

[Free Guns For All]

Political correctness actually offends me. The books was written when the n-word was commonly used. They are classic books. It should never be changed.

Whenever I hear about people complaining about things like this I have a sudden urge to punch something. For example, some daycare centres have been banned from reading The Three Little Pigs because there's a high Jewish community. This is a WOLF eating pigs, not people. Besides, I'm pretty sure the kids know that some people eat pigs anyway.

[Eist]

Jan 5, 2011 22:33:20 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

I find it deplorable that we've become/are becoming a society that is scared to be offended. Offense is necessary to our well-being. If we shy away from that which offends us then we give it power over us. We fail to learn about it and from it and fail to eventually overcome it.

Thanks Enig, very well said

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

If one is not interested in understanding and appreciating a novel for what it is, than they can choose to read a different novel. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic exactly the way it was written. It is ridiculous to edit it. What next? Ulysses needs a scrub down, you say? The Catcher in the Rye? Catch-22?

[Blbbo]

All:

While this is certainly a complicated issue, one that opposes potential for insult to textual integrity, changing this particular text is a problem for me/us. One of the more powerful narrative arcs in the book is the nuanced relationship between Huck and Jim: Huck's statements about and to Jim reveal that Jim (and the institution of slavery that Jim represents) is friend (but not), object of ownership (but of course not), aware of his limited possibilities (but not entirely). There are many layers to their relationship--not all pleasant ones--some of which would be lost if "Slave" replaced the offending words. (N***** is not the only change; Injun is also edited out.)

Twain's publication in 1885 of The adventures of Huckleberry Finn occurred almost a generation after the end of the Civil War, almost a decade after the official (Washington-declared) end of Reconstruction. Twain was exposing the obvious hypocrisies and more subtle cultural trainings of all in American society as regards not just race but class as well. The publishers are well-intentioned here, trying to get more school districts to "un-ban" this extraordinary text; however, the answer is for fewer districts to be craven in their textual choices, not to soften "difficult" texts to suit some low-litigation-offense standard. Rather, teach the conflict, be sensitive to the very real offense(s) embedded in the text, and avoid pretending that texts can be taken out of historical contexts. Texts are created by people at specific times in specific places; publishing tendencies dictate what gets published. While not every criticism need to take into account the facts of historical context, there is no disconnecting texts from that context. This type of "gentility" was silly when Bowdler did it to Shakespeare in the 1800s; it's no less silly now. In other words, that a given word carries very real pain and offense for some and not others is not in dispute; what is up for discussion is whether we should read a text as the authorized version and deal with its complexity (in this case, the author wanted the text read as written, though that's not always the case), or play with it, edit it to suit the readerly needs of each generation, which leads to pap, not literature. Treating the past as if it is in constant need of updating to suit the present is wrong: learn from and value the past without pretending at all moments that "we now know better." Just my/our opinion, of course.

respectfully,

Blbbo

[Takaram]

Well said Blbbo.

[Blbbo]

Thanks, Tak!

[Enigmatic]

Aye, sounds like you've got a good literary mind about you.

[Convalia]

Jan 5, 2011 22:52:30 GMT -5 Free Guns For All said:

Political correctness actually offends me. The books was written when the n-word was commonly used. They are classic books. It should never be changed.

Whenever I hear about people complaining about things like this I have a sudden urge to punch something. For example, some daycare centres have been banned from reading The Three Little Pigs because there's a high Jewish community. This is a WOLF eating pigs, not people. Besides, I'm pretty sure the kids know that some people eat pigs anyway.

I have to agree with him on this. Political correctness seems incredibly annoying to me. For example, take this political cartoon:

Cashier at Grocery Store: Happy Holidays!

Customer 1: Hmmph! I am never shopping here again because of all this political correctness! Good Day!

Cashier to next customer: Ummm... Merry Christmas!

Customer 2: *GASP* How offensive! I am a proud Jew, (Or is it Jewish Person?) and I DO NOT celebrate Christmas!

Cashier: Ummmm... Happy Hanukkah?

Customer 3: Don't worry, I'm Atheist, and I don't care.

While this isn't the exact cartoon (I read it a year or so ago), you get the point. And I didn't write it, so if you are a politically correct person, it's not my fault. Anyway, back to Tom Sawyer and the "certain" word. I understand that it is racist, but, as many others said earlier, this was how they spoke in those times. Changing this word would be like painting black bars on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because of nudity. Although I don't think I should say that, because someone may do it.

[Guy]

Personally I'm offended when wished Merry Christmas by someone I am not personally familiar with.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Having worked in hotels a long time, "Happy Holidays" is the least offensive and most inclusive thing you can say to strangers. While I, personally, don't take offense to a "Happy <insert your holiday here>" from a stranger, I do find it odd. Having traveled the world and met many types of people, I think it's very shortsighted to assume someone is offended by and/or believes the same things as oneself. "Play it safe" is my motto.

[Takaram]

Personally, I take pretty much anything from Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, or whatever at face value. I do technically celebrate Christmas, just a nice secular Christmas as a get-together with family and a chance to get stuff

[Guy]

Actually, I might need to further clarify it.

I don't mind Christmas. I mind someone assuming I do celebrate it.

[Takaram]

Fair enough. I can understand that.

Anyway, enough with the Christmas threadjack. Back to Twain.

[Enigmatic]

When I say "Merry Christmas" it's not assumption that you a celebrate just general well-wishing in the spirit of the holiday. I do use "Happy Holidays" though as well, but "Merry Christmas" is just a very natural phrase for me.

As for the thread-jack, it's my thread and I'll do what I want to. Na-na-na-na-nana. ;D

[Byzesion]

Have you ever heard of Thomas Bowdler? He was an English doctor who, in the 19^th century, edited the works of Shakespeare to make them more "family friendly" for the times. These changes included making the death of Ophelia an accidental drowning rather than suicide in Hamlet, omitting the prostitute Doll Tearsheet from Henry IV, Part II entirely, and changing "Out, damned spot!" to "Out, cursed spot!" in The Scottish Play.

In fact, his name has become a verb, "to bowdlerize", meaning to alter an existing work to make it politically correct and/or "family friendly".

By altering The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, they not only strip historical context from the book, they also do a dis-service to those students who will read this neutered version of a literary classic.

Do I consider the "n-word" to be a hateful term? I can't even bring myself to write it. But it's not enough to know that a word carries hate with it. You have to know the history of a word to know why it hurts. And as a work of that time period, Tom Sawyer is an example of the history of the "n-word", and of race relations in America, and why we can't let the use of that word continue, in anger or in jest.

[Takaram]

Thank you. I had almost completely forgotten about the word, though I knew something along those lines existed.

[Free Guns For All]

All of Rubin's cards were marked in advance
The trial was a pig-circus he never had a chance
The judge made Rubin's witnesses drunkards from the slums
To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum
And to the black folks he was just a crazy n*gger
No one doubted that he pulled the trigger
And though they could not produce the gun
The DA said he was the one who did the deed
And the all-white jury agreed.

Anyone recognise these lyrics? Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" from 1975. Are they gonna censor this too? 'Coz really, he's using it in the same context.

EDIT: In case anyone's curious, the n-word gets changed to black person here. Not important, just thought I'd share that.

[Guy]

Well, if it is being studied in schools, I am assuming they would do so too.

[Takaram]

Actually, the book is banned in many schools. This is an attempt to create a version which is acceptable for schools. Unfortunately, though well intentioned, I fear that they may give a reduced impression of the abuse of the era. This was a time when people were regularly called an abusive word and were expected to respond to it.