# Huck Finn to lose N word and more



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Now this is just wrong IMO, on so many levels--free speech, preservation of art, preservation of culture and history.

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/?hpt=T2


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

I suppose I can see how it would be beneficial to schools who would normally shy away from the book. We read it in school, but I imagine a lot of teachers wouldn't want to touch the original version. Kind of an awkward situation, though.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

It's in the public domain so it's not like it won't be available in it's original form from other publishers, many even for free as ebooks. There are literally hundreds of editions of it on Amazon and as far as I know, none have been edited until now. I don't agree with it but I guess it's possible some people, especially schools, would appreciate an edited version so there's no reason why both can't exist for the sake of having options. I'll start crying freedom of speech when they start preventing anyone from accessing the original. Until then, any publisher is entitled to republish any public domain works however they want.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Eric C said:


> Now this is just wrong IMO, on so many levels--free speech, preservation of art, preservation of culture and history.
> 
> http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/?hpt=T2


Would that be the preservation of white/euro culture you are speaking of?


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

KindleChickie said:


> Would that be the preservation of white/euro culture you are speaking of?


Nothing quite like rewriting history to pretend racism didn't exist.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Save the children!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

KindleChickie said:


> Would that be the preservation of white/euro culture you are speaking of?


I'm guessing he means more preservation of lessons learned. In order to understand where we should go, you have to see where we've been. There were mistakes made and I'm not sure covering them up--including taking out words that were standard (and sometimes not even as derogatory in meaning as they became later) helps anyone. Now, in a school environment, introducing old slang/insults that some kids might not have been exposed to is going to generally mean they start using them (because kids are that way. If you introduced a make-believe word, and told kids it meant a bad thing, well, guess what? In seconds they'd be calling other kids that word.)

In some situations, depending what you're trying to teach, the original is important. In others (and at different grade levels) I think it's not as important. I read Huck Finn later in life and one of the things that struck me was the use of those words in such an offhand way, it was sometimes a replacement for the word "slave" -- not necessarily meant as in insult (while it is insulting for a human to be a slave, it was used as a description not a direct attempt to insult/degrade anyone further than their actual status at the time and place.)

I *learned* something from reading those books with the inclusion of the words. And sometimes that can be the whole point. When people grow up with certain things being "normal" it can be very difficult to open their eyes to "wrong" or "different" or "put some critical thinking into this." Books and stories can be the cause of critical thinking, especially in a good environment.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

And it should go without saying, but I am not condoning throwing insults of any kind around or slavery in any form.  Huck Finn was not written to condone it either.  It was a coming of age story that happened to occur when slavery existed, was common and generally accepted in that area.  If we can learn from that, it would be a great thing.  If we strive to change history, cover it up or ignore it, that's not so great.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

My gut reaction is to be against this, but the writer in the article makes a good point.  How is this different than a movie edited for broadcast TV?

It seems somehow different to me, but I can't put my finger on why.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Truth is written by the winners and fiction is written by the losers


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

swolf said:


> My gut reaction is to be against this, but the writer in the article makes a good point. How is this different than a movie edited for broadcast TV?
> 
> It seems somehow different to me, but I can't put my finger on why.


Broadcast TV has a well-known, established, and somewhat consistent criteria for censorship to fit content within certain guidelines. Literature abhors censorship.

This sort of publication is doing the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's avoiding education by trying to hide the difficult topics that should be front and center of the discussion.

What they're doing for Huck Finn is analogous to painting over parts of Picasso's _Guernica_ to avoid discussing war.

If they're going to do this, they can't in good conscience call it Huck Finn. They have to call it a reinterpretation or a sanitized version. Failure to do so is an outright lie.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Anyone may have the right to alter public domain works, but we also have the right to object to it. I'm very wary of sanitizing books. Huckleberry Finn is not a racist book, it's an anti-racist book. Huckleberry Finn is an ignorant charater, who speaks like an ignorant person, but is wise enough to throw off the racist assumptions he was raised with. Sanitizing the past creates a distorted view of the past, and it hinders learning when the past is rewritten. It's true that the original version will still be around, but if the sanitized version becomes dominant, the original version becomes on voice lost in the chorus. The language used in this book may make people uncomfortable, but it should make people uncomfortable. When you have to go against everything you've been taught, and everything that those around you think, as Huck did, it's going to be uncomfortable.

There are differences between this an an edited for TV version of a movie. With an edited version of a movie for TV, they make it very clear with a prominent message that this has been edited for TV. Further, the edited for TV version never supplants the original version, it's limited to TV. If you go to a a theater or rent the movie, you get the real thing.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

Depressing. I agree with QuantumIguana - just because a book uses racists words doesn't make it a racist book.

I can see why some people might be offended by the N-word and that's up to them - people are allowed to be offended. But banning/censoring things based on people being offedned. A slippery slope, a _very_ slippery slope... At some point, someone will be offended by a book you love, and if your being offended is enough to ban one book, why is their being offended not enough to ban that one?


----------



## Sunset (Nov 10, 2010)

We shouldn't hide the parts of our history that we don't like. 

Everything depends on context. To use another piece of literature as an example, a lot of feminists charge Paradise Lost with being sexist. If it were written today, it probably would be, but considering the cultural values present at the time, it's really not. It's not fair at all to judge a book by what people think long after it's published.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Well my views have been well expressed here by others. I'll only add that fiction is at its best when telling the truth.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

I can see some of the reasons for doing this, but I would have preferred for them to do it in a more overt way that allows for/provokes discussion or thought about what the original work said and why (and why it's objectionable).  E.g., rather than replacing the "n-word" with an entirely different word, "slave," I think it would make more sense to replace it with "n_____."  Changing it to "slave" seems like trying to (literally) rewrite history, whereas changing it to "n_____" seems like a way to teach history in a way that's more sensitive to current cultural norms.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> Anyone may have the right to alter public domain works, but we also have the right to object to it.


Of course. I don't particularly like what they are doing either, I just don't see the point in being outraged, which I suspected some people would be.



James Everington said:


> Depressing. I agree with QuantumIguana - just because a book uses racists words doesn't make it a racist book.
> 
> I can see why some people might be offended by the N-word and that's up to them - people are allowed to be offended. But banning/censoring things based on people being offedned. A slippery slope, a _very_ slippery slope... At some point, someone will be offended by a book you love, and if your being offended is enough to ban one book, why is their being offended not enough to ban that one?


No one is banning the book. As I pointed out, there are still hundreds of other editions of the book in it's original form.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

w/ books like Huck Finn, you use the story and the words to teach a lesson about why you should feel uncomfortable about using the n word.  By sanitizing the book, the "editors" lose the teaching moments in the book.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

The author of the article does make a point about sanitizing the book so as not to offend those unable or unwilling to address the subject matter. He left little doubt about his opinion without directly stating it. His comparison to the sanitized versions of shows and movies on TV is apt. I personally dislike both while understanding the reasons behind it. To my mind, this would be the same as cleaning out the violence from _A Clockwork Orange_ or the drugs from _Trainspotting_; it may still be a story, but nothing more.

I will not read books sanitized for my protection nor do I think I would give a scrubbed version to a child - if they are too young to deal with the themes in a given book, then they're too young to read the book. It's as simple as that for me.


----------



## Paegan (Jul 20, 2009)

I despise revisionist history.  If they are going to change Mark Twain's original words, then it is no longer Mark Twain you will be reading.


----------



## mcostas (Nov 22, 2010)

The "n" word is taken out of a classic book but the "n" word is proudly sung in songs by the very group that claims to be offended.  By removing the "n" word from the book, you also remove the lesson, or moral of the story. 

I think it's ridiculous people have to say "n" word like 5 year olds like utter it is going to create a black hole in the universe or summon demons from the horry neatherworld. 

Especially, and I feel I must reiterate this, THE "N" WORDS SAY THE "N" WORD THEMSELVES!!!! 

How can people actually take this seriously?!? People walk around with their pants around their ankles then complain about older literature and media sterotyping?!?!?


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

mcosta, you know that not all black people are the same person, right? They don't all sing the same songs, wear their pants the same way, or object to the same language. And I wouldn't assume that the people who object to the word in this case are what you so charmingly call "N words."


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-word-huck-finn/story?id=12539499

A Twain scholar has released a version of Huckleberry Finn minus racial epithets. His reasoning is this will get the book back into schools, many of which have banned it because of the "n" word. Controversy ensues.

***
On a lighter note, Family Ties totally did this topic as an episode back in the 80s. (Note the period correct use of totally.)


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

The National Public Radio show, "The Takeaway" is debating that issue on today's show. http://www.thetakeaway.org/

On a similar note, I'm reading "Gone with the Wind" for my book club, and I can hardly stand the attitudes in it. I'm not sure I will finish the book.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

So what do we do about the Joseph Conrad book with the-word-that-shall-not-be-named in the title? Rename his novel?

I think the unintended consequence of cleaning up Twain is that it will, in fact, help rewrite history _in favor_ of white (no longer European) dominance of the USA. Already today so many people (of all races) shrug at slavery; not because they approve of it but because it is so foreign and distant to them as a concept they don't think it was a big deal. The word in question meant in Twain's time exactly what it means today; it was not a compliment. By pretending that people in that world did not use it freely are the first steps to forgetting what the general ideas were at the time, and that the word was just something they threw around without any regard for its meaning. That was the culture of the time. Pretending otherwise is to see it through rose colored glasses and to take another step towards shrugging off slavery and the world in which it existed. As in, "See, that wasn't so bad. They never even called slaves..."slaves.""


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

You don't change classics for the sake of new points of view in society. Period.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

While I believe there are words that are appropriate in one venue and inappropriate in another, there are no bad words. Words are words. They serve a purpose. Can you imagine a book about the KKK committing atrocities in the 1950s with the klansmen saying things like, "Well, darn, look at those uppity African Americans."

It's stupid.

I hope Huckleberry Finn for students is clearly noted that it is edited for children and is not what was written my Mark Twain.

Apparently we live in terror of offending someone now but this offends me and no one cares.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

mscott9985 said:


> The National Public Radio show, "The Takeaway" is debating that issue on today's show. http://www.thetakeaway.org/
> 
> On a similar note, I'm reading "Gone with the Wind" for my book club, and I can hardly stand the attitudes in it. I'm not sure I will finish the book.


I started Gone W/ the Wind, but stopped b/c I couldn't stand Scarlet. I spent the majority of the part I read wishing someone would slap some sense into her.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

There's a thread on this topic on the Book Corner.  What's the point of getting it back into school when you change history to make it nice and sanitized?  It's an ugly word and it was an ugly time, but you don't learn from that by pretending it did not happen or that it was "nicer" than it was.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> There's a thread on this topic on the Book Corner.


I missed that. I'm a bad person. I should be banned (until I get all my "real life" stuff done.)


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

mcostas said:


> Especially, and I feel I must reiterate this, THE "N" WORDS SAY THE "N" WORD THEMSELVES!!!!


Wow ... just, wow.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

We read this book in school and I honestly don't think changing the words would have made much of a difference. As it was, it was difficult to read aloud because we had to constantly remind ourselves not to read aloud _that_ word and I don't remember any conversation about it. I think our teacher just told us, "It was the way of the times and we don't use that word anymore, so just don't say it out loud" and that was it. In middle school (before we read Huck Finn), our unit on slavery where we watched Roots was MUCH more eye-opening. With that unit still in mind, I believe using the word "slave" would have had just as much of an effect on us. If editing the n-word out will get more schools to teach the book, I think it could be a good thing. Teachers can still have discussions about the word and the implications of why it was edited out, if they want. Kids still get taught about slavery and racism.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

NPR's link to this story

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/04/132652272/new-edition-of-huckleberry-finn-will-eliminate-offensive-words

I always thought that Huckleberry Finn was Twain's social commentary of that period, removing the use of the 'N' word removes the social issues/lessions the book teaches us.

Frankly, as a writer myself the thought of having to remove a word because it might offend is pure madness, after all were would it end? All books would be neutral gray masses of no conflict, no thought provoking lines and chance to tell a truth through words.

This sort of self-censorship was wrong, and I would like to think that Mark Twain would have something witty to say about it too... Such as 'Don't let schooling get in the way of your education."

Onwards...
Nick D


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

DYB said:


> I think the unintended consequence of cleaning up Twain is that it will, in fact, help rewrite history _in favor_ of white (no longer European) dominance of the USA. Already today so many people (of all races) shrug at slavery; not because they approve of it but because it is so foreign and distant to them as a concept they don't think it was a big deal. The word in question meant in Twain's time exactly what it means today; it was not a compliment. By pretending that people in that world did not use it freely are the first steps to forgetting what the general ideas were at the time, and that the word was just something they threw around without any regard for its meaning. That was the culture of the time. Pretending otherwise is to see it through rose colored glasses and to take another step towards shrugging off slavery and the world in which it existed. As in, "See, that wasn't so bad. They never even called slaves..."slaves.""


I was looking at the Wikipedia discussion pages, and someone was claiming that the book was racist towards whites, because it showed white people as being racist. But at the time racism WAS rampant, the abolitionists were considered to be an extreme fringe. In a slave state, being an abolitionist was to put your life on the line, a number of abolitionists were murdered. They would love a sanitized version.

It's better to change the future than to change the past.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> It's better to change the future than to change the past.


This. Not to mention, it's the only thing we CAN change.

I think Twain did write it as a social commentary of the times. It's a brilliant piece of work on a lot of levels.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Wow ... just, wow.


My thoughts exactly. I really just have no idea how to respond to that.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

mscott9985 said:


> On a similar note, I'm reading "Gone with the Wind" for my book club, and I can hardly stand the attitudes in it. I'm not sure I will finish the book.


I recent re-read "Lucifer's Hammer" which was written in 1977. I was immediately struck by the rampant sexism as well as the portrayal of inner city blacks throughout the book. When I first read the book in the early '80's, I didn't notice any of it; women cringing and screaming in the face of danger and black people being all Black Panther/criminal/thug/'kill ******' was just how things were seen in my corner of the rural Mid-West.

It was very educational for me to see how much we as a people have changed in 30 years as well as how much I have changed in that time period ....


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

As Twain himself pointed out many times throughout his life, humans are a strange bunch.  If he were alive today, he would wonder as many of us do why the "n" word is everywhere in music, but needs to be erased from a great piece of literature!
Its quite sad actually; on of the greatest books ever written about relationships and the hunger for love and acceptance from two people of different races who supply one another with that love and acceptance.  What Huck could not get from his own father and Jim could not get from society becomes a parable for the beautiful love story that unfolds on the raft as it journeys down the river.  The fact that it was written in the vernacular of the times makes it even more powerful.  One of the most poignent books ever written about the evils of racism
and human folly.  And a great lesson to be taught to readers everywhere precisely because it shows with its language where we were an how far we've come. I am glad I read it the way it was meant to be read.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

It continues to astound me that, as a culture, we are so afraid of a single term that we call it "the N word." 

It is similarly appalling that some libraries do not carry the book because of its inclusion.

Political correctness run amok.


----------



## mcostas (Nov 22, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Wow ... just, wow.


What do you mean "wow"?!?!?! How many black people do you know? Would you like me to copy and paste the lyrics of the songs I hear when I am hanging around black folks?!? I would get banned from the forum if I did. Do you seriously not know about the copious use of "the n word" in popular songs?!?

I work with, live next to, go to homes of, black people, I am very familier with their values, entertainment, ect.

How many old HS pics do you have of your black friends? I have a bunch, I went to hs in the south in the 60's and 70's when it wasn't cool and acceptable. How many times have you gone against the grain and done something that wasn't acceptable.

It's easy to talk all "tolerant" in this day and age, why don't you try it when it's not. And don't lecture me, I've probably been around a lot longer than you have, at least I am aware of the fact that black people refer to themselves and each other as teh "n" word, only they can really say it.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

mcostas said:


> What do you mean "wow"?!?!?! How many black people do you know? Would you like me to copy and paste the lyrics of the songs I hear when I am hanging around black folks?!? I would get banned from the forum if I did. Do you seriously not know about the copious use of "the n word" in popular songs?!?
> 
> I work with, live next to, go to homes of, black people, I am very familier with their values, entertainment, ect.
> 
> ...


That doesn't make it right...and methinks it was more the way your earlier post came across. Double-standards (word use or otherwise) is not new and neither is rebel singers singing for shock value.

The point is that the book as it stands might have some useful lessons for all of us--black and white about the way things were. We are careful of the word because it is tainted. We are trying to avoid being offensive--wherever rebel singers are purposely being offensive.

There is a time and place for word use. That word belongs in Huck Finn because it is a part of the time and part of the story. Taking it out changes the story.


----------



## Anne (Oct 29, 2008)

John Fitch V said:


> You don't change classics for the sake of new points of view in society. Period.


I agree with you 100 per cent


----------



## mcostas (Nov 22, 2010)

Exactly! It doesn't make it right! So don't treat the "n" word like your own special little word that you can say but if anyone else says it then there is a riot!

Either it's right, or it's wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Here are quotes from an actual trial coming up. Link at end.



> Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word
> By Michael Klein
> 
> Inquirer Staff Writer





> A federal jury will be asked to decide whether it is acceptable for an African American person, but not a white person, to use the "n" word





> Burlington, who is white, was fired after using the "n" word during a June 2007 staff meeting at which reporters and producers were discussing reporter Robin Taylor's story about the symbolic burial of the word by the Philadelphia Youth Council of the NAACP.





> The dispute began after Taylor, who is white, used the phrase the "n" word during the 2007 staff meeting. She said participants at the burial had said the full word "at least a hundred times or more," according to court records.


link to full story
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20110105_Trial_set_for_firing_over_use_of__n__word.html


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

mcostas said:


> Exactly! It doesn't make it right! So don't treat the "n" word like your own special little word that you can say but if anyone else says it then there is a riot!
> 
> Either it's right, or it's wrong. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> ...


I find your comments to be rude and ask that you turn it down a notch. There was a rather civil conversation occurring and you posted a diatribe making generalizations about an entire ethnic group. You then followed up with more generalizations about the same group and then generalizations about everyone reading and our lack of knowledge of said group. We all have opinions about double-standards and many more groups than one have their double-standards.

I would like to see this conversation continue as I find the topic of editing book content for whatever reason to be fascinating. I do not want to see this devolve into a conversation over who has more street cred.

... and, in case it's relevant, I'm white and gay, my husband is Latino, my sister is black, 3 sisters-in-law are Asian and I live in a majority black neighborhood in Dallas.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

John Fitch V said:


> You don't change classics for the sake of new points of view in society. Period.


I totally agree. How far is this going to go? We can be rewriting existing literature constantly. Political correctness gone amuk!


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Maybe if Mark Twain had released a "cleaned-up" version of the book himself, I could get behind that, but editing his work now seems very wrong to me.  Of course, I think abridged versions of books are a sin too.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

mcostas said:


> What do you mean "wow"?!?!?! How many black people do you know?


Yeah, because I grew up in and then around Detroit, and then worked in the city, which is a the whitest city in America. The joke at my last job in the city was that I'd visited another branch of where we worked, one in the suburbs, found out I was white -- and now was expecting things like fair working conditions.



> Would you like me to copy and paste the lyrics of the songs I hear when I am hanging around black folks?!? I would get banned from the forum if I did. Do you seriously not know about the copious use of "the n word" in popular songs?!?


I'm well familiar with the word. I'm well familiar with the music. I'm simply repulsed by:



> Especially, and I feel I must reiterate this, THE "N" WORDS SAY THE "N" WORD THEMSELVES!!!!


In 2011, in a country where a black man is president, you just called a whole race of people a pejorative, lumped them all in together in a hate-filled bow.Let's read that sentence the way you wanted to say it. What is _wrong_ with you? You are the reason that word should not be removed from the book, because there are people like you out there and you, sir, are a throwback.



> I work with, live next to, go to homes of, black people, I am very familier with their values, entertainment, ect.


You didn't mention mating rituals. Dude, they're not a zoo exhibit. Not an anthropological study. Just because people are the same race doesn't make them act and think as one. This comforts me, as you and I are probably the same race and I really don't want to be grouped with you and I know we don't share the same values.



> How many old HS pics do you have of your black friends? I have a bunch, I went to hs in the south in the 60's and 70's when it wasn't cool and acceptable. How many times have you gone against the grain and done something that wasn't acceptable.


Are you kidding me? "I can't be racist, some of my best friends are..." The refuge of a lot of great people, like Mel Gibson. I will not sit here and prove to you I know more black people than you do, as if people are trading cards. "I demonstrably know more black people than you do." If you knew my life, you'd realize you are being ridiculous and wrong -- at least concerning this one detail. On the larger issue, I don't see you as learning or admitting fault.



> It's easy to talk all "tolerant" in this day and age, why don't you try it when it's not. And don't lecture me, I've probably been around a lot longer than you have, at least I am aware of the fact that black people refer to themselves and each other as teh "n" word, only they can really say it.


The line, "And don't you lecture me," is the biggest example of projection I've ever read, as I only typed one line to you previous to this post and you then responded with a big lecture. I'm not going to tell people how they can refer to themselves, and that's a separate issue. I'm not even telling you that you can't refer to people that way. What I am telling you is that I prefer that you do not refer to me ever again.

This is a nice board, with nice people. I'd prefer to deal with them and I'd prefer the both of us don't argue and cause an issue here. If you do continue to address me, I am more than willing to leave the board.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

I am very troubled by this modification of a classic work. Those who know me also know that I am very sensitive about the use of pejorative terms to describe other people. There is no need to do that at any time. However, when Mark Twain wrote _Huckleberry Finn_ the use of the "n" word to describe African Americans was commonplace. To change that word without Mark Twain's concurrence, which he obviously is in no position to do, makes that work cease to be his work. Warn about it all you want, but don't change his words.

In my book, the main character is Chinese-American. In one scene, a villain describes him with an extremely pejorative term for Chinese. It was necessary for the scene and I put it in. I am a Chinese-American and the pejorative term offends me deeply, but I used it because anything less would have changed the tension that I needed in that passage. Does that make me a racist (oxymoron); of course not.

Phil Chen


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, stopping by to check out this thread on a very interesting topic.  However, and I haven't read the whole thread through yet, it appears that there are some heated exchanges starting.  A back and forth between two indivuduals picking away at each others' posts does not further debate.

If you're posting while angry, it's time to step away from the keyboard for a few minutes and let the discussion continue.

Thanks

Your friendly neighborhood moderator.

Betsy


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

My concern is not just what will be lost from the text, but what will be lost from the discussion. I'm not sure which one concerns me more -- I suppose, lost from the text. I hate the concept that these changes might not be mentioned in a classroom using this version and the children won't know what's gone. That the book might enter the mainstream and adults, having skipped the introduction, will think they're reading the version Clemens presented. 

It's ironic that Mark Twain is on the bestsellers list in, what, the first of three volumes where even minutiae is left in -- because that's the way he wrote it. His words are worth preserving. This is one of the reasons people don't like e-readers -- the fear of how easily words can be altered and destroyed. 

Some people won't read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books because Ma hated Indians. I seem to recall a minstrel show, complete with black face. The thing is though that this is our history. This is the the author's culture. Mrs. Wilder inadvertently taught us a lesson about how even good people can carry with them the beliefs and bigotry of their time. Samuel Clemens was more deliberate and intentional in the point. Losing the word doesn't change the truth, but it does blur it around the edges. 

Schools exist to teach and to challenge. The obligation is not an easy one. The removal of the word is one less discussion that could be had, one less lesson to learn. Children cannot understand progress, why something is a big deal, if they don't know what came before -- and they won't learn it if we don't discuss it and hide all mentions of it. While there were abolitionists at the time and good people, words were used, prejudices held, people dehumanized. This is the story of a boy having the blinders removed -- the least we  can do is not force these same blinders on our own children. The great atrocities of history -- ours or anyone else's -- does not get to be some vague concept. 

Take away the word and you take away the power. Witnesses to that time only live in pictures and words. Soon, these will be true of Holocaust survivors. All kids will have is the art an the testimonials. These things are too precious to alter and change.  We ask why so many Germans didn't speak out -- didn't act out. How whites could go to church in the morning and a KKK meeting at night. How do we reconcile this belief that people have an obligation in times of moral crisis with the concept of changing the words of someone who did speak out?


----------



## KindleLovinMike (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't agree with changing a word in a book like that (not that I like the N word). Imagine if the word "bush" took on a meaning so offensive that society thought it appropriate to remove it from George W.'s book and replace it with "shrubbery." Actually, that might be funny.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

KindleLovinMike said:


> I don't agree with changing a word in a book like that (not that I like the N word). Imagine if the word "bush" took on a meaning so offensive that society thought it appropriate to remove it from George W.'s book and replace it with "shrubbery." Actually, that might be funny.


Okay, that was really silly, completely unrelated ... and I laughed anyway. Goldernit.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Telling lies about the past and keeping secrets to make everything look "perfect" on the outside is what happens in abusive families and oppressive regimes.  Certainly, telling the truth about our history exposes ugly scars.  However, lying about our history leaves wounds to fester and ultimately make far uglier scars than the truth ever would have.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

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

Here is a link to Wikipedia that has a history of the book and also includes an entry on this recent event

There are spoilers and plenty of links

My take? Censorship is wrong. Period.
Will the book get additional sales because of this? Sure. Probably for a time. There are still more schools than not who have it as required reading.

But will today's kids go out of their way to read it on their own time? 
Aside from being forced to read it in class?
I mean- they'll pay attention TO the material IN class because they need the grade. Right?
But to go out on their own time and read it cover to cover?
I doubt that hundreds of thousands of kids will rush to their iPhone after school to download a copy so they can read it on their own time.
Because once they get the grade for the class...they'll move on.
And at the end of the day.....what's the point then?
I'll assume Twain wrote it to be read and provoke thought.
But kids today?
Many of them are more interested on watching the latest video.
And again- if something, ANYTHING, isn't being read and discussed, what does it matter if the material is cleaned up or not?

(Of course...it DOES matter that someone has decided that a few words in a classic book should be sanitized, but I really think the media is just having a slow news day and they pounced on this, hoping it would go viral, which it apparently has. But again-- how many kids out there are going to rush to the used book section of Amazon and download the original version so they can read it before this new version takes over and becomes the 'official' version? I don't think too many. I still do not approve of whats happening but...)

Besides... History is written by the people who have the power to do so.
Just how much of our past (beyond a few books) has been rewritten or hidden over the past thousand years?
THAT'S where our focus should be.
And yet, keeping an eye on THAT kind of censorship is much more difficult to do than ranting about ONE book on the internet over the course of a couple of days before fresh news takes over

And there- in lies the problem.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

Here, we have a whole group of adults (and news people on TV tonight) saying "the N word" instead of using the actual word. So if collectively, as a society, we're not allowed (or are afraid) to say the word _******_-even when discussing how wrong it is to refer to another human being that way-then why would we want young people to read a book that is full the word? 
L.J.


----------



## isaacsweeney (Jan 1, 2011)

There's not much more to say. I hate the word "******," but the problems with the word aren't because kids read it in Huck Finn. Censorship seems to perpetuate the problems they claim to "fix" or "hide". On the other hand, lots of people are talking about this, so the act of censoring "******" is causing some useful discourse.

Check out my ebooks:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Isaac%20Sweeney


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

purplepen79 said:


> Telling lies about the past and keeping secrets to make everything look "perfect" on the outside is what happens in abusive families and oppressive regimes. Certainly, telling the truth about our history exposes ugly scars. However, lying about our history leaves wounds to fester and ultimately make far uglier scars than the truth ever would have.


True.

My take is that the guy behind this means well and would prefer the original be out there. He seems to believe the important thing is to get the book read, or what's left of it. ::shrug:: I think a lot of people have good intentions for the bad things that they do. The best that come of this is that people reject his version and demand their kids be taught the real Huckleberry Finn. I just worry that this book will end up mistaken for the unedited version or be taken as essentially the same thing.

I don't think this guy is trying to hide the truth, but I think he's unintentionally catering to the people who want to do just that. The people who want to expunge that word from history and the ones who maintain that the south seceding was not primarily about slavery and are willing to pay lip service to political correctness to do so. Let's face it -- both a subset of conservatives and a subset of liberals have their own reasons to want the word gone.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Here, we have a whole group of adults (and news people on TV tonight) saying "the N word" instead of using the actual word. So if collectively, as a society, we're not allowed (or are afraid) to say the word _******_-even when discussing how wrong it is to refer to another human being that way-then why would we want young people to read a book that is full the word?
> L.J.


I think all words have value and resonance, that one too. I don't like the word on my own lips though. I can say it, I would say it in the context of education, but I don't want to say it casually. That Family Ties episode I semi-jokingly posted uses the word though, Roots did too, so I wonder when the word became unspeakable on network TV.

I remember having a crush on a kid in kindergarten and my family thinking it was cute until they found out he was the "wrong" color -- the looks they shot at one another, as if wanting to share my crayons meant something. My grandmother, who I don't think of as the most open to other races person on the planet tells the story of having a little black baby doll she loved and how her brother was ashamed of his sister carrying it around and so he destroyed the doll. How I could sit there with her for hours and never get her to see how she at least bought into some of that at some point. I think of a job I had where a virtual stranger called me to complain about my co-workers and at first I didn't understand why -- couldn't even place this woman at first -- and then she said that coming to where I worked was like Planet of The Apes. I knew it then -- we're both white so we're on the same team, right? Even though I worked and struggled and was friends with a group of people, this woman I couldn't even identify in a line-up thought I'd be with her. Never even made the connection before that to one of my current bumper stickers: Don't Assume I Share Your Prejudices.

Maybe that's the real reason I don't use the word -- because I don't want to resemble people like that even more than I do.


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

What a slippery slope, this tweaking of books from the past in an attempt to make them more palatable to our own time. Why not edit the history books themselves? No witch burnings, no slavery, no holocaust. No suffering and strife at all. Yeesh. When someone says they're doing something for 'our own good,' be wary.


----------



## mklitt (Jan 6, 2011)

I am surprised to find myself so completely in the minority here. I went back and re-wrote a blog I did earlier on Huckleberry Finn. Here is what I added. Just a different point of view I guess!

I have read this book many times. It may be the first real American novel. It is certainly one of the best and is head and shoulder above Tom Sawyer. Huck celebrates the subversiveness of childhood that we would prefer our children not act out. Huck is the archetypal "bad influence" whereas Tom is the kid next door who is just all boy. Both need to be first read when you are a child. And although Tom Sawyer will probably be fondly set aside, you may still want to journey down the river with Huck and Jim when you are retired.

I have been afraid for many years that Huck, that must lively of American characters, would pass from our collective consciousness because it is too difficult to teach the book in school. How do you explain that a word is OK in this book, but not that, and never OK in speech. It is word so ugly it doesn't even need to be thought, let alone read out loud.

And in the mid-60's in my segregated school in the North (segregated because the rumor was you had to be white to live in our blue collar school district) I got in trouble for using the "N" word while reading "Huckleberry Finn" out loud to my 5th grade class. I was a student, not a teacher, and was sharing my favorite book during a read out loud session.

"But," I protested. I wanted to say I would never use that word, except to read it. My beloved teacher, who had to be very familiar with the book, cut me off. "You never use that word." He was ashamed of me.

Now thanks to "New South Books" and editor Alan Gribben, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has been removed from the "too toxic to teach" shelf and placed back in the hands of young readers. (It is published, but not for Kindle.) They replaced the ugly "N" word with the word "slave." That is also an ugly word, but it is easier to teach. And when these new lovers of Mark Twain grow up, maybe they will reach for the original or maybe they will be satisfied by what New South Books has done. Mark Twain was pretty subversive, he took a black man, a slave and made him into a person, a hero - not someone to be ignored or mistreated. I don't think he would have wanted his book to be shelved because we followed him and have now passed him.

Cheers!
Marilyn
http://kindleclassics.blogspot.com/ "Free Classic Literature for the Kindle"


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I was watching the local news tonight, and the Fox station had on two prominent local celebs who happen to be black.

Surprisingly (to the news crew, at least), both of them agreed that editing "the N-word" out of Twain was wrong-headed and unwise. One even went so far as to suggest that substituting the word "slave" was no improvement.

So will Jim now be Slave Jim, in Huck Finn?

I was pleased to find out both local celebs interviewed were on the same page as me about the whole fiasco, more or less.

Here's my view, plain and simple:

In a VERY rural area of Minnesota, where I grew up, our entire school district was almost all white. In fact, the closest we got to a non-white member of my graduating class (1985) was an exchange student from Venezuela whom everyone loved because she was just a peach of a gal.

Even so, I grew up KNOWING that "the N-word" was not a word to be used. In fact, in my moral upbringing, it was not to be used, even if no one was around to hear you use it.

My moral upbringing basically taught me to take each person as an individual and ignore everything else. And I don't mean "pretend differences don't exist," but simply not to let differences be used as some sort of reason for liking or disliking an individual.

In other words, let's say I got along fine with Jessica (made up name). If I get along with Jessica, it's not because she's of Mexican heritage, it's not because she's a Catholic, it's not because she's a fellow writer, or any other category you can lump her into. If I get along with Jessica... it's because of who Jessica is and how we interact. Maybe she's someone who I met at a library and we enjoy the same books. That would be the reason.

And if I meet other folks of Mexican heritage, Catholics, writers or whatever else Jessica can be categorized as... none of that means I'm going to get along with those folks just because I get along with Jessica. They're all individuals, too, and they're not Jessica. Only Jessica is Jessica.

Similarly, let's say I am ticked off at John. If I'm ticked off at John, it's not because John is Native American, or old, or atheist, or has a freaky hairdo. If I'm ticked off at John, it's because John cheated while we were playing PlayStation, or because he made a rude comment about my wife, or because he cut me off in traffic... whatever the case is, that would be why I'm ticked off at him.

So, if I meet other Native Americans, old folks, atheists or folks with freaky hairdos, that doesn't mean I'll be ticked off at them just because I'm ticked off at John. They're all individuals, too, and they're not John. Only John is John, so he's the only one I'm ticked off at. (Until we resolve it.)

That being said, like most folks, I read both TOM SAWYER and HUCK FINN in high school. So it's not like I was ignorant of the word's use, history, existence, etc.

Speaking for myself, I see HUCK FINN as an extremely important novel, not only in the body of Mark Twain's work ... not only for its place in the context of American history ... but for its important role in changing hearts and minds during a certain era of US history, related to the issue of slavery.

Those who get apoplectic over the book's use of the N-word, and those who would edit it out by substituting the word "slave," are missing the most important aspect of HUCK FINN.

More than anything, HUCK FINN is Twain's anti-slavery manifesto.

Jim is the deepest and most complex character in the novel, becoming the proper father figure to Huck that Huck had found in no one else. The purpose of the entire novel is to speak against the mindset of Twain's time... a time that was still in the cultural wake of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. A time when many folks, especially those south of the Mason-Dixon line, but even some north of it, had a hard time even acknowledging that former slaves were even human. They were still seen as property by many.

Twain's novel confronts those attitudes head-on. HUCK FINN demonstrates Jim to be the most decent and morally upright character in the entire novel. The white characters are all shown to be corrupt in one way or another.

If one wants to accuse Twain of anything, it might be reverse-racism... pedalstalizing blacks through his almost-too-perfect portrayal of Jim. But it was, I think, necessary as an antidote to the ills of that time.

Yes, Twain used the N-word, frequently, in both TOM SAWYER and HUCK FINN. But if Twain himself had edited such things out over "sensibility concerns," his novels wouldn't have rung true, and they wouldn't have made the cultural impact that they historically did make.

One must keep in mind, with literature, that they are a reflection of time and culture; if we change them, we imperil our connection to the portrait of a moment in time and history that Twain was painting... and critiquing harshly.

Do I think the use of the N-word is always acceptable? Of course not. It would be extremely out-of-place in contemporary fiction. But in an historical work like Twain's? I'd argue it must remain, or its anti-slavery message is robbed of its true power, and the history it is reflecting gets distorted unjustly, and to the detriment of all.

My two cents.


----------



## 21stcenturybooks (Jan 6, 2011)

As a black person I think that they should keep the n word in there.  To be honest we are getting too politically correct these days.  Kids are growing up faster than ever these days- kids having babies, there is more drugs in schools than ever, etc.  It's like a contradiction of school life and the real world for these kids.  A classic like Huckleberry Finn with the n word in it is what some of these kids need to hear.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

mklitt said:


> Now thanks to "New South Books" and editor Alan Gribben, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has been removed from the "too toxic to teach" shelf and placed back in the hands of young readers. (It is published, but not for Kindle.)


Whatever you say, Alan. Whatever you say, New South Books.

Anyone who doesn't know how to teach Huck Finn and the moral complexities it brings to the table needs more continuing ed credits. Huck is rarely presented prior to high school... what a wonderful time and opportunity in the development of our young people to begin teaching moral complexities!

My English teacher handled it just fine, as I recall. "Too toxic to teach," indeed! Twain's anti-slavery message is nearly lost without the moral complexities...

And has anyone stopped to wonder how one can pull off an anti-slavery message with a character "brilliantly" renamed Slave Jim? At least with his original nom-de-plume, the offensive word referred to something Jim couldn't control or change or choose... his heritage and skin color; by constantly referring to him as Slave Jim, Twain's anti-slavery message becomes extremely undercut.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Marilyn,
In the example given, your teacher was in the wrong to make you feel shame. The book isn't broken, it didn't need to be fixed. The teacher could have made it a learning opportunity and not embarrassed you.


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

Nicely put, Craig. If we hear of schools announcing that NOW it's okay to teach the works of Twain, it will somehow be more obscene than the original censorship.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Legacy

Now there is a word our modern society should fear
Because we AS a society TODAY do not even think of it much

Huck Finn was written by Twain over a hundred years ago
(Remember the many discussions we like to have over in the Writers Cafe about which books from TODAY will still be around a hundred years from now? Books that will be admired? Discussed? STILL READ?)

Twain wrote honestly about his times and out of everything that was written back THEN... his  work is still read

But now...society has changed so much that we are changing those words (and still banning books in general)

Now, in another hundred years, what will society THEN be thinking of US (as a society)?
What will our legacy be THEN? Will it be something we (if we're still alive by then) can be proud of?
Or will that generation (in a hundred years) finally have advanced as a society and wonder how we (today) managed to be so far advanced as a society a hundred years past  Twain and yet still be more backwards in several things (Like censorship)?

Just askin'


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

It's too bad.

Not because the work should be preserved because it is sacred. But because the discomfort the racism causes makes a great discussion point. That's what Twain wanted anyway. A sharp teacher could get a really meaningful discussion about racism, culture and how it changes and doesn't change over time.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Here, we have a whole group of adults (and news people on TV tonight) saying "the N word" instead of using the actual word. So if collectively, as a society, we're not allowed (or are afraid) to say the word _******_-even when discussing how wrong it is to refer to another human being that way-then why would we want young people to read a book that is full the word?
> L.J.


I think it's an odd quirk to our society (or maybe to human nature in general) that some of us won't swear but will use 'God Bless America!' or 'Fudge!' or some other nicety to pretend we didn't just use an expletive. I think the 'n-word', 'c-word', 'f-word(s)', etc. are more of the same thing. A way to say a word without saying it and to pretend we're nicer than we are. Its not like everyone around doesn't know what we're really saying ....

When a person censors their own language, it's amusing to me to one degree or another. When one censors someone else's language, then I start having a problem. One has a right to be as rascist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as one cares to be. At the same time, I understand how casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. has triggered an effort to clean it all out of our society. But, I think many times when trying to make amends and when trying to move beyond our -ist past, we end up whitewashing it. It's like claiming that racism is over because we have a black President.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I once saw a t-shirt that read, "There's something in my library to offend everyone."  If we start editing a book because of a word we don't like, where will it end?  Everyone has something that will irritate them.

For example, in my kids' elementary school, they have books about Sponge Bob or iCarley or Transformers, etc.  I hate those kinds of books because I think they are really just advertisements for the TV Show or movie or whatever.  However, I wouldn't advocate pulling them off the shelves.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I place the blame squarely on those offended by the word.  It's just a word.  A combination of letters and sounds just like every other word.

It is not the offense intended that gives the word its power, but instead the offense taken.  Those who are offended are giving others the power to hurt them with a word.

Instances like this - removing the word from a book - only increase the effectiveness of the word.  They send a message to those who would use this word to offend that it works, and it works extremely well.  

So, this type of political correctness is generating the exact opposite of it's intended effect.  Instead of relegating the word to obsolescence where it belongs, they are letting everyone know, especially the racists, that the word can still be used as a very effective weapon.

There are many words that are intended to be derogatory towards certain groups of people.  As a person of Irish/German ancestry, I could be offended by being called Mick, Taig, Kraut, Nazi, Hun, Cracker, or Honky.  But if I was, it would be my fault for allowing others that power over me.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

So in 30 years or so will we be editing the edited Twain to remove the "S" word?

We are substituting one word for another that has a "bad connotation".  
Taken in context won't this substituted word also take on that "bad connotation"?  
And in doing so will we be forced to re-edit the edited original work at sometime to remove the offending word?

Folks -- you can plug in any word you want -- its not going to change the context of its use.

My problem is not necessarily with the folks who are editing the work -- its with the misguided folks who have made it necessary to edit the work in order for it to be "acceptable" to be used in our schools.

I've read Twain -- many times -- you could use the word Cherry Blossom and it ain't gonna change the context one bit -- its still talking about a derogatory name and an attitude prevalent in the times that is unacceptable today.  The actual word used isn't going to change that.  
Leave the original work as it is.
Teach the lesson -- that things that were perhaps normal, acceptable or tolerated in the past are no longer so and teach the reasons why.  Changing the words isn't going to teach that lesson.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

swolf said:


> My gut reaction is to be against this, but the writer in the article makes a good point. How is this different than a movie edited for broadcast TV?
> 
> It seems somehow different to me, but I can't put my finger on why.





Tip10 said:


> My problem is not necessarily with the folks who are editing the work -- its with the misguided folks who have made it necessary to edit the work in order for it to be "acceptable" to be used in our schools.


Thank you. You've pointed out to me why I'm having a problem with this.

Creating an edited version of the book isn't the problem. The original still exisits and can be read anytime. The problem is why they are doing it.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

"I place the blame squarely on those offended by the word.  It's just a word.  A combination of letters and sounds just like every other word."

Swolf-- I feel the same way
The late George Carlin did a few riffs on this very topic in a few of his earlier skits
Sadly, it seems he didn't have as big an audience as I thought


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Tip10 said:


> I've read Twain -- many times -- you could use the word Cherry Blossom and it ain't gonna change the context one bit -- its still talking about a derogatory name and an attitude prevalent in the times that is unacceptable today. The actual word used isn't going to change that.


I believe Gore Vidal once wrote a novel to make the same point. A novel where political words were used in place of porn word. It was just as titilating.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

I find the word tree offensive.  We need to rename it.  

Is it just me, or is ignoring the past or faking it more offensive in a lot of way than the truth?  Doesn't it degrade the things those people actually went thru?  Would they be considering such a thing if we were talking about the holocaust?  

For the love of Vhaerun people need to GET OVER THEMSELVES and just DEAL with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with everyone else.  This whole politically correct crap is just that, crap.  We, as a whole, have become a bunch of freaking whiny cry-babys!  "Mommy, he called me a bad name!!  Can I have a cookie now?"

Good grief.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

That we might now use a word now doesn't excuse trying to whitewash history. The original will be out there, but if this book gets widely used in schools, it is going to be the only version that people know. The original could easily just wind up available, but forgotten. This particular whitewashing is a fairly small thing, but it is a foot in the door to more dangerous whitewashings.


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I think it's an odd quirk to our society (or maybe to human nature in general) that some of us won't swear but will use 'God Bless America!' or 'Fudge!' or some other nicety to pretend we didn't just use an expletive. I think the 'n-word', 'c-word', 'f-word(s)', etc. are more of the same thing. A way to say a word without saying it and to pretend we're nicer than we are. Its not like everyone around doesn't know what we're really saying ....
> 
> When a person censors their own language, it's amusing to me to one degree or another. When one censors someone else's language, then I start having a problem. One has a right to be as rascist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as one cares to be. At the same time, I understand how casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. has triggered an effort to clean it all out of our society. But, I think many times when trying to make amends and when trying to move beyond our -ist past, we end up whitewashing it. It's like claiming that racism is over because we have a black President.


It took nearly 3 pages in this discussion to use the real word. I nearly cheered when I read it. While there are some words that make me uncomfortable because they are so ugly, I'm not going to edit them from my reading. I thoroughly enjoyed Stephen King's "Christine," even with the liberal use of the (ahem) c-word. The word was used to show how a character (once a decent guy) had metamorphized into something truly distasteful.


----------



## LaFlamme (Dec 9, 2010)

It's ironic that it was Twain who had such pithy thoughts on profanity:

"When angry count four; when very angry, swear."

"There ought to be a room in every house to swear in."

And my favorite: "Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."


----------



## rae4you (Dec 29, 2010)

Not up for censoring at all but on the other hand I do feel it needs to be put back into the schools.  I have mixed emotions about it...


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

Darn this whole discussion!  Now I feel the need to go reread Huck Finn, and there's just not enough time!  When I was eleven, the language didn't bother me at all, but I remember being deeply offended by a run-on sentence that was two pages long.  I will try to suppress my grammar prejudices long enough to be offended by something different this time.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

rae4you said:


> Not up for censoring at all but on the other hand I do feel it needs to be put back into the schools. I have mixed emotions about it...


Rae... I went off on a thing here. I don't want you to think I'm lecturing you, just kept typing. 

Most kids have heard the word. Putting the book in the classroom, or the house, opens up a discussion on something they've probably already been grappling with.

Sometimes I see parents lamenting that their kids can buy all sorts of book on the Kindle and I -- admittedly not actually a parent -- wonder why that's bad. The money thing, right, but these people seem more worried their children will select something inappropriate. I'm thinking it's a quick window into a kids head without secretly tossing their room.  You can't discuss with someone what's on their mind if you don't know what's on their mind.

Literature talks about life. We learn about places, and times, and beliefs. And people. In doing so, we're meant to be challenged. Huckleberry Finn teaches about all these things, things that are key to a love of reading, history, sociology, psychology... Putting it in a classroom, less the most challenging factor, the one central to the theme, seems to miss the point of why kids should be reading it.

I agree about it needing to be back in the classroom, but I think that should be the result of people understanding why it's important "as is" and not a capitulation to people who're either ignorant as to the context in the book or not wanting to have the big discussions with their kids. Kids who are possibly reading YA, which regularly grapples with stuff some that even adults don't see in their books on a regular basis.

For many kids, even readers, this will be their one chance to read this book. Sure, they can read it again later, but it's not realistic to count on that. So, their one experience with this novel will be false. That learning opportunity fairly wasted. One of the lessons learned is that it's okay for people to change a writer's meaning if it's considered objectionable -- no way that can come back and bite us, right?

Even for the most worried and cautious, the strictest school districts, what's wrong with a teacher saying, "This is the book we'll be reading. Within a couple pages you're going to see a word that is considered insulting and demeaning. You'll know the word when you see it. It's used a lot. This novel is going to help you understand some of the history of the word and why it still creates a lot of strong emotions in people still." If the teacher wants to then admonish the kids not to use the word, at least the text is pure.


----------



## LarryEnright (Nov 27, 2010)

I "the D word" "the T word" this is a "the G word" "the I word."

Larry

P.S. Translation for those of us who will not be allowed to use these words in the future: "I don't think this is a good idea."


----------



## AJB (Jul 9, 2010)

caseyf6 said:


> It took nearly 3 pages in this discussion to use the real word. I nearly cheered when I read it.


Me too. I actually thought there might be some sort of automatic censoring on the board that stopped people from using it.

Coincidentally, my daughter's grade 8 class at school is reading _The Adventures of Tom Sawyer_ at the moment and there was a lot of speculation among her classmates about whether their teacher would read out the 'n-word'. So it certainly started a discussion in their class - which is a good learning opportunity, as others have said.

My daughter had to look it up in the dictionary, as she had no idea what ****** meant. But then we're from England, originally, and I don't think there's the same degree of paranoia about the word there.

Amanda


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

I find it ridiculous that we've gotten to such a point in society where we cannot even say ****** when discussing it's use.

I'm not saying I think it's a good word, or one that I use often in conversation, but to make it unmentionable gives it even more power.  ****** is so bad we lower our voices to a whisper if we say it, or blot it out.  Like the superstitious only whispering the name of the evil witch.  By doing so we give the word too much power over us.  

It's a word.  A vocal symbol for a concept, not the concept itself.

Rape, murder, torture, female genital mutilation, war, famine.  Other vocal symbols for concepts much worse than racial hate.  Yet somehow we can still speak those words and discuss those issues without whispering or censorship.


----------



## WestofMars (Sep 16, 2009)

I was discussing this with my 10-year-old son just now, as I was reading this thread. (He asked why I was making noises and faces this time.)

Something dawned on me. Like it or not, ****** Jim becomes the character's name. I even noticed I'm saying it like one word as I talk to my son about it. And what I'm saying to him is, "That was an acceptable way to refer to someone back then. But now..." And he filled in the "not so much." He's ten and he gets it. So why can't high schoolers?

I don't see why this is such a hard concept to teach in schools. Yes, it's a complex and often difficult concept for anyone to grasp. But aren't these issues -- that so strongly define the US and where it's been, how it's changed, and where it has yet to go -- more important than one word? And what about the Vagina Monologues, people? Isn't the point of that to use the word and, thus, defuse how highly-charged it's become? 

And on a lighter note, I chuckle every time I see us talking about whitewashing in this thread. I seem to recall something about whitewashing a fence and a scam to get others to do it for them... wasn't that Tom Sawyer? Or was it the Great Huck Himself?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I personally have never used the N word in "real life," only in my art (of fiction) because art must be true to itself as well as society and there may be fictional characters who would in fact use the slur. I think it's only common courtesy, given that it's clear many, many African-Americans take offense when they hear the N word from the lips of Caucasians. And who could blame them?

That there is a subset of African-Americans who use the word amongst themselves freely does complicate the matter, but not enough for me to change my policy. It's an easy policy to follow.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

KerylR said:


> I find it ridiculous that we've gotten to such a point in society where we cannot even say ****** when discussing it's use.
> 
> I'm not saying I think it's a good word, or one that I use often in conversation, but to make it unmentionable gives it even more power. ****** is so bad we lower our voices to a whisper if we say it, or blot it out. Like the superstitious only whispering the name of the evil witch. By doing so we give the word too much power over us.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on this. This is something I have personal experience with.

When I was more of an activist back in the 80's and early 90's, we gay people started referring to ourselves as queers or **** to take the power out of the word. As a young man, the simple use of either word would wound me deeply. Even a casual comment in a (albeit homophobic) joke would hurt. But, by taking the word as our own, it took the power out of the word. Now, it still hurt to have it shouted at one from a passing pickup truck - but that's more about the rage than the word itself.

Now, I hear young gays refer to themselves as queer all the time - its almost become the politically correct term in some circles. *** is still a bad word even though we seem to use it amongst ourselves quite commonly ....


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

This is wrong for a number of reasons, the main one being that it's a historical novel.  It's the way things were in that part of the country in Mark Twain's time.  Because it's not pretty, we musn't look at it?  You can't remove racism by altering a book written in the time in which slavery existed.  There are books written in which women were considered chattel, non-persons.  We couldn't vote or own land.  Our place was in the kitchen and the bedroom. We could be beaten or raped by our husbands, and there was no recourse. And it's not that long ago.  I want to remember, not pretend that time never was. So we don't repeat it. And to honor all the people who fought so hard, many dying, to bring about changes in laws.  I don't want to erase any of it.  It's also blatant censorship. 

By the way, I just bought the new biography of Mark Twain.  Much of it in his own words.  Fascinating.  It's published by Kessinger Publishing.

Joan


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

KerylR said:


> I find it ridiculous that we've gotten to such a point in society where we cannot even say ****** when discussing it's use.


I assumed people were censoring it out on here because it's supposed to be a family-friendly board. If you can't say it at school or on TV, I thought it would be inappropriate for the board.

Has anyone seen The Race Show? I saw it earlier this year and thought it was brilliant. I highly recommend seeing it if it comes to your area.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

joanhallhovey said:


> This is wrong for a number of reasons, the main one being that it's a historical novel. It's the way things were in that part of the country in Mark Twain's time. Because it's not pretty, we musn't look at it? You can't remove racism by altering a book written in the time in which slavery existed. There are books written in which women were considered chattel, non-persons. We couldn't vote or own land. Our place was in the kitchen and the bedroom. We could be beaten or raped by our husbands, and there was no recourse. And it's not that long ago. I want to remember, not pretend that time never was. So we don't repeat it. And to honor all the people who fought so hard, many dying, to bring about changes in laws. I don't want to erase any of it. It's also blatant censorship.
> 
> By the way, I just bought the new biography of Mark Twain. Much of it in his own words. Fascinating. It's published by Kessinger Publishing.
> 
> Joan


I couldn't agree more. Well said.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Huck learns that something that is accepted, legal, and considered normal, slavery, is wrong. I hope any version of the story will still teach kids that they should not accept any societal norm without question.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Well, to put it in perspective as to why some people here haven't used the word in this discussion, Roger Ebert had to apologize for tweeting the word. Yes. Seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/roger-ebert-apologizes-fo_n_805713.html


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

There's many other books that are taught at the same age that also use the word ******. I didn't study Huck Finn in school (though I did read it around age 10), I definitely remember discussions in both middle school and high school about the impact of a word because of books containing the word ******.

At least one of these was while studying _To Kill a Mockingbird_. I don't remember the other books it came up in, but they were not all presented as negative as it was in that book.

As for whether or not the word is being used on the board because the board should be family friendly - I have never heard it used ever, without it being in an academic setting. I'm from a town in Massachusetts that has a lot of blacks - no, I won't call them African Americans when they don't identify as from Africa, since many are Jamacian - but no teacher seemed to care the least bit about educational insults being used.

The only book that was not taught because of the words used in it which there was a chance of being taught by the time I graduated high school was _Catch 22_, and even in that case the teacher felt that every student should read the book, just that too many people in the school were not mature enough to handle it in the classroom setting.

I can understand people thinking that teaching the book is more important than the downsides of modifying it, what I can't understand is people choosing to modify the book rather than teach it as it is, including covering what the problems are, which is what I remember occuring.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I read this thread because I had no idea anyone would even consider removing or changing a word in a book. I find the idea shocking, because it means folks would feel justified in removing other words if they become offended by those. What does that leave you?

It's good we get shocked by some words in certain contexts. That means we know better. And when we see them in historical material, we can open discussions about thought patterns and how the social environment has changed, either for the better or worse. If we try to change this material, it means we cannot learn from our past/past mistakes because we can't face them. How pathetic is that? While words like those under discussion always startle & shock me, I understand when I read Twain that he lived in another time period and it makes me remember that we haven't always had the same values or beliefs. In many areas we've progressed. In others (like this insane need to expunge certain words from historical material) we seem to have faltered if not taken several steps backwards. Must we still drape tableclothes over tables for fear someone might see the "legs" and get salacious ideas? Or place fig leaves over certain portions of statues? Not to mention the downright irony of getting upset about certain words and yet celebrating and placing on display things like a jar of urine containing a religious artifact. How can we be so insensitive to profound religious beliefs and yet go nuts over a word in a book?


This is very depressing to me on a number of levels. I wish people would learn to view the past as just that: the past, and not try to dress it in different garb to make it look better. We need to be able to learn from it and our mistakes in the past and move on.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

One of many cartoons on the subject.

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7Ba55410ad-6d4a-4bdc-9c3d-11f689450cf3%7D.gif

As for use of the word in question, judicious use in context, as y'all have been doing, is certainly appropriate. Using the word for shock effect or just to use it is not. Good discussion!

Betsy


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> That we might now use a word now doesn't excuse trying to whitewash history. The original will be out there, but if this book gets widely used in schools, it is going to be the only version that people know. The original could easily just wind up available, but forgotten. This particular whitewashing is a fairly small thing, but it is a foot in the door to more dangerous whitewashings.


That door has been open for a long time. There is a character in the original _The Count of Monte Cristo_ that is a lesbian, but those references to her story all but disappeared in the translations to English done in the 1840s. It's only recently (mid-1990s or so) that all the original text has been put back in the translations.

Mike


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Okay.  I'll admit it.  I've never read Huck Finn...   

I avoided all assigned reading in high school and college as if it were a fatal illness.  But this thread has me interested.  I'm wondering if there would be interest in reading Huck Finn as a Book Klub?  And if so, if there would be anyone interested in guiding the Klub?  I'm sure there are reading guides for Huck Finn available online that we could use.

Anyone?

Betsy


----------



## WestofMars (Sep 16, 2009)

Fab idea, Betsy. I'd read along -- I might have a copy at my parents' house. Maybe I'll get my 10-year-old to read, too. I'll have to shy away from leading, though. I'm swamped of late!

I wanted to mention that I saw a picture of this book that's got us all so up in arms. If the picture I saw was accurate (and I think it was from GalleyCat, so I tend to trust its authenticity), we've all got our language in a bunch over nothing. The book is clearly identified as edited.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, for me, it's the fact that someone feels it necessary to edit it, not that it's acknowledged...but anyway....that's two of us for a Klub! 

Betsy


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> *** is still a bad word even though we seem to use it amongst ourselves quite commonly ....


Of course, in the UK someone could ask you to bum a *** without being offensive. (It' asking for a cigarette.)

As for Huck Funn and removing the offense words, perhaps some should call the editor a Wintson Smith to get the point across. SLAVE JIM WAS ALWAYS SLAVE JIM. HE WAS NEVER ****** JIM.

Also, this type of selective "editing"goes beyond just replacing one word for an another. Around fifteen years ago I was flirting with a middle school teacher with mostly Hispnatic students in Washington DC. She was going to teach Aztec history.

"But what about the human sacrifice? Aren't they kind of young?" I asked.

"We're not going to cover that part. We won't tell them. We want to teach ethnic pride," she said.

"Would you teach enthic Eurpeans about WWII and not mention the holocaust?"

"We'll, no, but we can't teach these students about that part of Aztec history."

Not much to say after that. With hindsight I'd saying that dilbert omissions are another form of deception however good the intent. The same hold true for Huck Finn. Omitting the word is just a different kind of lie.


----------



## Cardinal (Feb 24, 2010)

Well, the purist can always read Tom Sawyer.  Oh wait, that is being censored too.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

WestofMars said:


> I wanted to mention that I saw a picture of this book that's got us all so up in arms. If the picture I saw was accurate (and I think it was from GalleyCat, so I tend to trust its authenticity), we've all got our language in a bunch over nothing. The book is clearly identified as edited.


The fact that it's marked as "re-edited" does not lessen the offense.

But the best solution is to avoid buying it... and hope that the school district in which one's children are being raised isn't among the purchasers of this "revised" text. Because that's largely where the market will be... politically-correct school districts and school libraries.


----------



## Kingmanted (Jan 10, 2011)

What will they call the native american guy in the book   Censorship is annoying


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

They're calling him an Indian, not an *****.


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

Along the same lines, I noticed this year while watching the annual round of old faithful Christmas movies, that the blackface number for Lincoln's birthday has been cut from Holiday Inn.  I think it's wrong to tamper with anything from the past, be it a book or a movie or a recording.

M


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

marshacanham said:


> Along the same lines, I noticed this year while watching the annual round of old faithful Christmas movies, that the blackface number for Lincoln's birthday has been cut from Holiday Inn. I think it's wrong to tamper with anything from the past, be it a book or a movie or a recording.
> 
> M


Possibly the only channel that shows it uncut is Turner Classic Movies. They have a policy of not doing any editing or cutting of material for the movies they show.

Mike


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

Sure, let's edit _Huckleberry Finn_. Wouldn't want to "offend" black people. While we're at it, let's retouch that come-on smile out of the Mona Lisa so feminists won't be "offended". Then let's cover up the statue of David's penis so Bible-thumpers won't be "offended".

Why stop there? Let's snip out all the inflammatory lyrics from Tupac Shakur so as not to "offend" whites. Then it's on to Woody Allen movies. They're so Jewish, you know. That certainly "offends" Christians, don't you think? Ban them!

And speaking of the Jews, I'm quite sure they're horrified--to say nothing of "offended"--at the way Israel is being maligned in the press these days. Better shut a few newspapers down.

Start the fires and call the committees to order so they may determine which works of art are "offensive" to which "offended" group. Then start throwing the art into the fires. And might as well toss the artist in along with it, right?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Why is offend in quotation marks? Are you implying people are merely pretending to be offended? In any case, this decision seems to be based on a misguided attempt to get the book back into schools and not because black folks are taking to the streets in protest. It's an academia thang and some liberals and some conservatives seem to have their own reasons for wanting the word removed. I have to say that I think you're laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people when the removal, which has been an issue for decades, seems to stem from educators simply not wanting to deal with a potential issue.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

Michelle, "offend" is in quotes because it is always the hook used by the PC Gestapo to creep into the deepest corners of our lives. The _Huckleberry Finn_ controversy is just the latest manifestation of it. _If someone is "offended", well then, we've just got to stamp out whatever it is that "offends" them._

There is a very accomplished author who has recently written a thriller in which he refers to Muslim jihadists as "hadjis". Well, his agent thought this was "offensive" to Muslims. You know what? They should grow up. This is nothing more than the PC Gestapo reaching right down into his novel (and maybe one day yours and mine) and telling him what words he cannot write, browbeating him into submission.

I don't care who is "offended" by the written word. If someone doesn't like what I write or what you write or what Mark Twain wrote, they have one surefire remedy: don't buy it. If enough people react in that fashion, the "offensive" material won't get off the ground.

Not long ago, there was a guy--you may have heard about this--who wrote a guide for pedophiles. Disgusting, right? Totally. The book bombed, as well it should have. But it bombed not because it was censored, but because people thought it was disgusting and they didn't buy it.

These issues should be decided in the open marketplace where all works of art are valued, not in the tweedy boardroom of a university English department.

I wrote a blog on this very topic for my website, where I go into it in more detail, and you can read it at http://mikedennisnoir.com/please-come-back-george-carlin/1567/


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

On a sad note, I downloaded _Huck Finn_ to reread from number of free site. All were based on the Project Gutenberg plain vanilla text. Now my memory my not be great, but Twain was probably more nuanced than the "plain vanilla" offered up by PG. d*mn shame. Much of the true texts of the classics have been lost to the incomplete technology available when PG started. Maybe it's just nitpicking, but if an author wrote some passages or words in _italics_ then the text is inaccurate if not included. I guess it's DTB for me if I want to reread.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

How is your pronouncement that others need to grow up and not take offense any different than your so called 'PC Gestapo' saying others must be offended?

You have every right to write or say any word you wish and I have every right to call you out for it.


----------



## mklitt (Jan 6, 2011)

I seem to be the only person other than the editors to think this is a good thing. No one is prevented from reading the original. On the contrary, the book can be taught to younger children without the teacher having to explain why a word is OK in this book and not in conversation. This is a wonderful book, maybe the first real American novel and yet it was disappearing because it was too difficult to teach below the college level.

I have read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" many times. It was well known when I was a child. I bet if you asked a hundred kids last summer who "Huck Finn" is - none would know. Let's ask in two years and see if it has changed.

This does not mean all books will be re-written, just that a very special book is being made available again for younger readers, along with the lesser Tom Sawyer canon.

I blogged about this http://kindleclassics.blogspot.com/2010/11/huckleberry-finn.html

More of my unpopular opinion if anyone is interested!


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

Geoffrey--Yes, you certainly have the right to call me out on this, and I welcome it. But no one has the right to censor what I write. Or for that matter, to censor what Mark Twain has written. Twain, as one of the all-time masters of irony, is no doubt laughing in his grave at this pathetic gesture on the part of some college professor.

I use the phrase "PC Gestapo" as an emblem of the cancerous mindset that has gripped this country. Namely, that if people--no matter who, and no matter how few in number--are "offended" by something spoken or written or thought or displayed, then the "offending" item, according to strict PC regulations, must be eliminated or at the very least, censored in order to preserve the feelings of the "offended" party.

Those who are "offended" do indeed need to grow up. This is a tough world and you or I or anyone else are not entitled to clamp down on what is written or spoken in order to protect someone else's sensitive feelings. My creative output is in the service of _*no one's*_ feelings. And if you can't get behind that, then one day, they'll come after _*your*_ writing.


----------



## Blanche (Jan 4, 2010)

I find changing classics to follow societal changes appalling for all those reasons already covered in the above commentaries.  I think if I had children I would pull them out of schools that chose to teach from these "cleansed" versions of the classics.  I am offended by the changes and the potential to start rewriting books to follow politically correct rhetoric.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Mike Dennis said:


> Those who are "offended" do indeed need to grow up. This is a tough world and you or I or anyone else are not entitled to clamp down on what is written or spoken in order to protect someone else's sensitive feelings. My creative output is in the service of _*no one's*_ feelings. And if you can't get behind that, then one day, they'll come after _*your*_ writing.


You really need to take it down a notch. I'm not this PC Gestapo of which you speak nor do I know anyone who belongs to it. As a member of a much maligned minority, I am tired of being told I need to grow a thicker skin and not take offense to this that or the other thing. Excuse me? If I have a responsibility not to be easily offended, where is the other's responsibility not to say or do the things they know are offensive? It's a two way street.

If you know you're being rude, it's just simple manners and common courtesy to not engage in that behavior. I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about civility.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 13, 2011)

I really want to create my own ebook called "Huckleberry Ninja" where the "N" word is replaced by Ninjas. I mean, really- they're more exciting AND more relevant.


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> I really want to create my own ebook called "Huckleberry Ninja" where the "N" word is replaced by Ninjas. I mean, really- they're more exciting AND more relevant.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Ninja Jim! That would be big awesome!

I have no brief for censorship, and I also have no brief for people who think that being called out for acting like a bigoted [expletive] is some kind of PC evil censorship attempt. I guess I'm short on briefs.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

OMG, this site just censored a word in my last post. It's everywhere!


----------

