Censorship of Huck Finn

[Anonymous]

This is to much. I a new edition of Huck Finn the "n" word is replaced with "slave" and "Injun" is replaced with "native American." I'm sure all the PC police will be out in full force saying it is appropriate to censor Mark Twain's masterpiece. Replacing the above politically incorrect words (PIC) wth PC words is beyond stupid because Twain used these terms as they were used in the period of time he wrote about. I suppose we now have to censor all literary works with PIC words or connotations. In "Gone with the Wind" Scarlett will have to call the former "Black Sam" "Big African American Sam." Sheer lunacy.

[jsteele]

I think that it is inappropriate to make such changes. I understand that presenting the book in its original to children can be challenging, but such challenges should be approached as learning (and teaching) opportunities.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it is awful that they mutilate that book. However, it is not really censorship. There are any number of unaltered versions of the book out. They aren't preventing anyone from reading them.

This kind of reminds me of that religious group who sold copies of movies with objectionable content removed. In order to get the edited version, the person had to buy full price copy of the original.

It is offensive to the artist, but I'm not sure it was censorship in that the public was not deprived of the full copy, and it did not seem to me to be privacy because the creators were not denied revenue.

In any case, I think the real censorship issues arise if/when cities/school districts ban the full book in favor of the edited version.

Anyway if you hate this kind of thing, write a check to the ACLU. That's what they are paid to fight.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I'm not sure replacing the "n" word with "slave" is all that much of an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it is awful that they mutilate that book. However, it is not really censorship. There are any number of unaltered versions of the book out. They aren't preventing anyone from reading them.

This kind of reminds me of that religious group who sold copies of movies with objectionable content removed. In order to get the edited version, the person had to buy full price copy of the original.

It is offensive to the artist, but I'm not sure it was censorship in that the public was not deprived of the full copy, and it did not seem to me to be privacy because the creators were not denied revenue.

In any case, I think the real censorship issues arise if/when cities/school districts ban the full book in favor of the edited version.

Anyway if you hate this kind of thing, write a check to the ACLU. That's what they are paid to fight.

I already support the ACLE, which, by the way, doesn't just support liberal causes. Civil liberties apply to all US citizens.

[Anonymous]

I'm of two minds of replacing the n word. Part of me thinks that we shouldn't mess with the text, but part of me thinks that the meaning and significance of the n word has changed so much in the intervening time that it would be a major distraction to reading the book.

If I think of it as trying to bowdlerize the text I don't like it. But if I think of it as translating 19th century English to 21st century English then I am more ok with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it is awful that they mutilate that book. However, it is not really censorship. There are any number of unaltered versions of the book out. They aren't preventing anyone from reading them.

This kind of reminds me of that religious group who sold copies of movies with objectionable content removed. In order to get the edited version, the person had to buy full price copy of the original.

It is offensive to the artist, but I'm not sure it was censorship in that the public was not deprived of the full copy, and it did not seem to me to be privacy because the creators were not denied revenue.

In any case, I think the real censorship issues arise if/when cities/school districts ban the full book in favor of the edited version.

Anyway if you hate this kind of thing, write a check to the ACLU. That's what they are paid to fight.

I already support the ACLE, which, by the way, doesn't just support liberal causes. Civil liberties apply to all US citizens.

Agreed. I wish that conservatives understood this. If you support the principle of civil liberties, you have to be willing to defend the rights of people you don't like. Why they don't get it, especially with so many tea partiers eyes fixed on the Constitution like it's the breakfast menu at Cracker Barrel, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is to much. I a new edition of Huck Finn the "n" word is replaced with "slave" and "Injun" is replaced with "native American." I'm sure all the PC police will be out in full force saying it is appropriate to censor Mark Twain's masterpiece. Replacing the above politically incorrect words (PIC) wth PC words is beyond stupid because Twain used these terms as they were used in the period of time he wrote about. I suppose we now have to censor all literary works with PIC words or connotations. In "Gone with the Wind" Scarlett will have to call the former "Black Sam" "Big African American Sam." Sheer lunacy.

It was Big Sam, not Black Sam.
But ITA with your post.

[Anonymous]

Hail to the Redskins ...
Changing their name, I support.
I don't think it makes sense to remove the N word from Huckleberry Finn. Does anyone know how the publisher deals with the change? In the forward?

[Anonymous]

I read Huck Finn when I was probably 9 years old and it has always been one of my favourite books. Even at the tender age of 9 I understood the language to be "old fashioned" and specific to a place and time, and yes, I knew that some of it was offensive. I don't understand why people think that children of this time won't get that.

At least they aren't banning the original text. . .until they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hail to the Redskins ...
Changing their name, I support.
I don't think it makes sense to remove the N word from Huckleberry Finn. Does anyone know how the publisher deals with the change? In the forward?

Isn't it inconsistent to believe that "nigger" ought to remain in the book, but that it can't even be written in quotes in an adult discussion about that very word?

I'm torn -- I think we lose part of the book's value as a record of the time, but I also think that the emotional impact of the word in today's society distracts from and distorts the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hail to the Redskins ...
Changing their name, I support.
I don't think it makes sense to remove the N word from Huckleberry Finn. Does anyone know how the publisher deals with the change? In the forward?

Isn't it inconsistent to believe that "nigger" ought to remain in the book, but that it can't even be written in quotes in an adult discussion about that very word?

I'm torn -- I think we lose part of the book's value as a record of the time, but I also think that the emotional impact of the word in today's society distracts from and distorts the book.

Your reasoning would apply to many, many books published prior to 1960. You cannt erase a period of history by pretending it did not exist. I do not see any emotional impact in today's society, this is the way the book was written and that is easily understood by educators and students today. Afterall, generally, children aren't reading Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer until they are in 5th grade. If anything, it teaches them why the usage is derogatory. Also, it shows them what a well written book is compared to poorly written books.

[jsteele]

I wonder if Dick Gregory should rename his autobiography "Slave"?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I wonder if Dick Gregory should rename his autobiography "Slave"?

Because there's no difference in context between the two. I'm not saying changing the word in Twain is right-- but I can see an argument for it considering a lot of kids read it in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I wonder if Dick Gregory should rename his autobiography "Slave"?

Because there's no difference in context between the two. I'm not saying changing the word in Twain is right-- but I can see an argument for it considering a lot of kids read it in high school.

I think high school age kids are old enough to handle it and LEARN something from it. Should we also censor Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc?