Question Of The Day
Posted on January 6th, 2011 by Tintin
ABOVE: Rep. Bob Goodlatte plans to read a censored version of
the U.S. Constitution on House Floor today
Why are wingnuts are all torn up about someone publishing an edition of Huckleberry Finn that censors the word “nigger,” but don’t seem to mind that the Republicans are reading in Congress today a copy of the Constitution that censors the reference to slaves as three-fifths of a person?
They’re douches.
SASQ.
I wonder what they are going to do when they read that the President is the commander-in-chief of the “militia.” The militia (according to wingnut dogma) is our last defense against tyranny. But the tyrant is the CINC of the militia!
What to do? What to do?
Private companies making changes to a public domain work of fiction? The height of censorship and part of the Shania Law plot.
Elected officials pretending that part of the Constitution doesn’t exist? Patriotism!
Douche, douche, douche
Douche of oil, oil oil
I was amused to see an NRO thread about this. Among the other deep philisophical questions raised by its readers: If blacks can say it why can’t we? Is it any worse than saying “cracker,” which someone somewhere might’ve actually used in a derogatory context? Will Jay-Z videos be censored next?
Perhaps the greatest conundrum is why NRO didn’t simply turn to the world’s greatest living thinker, for according to
ShorterVerbatim Scott Johnson, “anyone who is paying attention” will recognize that Victor Davis Hanson is a “modern Socrates.”What? The high heels/flats debate not riveting enough?
But…the censorship of “nigger” in the book bugs me too because it unintentionally whitewashes (no pun intended) the racism of old, which had a special ugliness all its own.
If one were cynical, one might wonder if they were itching to say it.
according to Shorter Verbatim Scott Johnson, “anyone who is paying attention” will recognize that Victor Davis Hanson is a “modern Socrates.”
Bring on the hemlock!
“Is it any worse than saying “cracker,” which someone somewhere might’ve actually used in a derogatory context?”
“The new sheriff is a cracker!!!!”
If one were cynical, one might wonder if they were itching to say it.
According to one guy he merely wants to say it so blacks will stop being the real racists by excluding him from the privilege. It’s to help them, really.
My father tells a story of an instructor he had in college circa 1947, who couldn’t bring herself to pronounce the title of The Nigger of the Narcissus.
because the fapping from the right side of the aisle would have made the floors all sticky.
How thoughtful of him!
My father tells a story of an instructor he had in college circa 1947, who couldn’t bring herself to pronounce the title of The Nigger of the Narcissus.
You realize what this means? Obama was exposed before he was even born!
And Then There Were None
Obama was exposed before he was even born!
You know who else exposed himself prenatally?
If one were cynical, one might wonder if they were itching to say it.
“wonder”?
You know who else exposed himself prenatally?
that little alien who jumped out of John Hurt’s chest?
The high heels/flats debate not riveting enough?
TOO riveting. I am lousy at one handed typing.
But…the censorship of “nigger” in the book bugs me too because it unintentionally whitewashes (no pun intended) the racism of old, which had a special ugliness all its own.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of it, nor of censorship in general. I could actually live with it if there was some sort of explanation at the beginning of the revised version that indicated that changes were made due to “offensive language” or something like that.
That said, this is going to make a lot of school librarians’ lives easier and get Huck Finn back on the shelves of school libraries, as it’s one of the most challenged books ever.
I am lousy at one handed typing.
It’s not our fault your right hand rotted off.
Question about the Huck Finn controversy; if the book is actually racist (I’ve never read it), then what difference does it make if you censor the N-word? The racism will still shine through. They did it in modern editions of Live and Let Die as well, it didn’t stop Fleming’s 1950s chauvinism from making itself understood.
I guess I see it as futile in the same vein as TV networks showing Die Hard with all the swear words censored out. If a viewer’s too young and impressionable for that kind of language, then he shouldn’t be watching a movie like Die Hard in the first place.
Let’s be clear on this point one more time – Huckleberry Finn is a widely available work of fiction, in the public domain. The Injun and Nigger -fied version is readily available to anyone with an internet connection.
Censorship = a private publishing company trying to sell a version with all the niggers and injuns removed (I would have thought the right would be all for that.)
Protecting Free Speech = depicting that action as some sort of abhorrent abomination.
Consider the following:
Shakespearean plays were originally written and intended for all the roles to be played by men. Allowing women to play Juliet or Portia or Prospero is a vicious assault on culture that should not be allowed to stand.
There is apparently such a foreword. I don’t think the Huck Finn outrage is such an outrage.
Chris –
First READ THE BOOK. There’s a reason it’s considered a classic.
Second, it’s not racist, it’s showing the stupidity of racism by showing racism. Nigger Jim is a lovingly-described character, and Huck gets to the point where, in his mind, he’s ready to go to hell for his friend, the escaped slave.
But…the censorship of “nigger” in the book bugs me too because it unintentionally whitewashes (no pun intended) the racism of old, which had a special ugliness all its own.
Yes, this too.
Face it, society back then was racist. I’m not trying to excuse it with the “that was then and they didn’t know better” line, but I’d rather remember it as it was as a warning not to do it again, than try to pretend it wasn’t.
I could actually live with it if there was some sort of explanation at the beginning of the revised version that indicated that changes were made due to “offensive language” or something like that.
I believe there is an explanation in the preface of this version.
I am going to come down on Substance’s side on this one. Until actor shows up to tell me I’m wrong, of course.
It’s not our fault your right hand rotted off.
ONE OF YOU FACKING BREATHERS CHOPPED IT OFF WITH A LAWNMOWER, YOU FASCISTS!!
Let’s be clear on this point one more time – Huckleberry Finn is a widely available work of fiction, in the public domain. The Injun and Nigger -fied version is readily available to anyone with an internet connection.
Yes, but the version that’s going to be carried in a lot of school libraries and taught in classrooms is, inevitably, going to be the altered version. Students should be aware of the cultural and historical implications of the word “nigger” in the book, and school may be the only exposure they get to it.
And altering the text of a book is different from a modern reinterpretation of a play. Plays are essentially changed and reinterpreted from the intended version every time they’re performed.
ONE OF YOU FACKING BREATHERS CHOPPED IT OFF WITH A LAWNMOWER
You can get wheels to replace it: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/05/cute-little-injured.html
As Sub mentioned, there is a foreword. It is one of the most famous forewords in history. If I am not mistaken, it contains one of the words Twain invented: “painstaking”
I believe there is an explanation in the preface of this version.
Then, meh. Do I wish that it could be accepted in its original version? Sure. But I’m also Whitey McWhiterson and I understand why it could be hurtful to some people. As long as children are aware of the original language, I think it’s better that they’re exposed to the book in some form then not at all.
Censorship = a private publishing company trying to sell a version with all the niggers and injuns removed (I would have thought the right would be all for that.)
Protecting Free Speech = depicting that action as some sort of abhorrent abomination.
That, I agree with. I fucking love it when every time something like this comes out, they scream that it’s “censorship.” It’s censorship the way Conservapedia’s batshit-insane Jesus-was-an-Ayn-Randian rewrite of the Bible is censorship.
First READ THE BOOK. There’s a reason it’s considered a classic.
There are many such books I haven’t read yet (several of Shakespeare’s plays come to mind), but your endorsement is noted. I did read Tom Sawyer and remember liking that one.
Or “than.” Wev.
Nigger Jim is a lovingly-described character, and Huck gets to the point where, in his mind, he’s ready to go to hell for his friend, the escaped slave.
Right. It’s also important that Huck is a child. He’s never really racist towards Nigger Jim (Peter-Griffin-as-Huck: “I just thought that was your name, N-word Jim”), as you say liking him and growing unabashedly close to him close through the adventures. But he does generally harbor the prejudices of his day, evidenced by that scene at the beginning where he says the fuss in town was nothing important happening, but they killed a nigger.
But he does generally harbor the prejudices of his day
And while Twain warned against looking for a moral, Huck grows considerably wrt this topic.
I’m off to five consecutive site visits. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.
“I’m off to five consecutive site visits”
Dumpster diving?
And altering the text of a book is different from a modern reinterpretation of a play.
OK, let me ask this one again. And Then There Were None.
Apropos because it went from Ten Little Niggers to Ten Little Indians before the name we all know it by. Would it have been a better story if they kept Christie’s original title? Would the 80s movie version been better with an all black-native cast? Is the plight of the slaves in Huckleberry Finn only sensible if they get called “nigger” during the homicidal manhunt? If Dr. Samuel Clemens were alive today would he be writing movie scripts or showrunning some Reality TV series?
All these questions and moar, ignored on this edition of As The Thread Continues Blindly Worshipping Shit Just Because It’s Old.
I prefer folks not fuck around with Mark Twain’s words. I’ve read a lot of his works and he was pretty darn sure about what words he used and where he used them. Nigger and Injun are there for a reason.
The Venus de Milo, however, surely needs a tank top. And Lady Justice’s boob is hanging out.
Here’s another way of looking at it. Should we be teaching history with Huckleberry Finn? When those blasted kids that won’t stay offa mah lawn are forced to read classics in school – it’s invariably during their English classes. If it really is important to NEVAR FORGAT the horrendous racism and abuses of the past – doesn’t it make sense to do that in History class as opposed to through a work of fiction?
Frankly, I don’t see how you properly teach the book without including “nigger.” Replacing it with “slave” can certainly cover the dehumanization of those in bondage, but the racial implications of that bondage emanate from and extend beyond slavery. I don’t think I phrased that all that well, but I hope my point is clear: slavery begets racist justification, not the opposite, and the racism continued well after slavery itself ended. Since the book came out in 1884, twenty years after the Civil War, it’s obvious Twain recognized the same.
The Venus de Milo, however, surely needs a tank top.
Great point. If some self-proclaimed artist were to make a copy of the Venus de Milo wearing a tank top, we should totes ostracize them for their horrendous censorshipperies.
Oh, ho! So apart from black slaves, all Americans are considered persons in the Constitution?
How….originalist!
Until actor shows up to tell me I’m wrong, of course.
You weren’t wrong.
You were an idiot.
See? Subtle difference, I know…
My third grade son read a very sanitized version of Huck Finn over the summer that not only took out the offending word but made Jim seem like a much less ludicrous character than I remember him. I read the book in high school and I remember frequently laughing uncomfortably at Jim’s dialogue because so much of it was so silly. He was very sympathetic character but at the same time Twain made him a big, dumb child. In the paper I wrote on it I said that reading the word “nigger” over and over again was jarring but beyond that my impression was that Twain’s depiction of him was probably kind of racist by modern standards but maybe the best that could be expected of a white author in those days. I think the same thing of Lincoln these days, flat out racist but enlightened compared to so many of his contemporaries. As for this controversy, I don’t care that some guy excised the word in one edition. I see that black folks in my Twitter stream are of divided opinion on it which has lead to an interesting debate but I’ll leave it to them. I don’t see white kids like mine being affected one way or another by the word’s inclusion or exclusion.
Here’s another way of looking at it. Should we be teaching history with Huckleberry Finn? When those blasted kids that won’t stay offa mah lawn are forced to read classics in school – it’s invariably during their English classes. If it really is important to NEVAR FORGAT the horrendous racism and abuses of the past – doesn’t it make sense to do that in History class as opposed to through a work of fiction?
It seems to me that English classes are less likely to be targeted by conservatives for history-rewrites than history classes (see Texas Board of Education). Thus, it’s important to teach it there as well.
I am outraged that someone is censoring a book I’ve never read and probably never will read.
N__B said,
January 6, 2011 at 17:23
I’m off to five consecutive site visits. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.
LUCKY!
~
DKW, I don’t think anyone (on this thread; NRO is different, but those people think Jonah Goldberg is supersmart) views this as not worth discussing or as anything worse than misguided.
I’m not a teacher myself, but I am extremely white and went to high school with lots of minorities, black and everything else, and understand Thers’s point about the difficulties. I also don’t disagree with your distinction between English and History class, except that “American Literature” can’t simply be writing from America, can it?
If some self-proclaimed artist were to make a copy of the Venus de Milo wearing a tank top, we should totes ostracize them for their horrendous censorshipperies.
Only if they say they want to teach art history to kids with the tank top-clad Venus, saying “this is the art of those times.”
You know, if we ever get to the point where Huckleberry Finn is the only reason kids these days know that slaves were black then the popularity of Ke$ha, Bieber and Taylor Swift will be the least of our worries.
I’ll try and let it go after this comment but here’s my point again: This “censoring” of Huck Finn doesn’t replace the original and thus doesn’t reduce the context/understanding/volume of material. In fact it increases it – not only by being another version, but also by being a version that more people can/will be exposed to.
And altering the text of a book is different from a modern reinterpretation of a play.
Not so much, for me anyway. I can become a giant get-off-my-lawn douchebag with modern turns on Shakespeare. Otherwise, no need to repeat what DKW sez. As long as we can still see art in its original form, and bitch about art of any form, isn’t that what matters?
And one other argument in the Huck Finn prof’s favor – if “nigger” today is used differently than what it was in the past, and we intend for Huck to be properly understood by a modern audience, there would seem to be a good case for the edits.
Apropos because it went from Ten Little Niggers to Ten Little Indians before the name we all know it by. Would it have been a better story if they kept Christie’s original title? Would the 80s movie version been better with an all black-native cast?
Christie was involved in the change–the title wasn’t changed 100 years after her death. As for the movie, it’s acknowledged and understood that movies are, you know, *adaptations* of books.
Is the plight of the slaves in Huckleberry Finn only sensible if they get called “nigger” during the homicidal manhunt?
That’s not the point. The point is that Twain wrote what he fucking wrote and that what he wrote was an accurate depiction of what happened.
All these questions and moar, ignored on this edition of As The Thread Continues Blindly Worshipping Shit Just Because It’s Old.
Yeah, no. Like it or not, Huck Finn is considered an American classic. Moby Dick is tedious and wordy, The Scarlet Letter is pretty fucking dull, and Jesus Christ, don’t get me started on anything by F. Scott Fitzgerald. But they’re important, and at least knowing about them is a component of what we consider to be a “good education.” And part of that education is being exposed to things as they truly are in the context of when they were written.
You weren’t wrong.
You were an idiot.
Ahh. Well, I am so glad you’re here to point out all of my glaring flaws.
But, where does this road lead? I’m sure “Of Mice and Men” contains some politically incorrect references to retards.
I am against the edited Huck Finn, and the edited Constitution. That being said, you can stop calling him “Nigger Jim”, because that is NOT how he is referred to in the book. “Nigger” is used over 100 times but in different contexts. And for good reason, since Twain was the one who said ““The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”
And obviously, the theme of Huck Finn is America’s original sin, so taking out the word makes a difference to the story. Agatha Christie, not so much, since it’s just a cutesie title.
I’ll try and let it go after this comment but here’s my point again: This “censoring” of Huck Finn doesn’t replace the original and thus doesn’t reduce the context/understanding/volume of material. In fact it increases it – not only by being another version, but also by being a version that more people can/will be exposed to.
Dude, I’m quite aware of that, and that’s basically what I said upthread. The problem becomes when it’s the only version kids are exposed to and there isn’t an open dialogue about what terms the work originally included and how they were understood in the context of those times.
It sounds like this version includes that, so if it means that kids will be exposed to the book in some way and they feel comfortable with it, that’s fine with me.
And I realize I’ve been using the term “censorship” in a very broad way, but we librarian-types tend to view censorship as anything that decreases access to materials to a group of people in their original and complete version due to moral or political objections. We are also well-aware that this line is fuzzy and the term itself is problematic, but, you know, life’s a bitch.
Lawnguy,
When the book was originally released, people chided Twain because of the language, so it’s probable that standards for a white author were higher even back then.
However, Twain himself was very much an abolitionist, so it’s likely he wrote the book as coarsely as he did in an attempt to dramatize the pro-slavery position and make it offensive.
I liken Jim to Lenny in “Of Mice And Men”.
I guess it comes down to this for me: the reason the word was censored is the precise reason it should stay in. Plus, there’s the point T&U raised, which was, that it was, you know, what Twain actually wrote.
I am so glad you’re here to point out all of my glaring flaws.
Hey, one good turd deserves another, knowwhatI’msayin’?
Does this mean you’re bad at glaring? I don’t mean to brag, but I’m super-good at it.
Well so much for the last one being the last one.
And part of that education is being exposed to things as they truly are in the context of when they were written.
Okay then. So kids should be reading Huckleberry Finn only in segregated classrooms then. And Shakespeare from quartos. Gimme a break – all sorts of shit gets watered down for consumption in schools. Would it be better to teach about the horrors of war by shooting someone in front of a classroom of kids?
Same is true for math and science. Calculus doesn’t start with a comparison of Newton vs. Leibniz notation. No one learns Phlogiston Theory before learning the debunking in Chemistry class. We’ve developed a whole structure of understanding over the centuries and while it’s important to not lose the history of how that structure was created, it sure as hell ain’t important to force it down every student’s throat.
Unless of course, Books Are Special and therefore can NEVAR BE ALTARED. You know what, I love books too – but the written word is not the only valuable format of human production.
And now that I’ve pissed off all the bibliophiles, I’m off for lunch.
Um, what?
Is anyone saying this?
The issue isn’t censorship; it’s Bowdlerization. Twain had a poet’s ear for words, and swapping out one word is problematic. Substituting “slave” for “nigger” is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. For one thing, the word is used to describe all blacks, not just slaves. “Nigger” was considered offensive, even when HF was written, and Twain was well aware of it. The problem with tinkering with venerable texts is knowing when to stop. Should we clean up Jim’s childlike, “pickaninny” speach patterns, or make him less ignorant? Should we make Huck more sensitive? It’s not worship of old shit for the sake of worshipping old shit; it’s about not casually altering venerable classics just for the sake of slaving modern sensibilities.
Obviously you don’t stop, thus the current crop of zombie classics.
Would it be better to teach about the horrors of war by shooting someone in front of a classroom of kids?
“I’m going to teach my students about racism today. I’m going to get a black kid to come to the front, and then I’m going to call him the N-word.”
you can stop calling him “Nigger Jim”, because that is NOT how he is referred to in the book
I just looked it up and you’re right. As someone who made the reference upthread, I apologize. It’s been a long time since I’ve actually read it and I picked up the wrong impression somewhere.
If this were about Mark Twain being invited to read some of Huckleberry Finn on Ed Sullivan, Frank Whaley would be all like “c’mon, man, they’re just words” and Mark Twain would pretend to acquiesce but then when the show went live he’d get all up in the camera and say “NIGGER!” and the suits would lose it.
This would be so even though, by the internal rules of this analogy, Frank Whaley would have written Huckleberry Finn.
Plus, there’s the point T&U raised, which was, that it was, you know, what Twain actually wrote.
Extremely relevant… if you are studying Twain.
If the idea instead is to get kids to better understand and appreciate Huck, the issue then is whether the changes serve that purpose. I dunno for sure, I definitely do not think the changes are as problematic as some people reckon.
Okay then. So kids should be reading Huckleberry Finn only in segregated classrooms then. And Shakespeare from quartos. Gimme a break – all sorts of shit gets watered down for consumption in schools. Would it be better to teach about the horrors of war by shooting someone in front of a classroom of kids?
That’s a ridiculous argument and you know it. There’s a difference between “Oh, hey, this includes offensive words, but during that time those were the words that people used and Mark Twain is using those words to make a point and blah blah blah…” and shooting someone in the head to show that war is bad.
Presumably, most kids reading Huck Finn (which is normally read in middle school/high school) are sophisticated enough to understand the context of Huck Finn (if it’s taught properly, which is another issue).
Same is true for math and science. Calculus doesn’t start with a comparison of Newton vs. Leibniz notation. No one learns Phlogiston Theory before learning the debunking in Chemistry class. We’ve developed a whole structure of understanding over the centuries and while it’s important to not lose the history of how that structure was created, it sure as hell ain’t important to force it down every student’s throat.
I’ve never said that Huck Finn should be required teaching, but if it *is* going to be taught, it should be put in the proper context (as should any fucking book that anyone teaches). And humanities are taught differently than hard sciences because THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You don’t *have* to know the Phlogiston Theory to be able to be competent at chemistry. You *do* have to know about the Civil War to understand segregation, or Shakespeare to understand, oh, I don’t know, a huge portion of English literature.
OT but…
Dear Information Week,
Thank you for your prompt correction and note about your error concerning the number of State Department cables published by wikileaks. (http://is.gd/kbFEO) Indeed, as Glenn Greenwald tweeted, it’s a common but very misleading error. It’s so common that the same error appears in at least 6 more recent Information Week articles. I know it’s a pain to litter your pages with errata notes but it’s a significant error and worth correcting.
Fidelis Snags Anti-WikiLeaks Contracts
Elizabeth Montalbano
December 22, 2010
However, in the wake of a data breach known as Cablegate, in which 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables were published on Wikileaks and other websites…
Cybersecurity Post
Elizabeth Montalbano
December 22, 2010
The creation of the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues was planned before the controversial publishing of 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables…
Air Force Blocks Web Sites With WikiLeaks Content
Elizabeth Montalbano
December 15, 2010
Several weeks ago, WikiLeaks posted 250,000 confidential diplomatic cables…
Amazon Says Wikileaks Plug Pulled Over SLA Violation
Charles Babcock
December 5, 2010
“Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing…”
Senators Back Amazon In WikiLeaks Fight
Paul McDougall
December 10, 2010
“Companies that are cutting off their services to WikiLeaks in the wake of its release of 250,000 stolen and classified State Department cables…”
Schwartz On Security: WikiLeaks Highlights Cost Of Security
Mathew J. Schwartz
December 8, 2010
“Mr. Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorized release of 250,000 documents…”
(The last three errors are quotes but since the information is simply wrong, adding a sentence with the correct information is the right thing to do. )
Chris – Tom Sawyer is fluff, Twain himself considered it hackery. Huck Finn is great literature.
But, where does this road lead? I’m sure “Of Mice and Men” contains some politically incorrect references to retards.
You’re fucking around, I’m sure, but, I don’t remember that it does but let’s say it did contain the word “retard.” Are there going to be kids reading it and discussing it in classrooms who would fit the definition people who use that word have in mind? I think not but if so I wouldn’t consider it an act of vandalism on the book just because someone took steps to be sensitive towards those kids. I would consider someone who got pissed off about such sensitivity a bit of an asshole. I wonder how often any people are directly hurt by that word, though. Parents, brothers and sisters of “retards” hear it pretty frequently and too bad for them, amirite? But I wonder how comfortable people would be using the word if they thought an actual “retard” would get hurt or pissed off by hearing or or reading it.
mark f, not surprising, a lot of people all over the internets are making this same mistake.
No one learns Phlogiston Theory before learning the debunking in Chemistry class.
Really?
Cuz I know we did in my high school.
But then I went to, you know, an elite Eastern public high school with multiple Chemistry Nobels to our credit.
So maybe they should.
I don’t remember that it (Of Mice And Mend) does but let’s say it did contain the word “retard.”
It doesn’t.
It does, however, include “nigger” and plenty of vulgarities.
Would it be better to teach about the horrors of war by shooting someone in front of a classroom of kids?
Yes. This is why God put Yankee fans on this Earth.
I do have to say that I’m rather confused as to how your learn about debunking something if you don’t know what it is in the first place…
“you”. Goddammit. I’m all het up.
What we’re leaving out of the equation is the place of the teacher in this whole thing. A good teacher can engender an appreciation for Huckleberry Finn using the “new” version, and can make the class aware of the changes, the reasons for them, and the kids can still get the story.
T&U, you being all het up makes me feel kind of all homo’d up. Cankle or no cankle.
What we’re leaving out of the equation is the place of the teacher in this whole thing. A good teacher can engender an appreciation for Huckleberry Finn using the “new” version, and can make the class aware of the changes, the reasons for them, and the kids can still get the story.
Yeah, that was kind of my point when I said that I’m okay with the changed version as long as kids are aware of the original. Just giving them the changed version without acknowledging that it’s different than the original is, in my opinion, a fucking sin.
T&U, you being all het up makes me feel kind of all homo’d up. Cankle or no cankle.
Why, thank you! It’s just a mini-cankle now, if that helps.
I was looking for this the other day and only just found it. So, off this topic but relevant to a previous off topic topic, and inspired by some snooty fuck’s blog and commentary here:
I resent the censorship because to me it seems like revisionism. It’s part of the same impulse to say that the Civil War was about state’s rights rather than slavery. Its a way to minimize the unpleasantness of the past without honestly taking stock of how bad it really was. To me, it seems like a way to construct a fable of American history where the winners were the good guys all along. America is hardly unique among modern countries to have built a prosperous nation on the bones of the natives and crimes of its ancestors, but there seems to be more than a little unwillingness to face that. I mean what’s the worst thing that could happen from a sober assessment of American history as it really happened? We could maybe realize that American might doesn’t always make right, and we could learn from that and try to live up to the ideals on which we were all taught this country is founded?
T&U, mini-cankles are cool. But you will always have scars, yes? So we need to provide you with an updated, revised version of how you acquired them. Like a boat overturned in the Everglades, and you swam every last orphan to safety even though a ‘gator was nomming your leg. It’s just the same as the original version, only better.
Tom Sawyer is an asshole.
FYWP.
WP just eated my West Wing quote where Sam schools the SCOTUS nominee on enumerated rights. I looked for it yesterday but just now found it. For actor, y’know?
a lot of people all over the internets are making this same mistake.
According to Wiki it came from a Twain biography and was picked up by the likes of Norman Mailer afterwards. From there it must have seeped into the collective consciousness. I will have to refresh my memory on some of Mailer’s other tics so as not to unwittingly adopt any of his idiotic poses.
Well, this is precisely the type of occasions for which disagreeing agreeably are made.
Or something grammatically correct. *sigh*
77south, IMO this particular incident has an outcome of either a) a revised version of Huck Finn in the classroom, or b) no Huck Finn in the classroom. Now, in similar circumstances with other works of fiction, or historical accounts, or biographies, we might choose to hold the line. That’s why being non-authoritarian types is work, work, work. We could very easily make a different decision in a slightly, or grossly, different situation.
T&U, mini-cankles are cool. But you will always have scars, yes? So we need to provide you with an updated, revised version of how you acquired them. Like a boat overturned in the Everglades, and you swam every last orphan to safety even though a ‘gator was nomming your leg. It’s just the same as the original version, only better.
Yes, I will. I have been coming up with some awesome explanations, like how I jumped out of a third-story window rescuing kittens from an exploding meth lab.
You can’t go wrong rescuing kittens or orphans. Kittens and orphans would be awesome, verging on super-heroic.
“Yes, I will. I have been coming up with some awesome explanations, like how I jumped out of a third-story window rescuing kittens from an exploding meth lab.”
I would totally watch this movie.
You can’t go wrong rescuing kittens or orphans. Kittens and orphans would be awesome, verging on super-heroic.
Orphaned kittens would be godlike.
Kittens and orphans would be awesome, verging on super-heroic.
What about orphaned kittens?
Orphaned kittens would be godlike.
They would toy with us like so many half-dead mice.
Dammit.
A three-story meth lab?
You can’t fool me, she was rescuing kittens and orphans from a sinking airboat so that she could throw the little monsters into an exploding meth lab when she hurt her ankle. (it sounds horrible but she was warned by a time traveler that those kittens and orphans would grow up to be the next Newt Gingrich)
Orphan
eding kittens would be godlike./poke
For mark f.
OT – Chocolate, creme-filled ‘mini-me’s!
Orphan
eding kittens would be godlike.I don’t see how killing a defenseless mama kitty and leaving her little fluffy adorable babies to fend for themselves without food or hunting lessons is godlike, but then again, I’m NOT A HEARTLESS MONSTER.
I’m on the side of not messing with other people’s work after they’re dead, but then again, I trained as an architect and everyone messes with their work after they’re dead (just ask zrm), so maybe that gave me more of reason for the bias.
I know as a reader, someone who really likes books more than people most of the time, I want to read what the author wrote. I’m always looking around to see what is the “best” translation of this or that author who wrote in a different language – because I want to read what they actually wrote, or as close to it as I can get.
OTOH, I do see some difference if we’re talking about teaching the book as a work of literature or of history. Pretty much most works are both; a novel set in time and place is going to reflect the milieu of that time and place if it’s a good novel, and if it isn’t, it’s not going to be enduring enough that anyone would ever bother tinkering around with it for political correctness at a later date. The historical facts are that in the time and place Twain was writing about, use of the word “nigger” was open and widespread, so it would be inappropriate to both the author’s intent and history to sanitize the work and use it to teach history. As a work of literature, it doesn’t become incorrect as a result of substituting a word, though as noted it also no longer completely accurately reflects the author’s meaning or intent, which diminishes it in terms of consideration as literature. Perhaps not to the extent that it’s no longer worthy of reading, but it’s not the work of literature it was before the sanitation, just as the Sistine Chapel was not improved upon by adding robes and loincloths to cover up all the naughty bits that Michaelangelo painted and intended to be seen as part of his overall composition.
A three-story meth lab?
They offered two stories with a basement, but Poopy put his foot down. He must be closer to God.
They would toy with us like so many half-dead mice.
But they’d be so cute doing it!
Oh and this forum software can eat a bag of dicks for not posting my amazingly witty comments.
rescuing kittens from an exploding meth lab
Cats and meth don’t mix. I have, um, experience in this area.
just as the Sistine Chapel was not improved upon by adding robes and loincloths to cover up all the naughty bits that Michaelangelo painted and intended to be seen as part of his overall composition.
As the Vatican learned when its restorers removed a structural penis
One last try:
She injured her ankle rescuing kittens and orphans from a sinking airboat, so that she could throw them into an exploding meth lab. (it sounds horrible but a time travelling rabbit warned her that those kittens and orphans would grow up to be the next Newt Gingrich.)
As the Vatican learned when its restorers removed a structural penis
*waiting for the inevitable King Missile reference*
the comment at18:54 was mine.
(it sounds horrible but a time travelling rabbit warned her that those kittens and orphans would grow up to be the next Newt Gingrich.)
NOOO! I couldn’t throw kittens into an exploding meth lab even if they were going to be the next Hitler.
Cats and meth don’t mix.
ya gotta use the industrial blender.
So much for a long lunch.
I do have to say that I’m rather confused as to how you learn about debunking something if you don’t know what it is in the first place…
The point was no one learns Phlogiston Theory in Chemistry class. Except actor. Who learned the History of Chemistry as opposed to Chemistry itself. Which is why he has no chemistry. Just a history of some.
You know what? Society has moved on. “Nigger” may have been an offensive word back then but it was still acceptable. It ain’t anymore. That is a good thing.
So where are we?
Huckleberry Finn is rife with “nigger”. But the use of the word is contextually important and holds a sort of protected position by some sort of Meta argument, much like how the word “nigger” is being used in this thread. It’s used in the context of how the word was both offensive and widespread at the time. Not a minor point.
Do you think it’s easy to convey that concept? That the context of Twain’s use of “nigger” is allowed and endorsed by school curriculum but yelling the word at others is a suspension offense. Especially in comparison to “this version of the novel has been altered because the original uses offensive language”.
If the words “nigger” and “injun” are so important to Huckleberry Finn in terms of its status as an American classic and removing them somehow irrevocably breaks the novel – maybe it is best to let the book disappear into the declining memories of geezers yelling about the freshly painted fence around their lawns.
What you’re arguing (at least from how I see it) is that THERE CAN BE NO CHEAP VERSIONS PERIOD. Only the pure and unsullied original words of the great and mighty Mark Twain are allowed. Offensive to readers, especially to those who would most readily understand the point about the use of the word? Feature not a bug. Reduced accessibility? wev. Original version still intact, more widespread and (as evidenced by response to the sanitized version) seen as the only True Version? Doesn’t matter, there’ll be ignorant assholes who go on to do engineering degrees that missed out.
PS Orphaned kittens are delicious. Uh, deliciously cute.
golfclap for Open Cahoots @ 18:54.
Flo Jizzedon = awesome proon name
THERE CAN BE NO CHEAP VERSIONS PERIOD.
tell it to Cee-Lo.
The point was no one learns Phlogiston Theory in Chemistry class. Except actor.
And any other NYC high school sophmore in the mid-70s. It was required to understand what chemistry was all about, according to the chancellor.
What you’re arguing (at least from how I see it) is that THERE CAN BE NO CHEAP VERSIONS PERIOD. Only the pure and unsullied original words of the great and mighty Mark Twain are allowed. Offensive to readers, especially to those who would most readily understand the point about the use of the word? Feature not a bug. Reduced accessibility? wev. Original version still intact, more widespread and (as evidenced by response to the sanitized version) seen as the only True Version?
Did you read anything I wrote, or did you just cherry-pick the parts that supported what you have already decided what I’m saying?
The point was no one learns Phlogiston Theory in Chemistry class. Except actor.
Of course, the true irony was that our class was taught by Mister Moi, who had a pronounced Chinese accent, so always pronounced it “frogiston”.
Did you read anything I wrote, or did you just cherry-pick the parts that supported what you have already decided what I’m saying?
After yesterday, this surprises you?
When I was a youthful voracioius reader someone gave us a big box of Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. It is how I first read many “classics” and I don’t think it hurt me much. The ones I really liked I went and read the whole thing as they say and I imagine a bowdlerized HF isn’t going to ruin too many kids experience. Is bowdlerization wrong? Yeah sure but there are worse things. Like ignorance. Not learning about the Duke and the Dauphin would put one at a disadvantage in a world full of them.
After yesterday, this surprises you?
I chuckle at this.
I can’t help but wonder if some people are knee-jerkingly agreeing that the revised words are ok because Repukes are objecting to it. While I’m sure we don’t agree at all why the revisionism is not ok, the fact is I agree with the fucktards in this instance.
I chuckle at this.
There’s a difference between standing on factual ground and deciding you need to pick a fight, zrm. I made a very narrow point. You guys were the one who were writing books about it.
BTW, I’m not sure why the discussion has to take such a hyperbolic turn. While I think the revisionism SUCKS ASS, I don’t think it’s ZOMG THE END OF THE WORLD. Sheesh.
I can’t help but wonder if some people are knee-jerkingly agreeing that the revised words are ok because Repukes are objecting to it.
You mean how like Scalia is a misogynist because he mentioned the Consitution doesn’t specifically enumerate women’s rights?
BTW, apologize for the strong language. In my revised post, the offending “sheesh” will be changed to “Holy motherfucking shit.”
Detachable pe-nis….
Awesome!
Just under 7 mins.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-introduces-puppet-john-mccain-mocks-the-senators-increased-crankiness/
I can’t ID all the old men on the Crankyometer. Looks to me like:
?! Willie Nelson?
Wilford Brimley
Pope… Ratzo? JPII?
Andy Rooney
Abraham Simpson
Walt Kowalski (Clint E)
Did you read anything I wrote, or did you just cherry-pick the parts that supported what you have already decided what I’m saying?
Maybe a bit of both. I’m kinda hung up on the idea that you’re arguing that somehow the clean version of Huck Finn is going to replace the original. You didn’t argue that, you just raised the possibility that some folks won’t ever know that the clean version isn’t the original. Yeah, that’s definitely possible – but I guess what I’m saying is that it doesn’t make a difference since those people probably wouldn’t care more about the book if they did read the original.
The Cult of The Book is sort of a hot button issue with me. That there are people who think that changing a piece of classic literature is inherently some form of crime against humanity. That things have greater value if they are bound in leather (BDSM connotations not intended). I apologize for projecting that mentality onto you – it was prejudiced and ignorant of me.
Oh and actor, LOL.
BTW…OT if you have moment to help out me and web designer, could you take a look at my blog and tell me what you see re: the “Reply” link? Is it a disconcerting blue or is it a format-matching burnt sienna. Don’t have to read the entry or the replies. I’m not attention-whoring (for once). Just lemme know. (Oh and tell me your browser-type.)
Matchy burnt sienna on Exploder 8. But the banner image makes the first half of the top post hard to read. Also too, the Prev Page, Bookmark, Top, Next Page, &c. box shows up in weird spots.
Yeah, that’s definitely possible – but I guess what I’m saying is that it doesn’t make a difference since those people probably wouldn’t care more about the book if they did read the original.
Whether or not they care if it’s the original is pretty moot to me. My focus is on providing open access to as many materials as possible for everyone. What they choose to do with those materials is a different issue. On a practical level,
we can’t educate people properly if we make assumptions about what they know and what they’re interested in. On a more idealistic level, advancing the free exchange of knowledge is incredibly important to a democracy’s health, and any kind of blow at that, no matter how small, fucking bugs the living shit out of me.
I’m not particularly interested in poking the hornet’s nest with a stick, but does this version do anything about the dialect, or just simply replace words?
Thanks, DKW. IM gonna pass on all that stuff to the designer.
The Cult of The Book is sort of a hot button issue with me. That there are people who think that changing a piece of classic literature is inherently some form of crime against humanity. That things have greater value if they are bound in leather (BDSM connotations not intended). I apologize for projecting that mentality onto you – it was prejudiced and ignorant of me.
Well, yeah, I’m not generally for changing works of literature, but we do it all the time for practical reasons–we have abridged versions, translations, etc. And we often read specific selections out of works (I’m thinking of The Canterbury Tales, specifically) that have been decided by some authority (or the teacher him/herself) to be representative of the work overall. Usually this doesn’t involve changing the actual language of the works, however (except in translations, but hopefully, people are reading good ones that approximate the writer’s intent), and is done so that the student is aware that there have been changing to the work.
Also, as pointed out upthread, these changes affect the very nature of the book itself, which is a little more major than just changing “damn” to “darn” or some shit.
OMFG I just got an email in my inbox about a seminar on “Recognizing & Managing Necrotizing Fasciitis” that had a HUGE FUCKING PICTURE AT THE TOP OF IT. I am EATING. WHY?????
vs – it’s burnt sienna in Opera but the page layout is still fekked up.
D-K W, hot button issue or no, what it boils down to for most of us book cultists is the notion that words have meanings; it’s pretty much that basic. I’m not suggesting that it’s Orwellian to change this one word in this one book, but I think a more important question is why it’s necessary, which takes as a premise that the author chose his words carefully to convey a precise meaning. The argument seems to me more premised on a notion that I personally detest, that we’re all too fragile to be exposed to words and thoughts that might cause us some discomfort because they clash with our personal or current societal mores. Part of cultivating an appreciation for literature is the very idea that you will be exposed to some ideas and characters you don’t like and may even find repellant – but you will learn from them or their agency in the story in large part because of your distaste for them. As I see it, the book as it stands says, “this is the kind of world in which people thought it was ok to use the term ‘nigger’ in everyday conversation,” which I think just drives home the point that it’s not a better world than the one we’re living in now.
Then there’s the whole thing of where does it end? You may recall several years ago there were some parents who sued a school board because The Diary of Anne Frank was part of the required curriculum, and in her diary Anne had voiced the offensive idea that, in her opinion, no one particular religion should be considered superior or better than any other. This, the parents claimed, violated their religious beliefs.
I guess the point being that literature challenges assumptions; just about any great novel is going to have something in it that offends someone.
Interesting, no? that this thread went off in the direction of HF instead of the Constitution.
I’m not particularly interested in poking the hornet’s nest with a stick, but does this version do anything about the dialect, or just simply replace words?
From what I understand, it just replaces the words.
And that raises some issues (which I think someone else also brought up upthread), namely that while the use of racial slurs is, you know, racist, there’s also a lot of casual racism in the book that needs to be examined, and I think the n-word debate kind of takes away from that. Then again, perhaps if the word is removed, it’ll allow teachers to focus on that?
Interesting, no? that this thread went off in the direction of HF instead of the Constitution.
Probably because we’re already used to the Republicans reading what they want into and out of the Constitution. See: Scalia.
Speaking of poking a hornet’s nest….
I can’t ID all the old men on the Crankyometer. Looks to me like:
Think McCain’s gonna appear on TDS anymore?
In classroom teaching that discomfort and argument – and possible hurt in the case of “nigger” – is an easy thing to dispense with and you get to read a great book. It’s not like you can’t find the “real” thing when you grow up. So it’s not necessarily that “we’re all” put out by the word, but it might be that the book’s utility is diminished in specific contexts by the inclusion of the offending word.
I’d be pretty shocked if the sanitized version was used in classroom settings with adults as students, but that sanitized version may have its place.
we have abridged versions, translations,
I’m thinking a harshly abridged version of Atlas Shrugs is called for. Something along the lines of: “Grow up you libertoonian douche-canoes. Oh, and Ayn Rand has a rape fetish.”
As a product of a mid-90s Deep South public school education (in a state notorious for its bad schools, no less), I speak as a student who just recently escaped being given a text. I think people here a missing the huge value pedagogy plays in young students understanding a text. I quake to think how some of the teachers I had would have washed out thevalue of Twain’s langugage in favor of whitewashing the region’s racist history. There’s a reason I read “The Watsons Go To Birmingham” way too many times – it doesn’t challenge the young reader to consider their internal prejudices too much. It’s a “nice” book about Southern racism.
Even with a bad teacher (and I had quite a few), HF in its original form undermines their possibly history-erasing agenda. Language as Twain used it forces the reader to think. To be confronted with the hard past. And if at least a few students start thinking, unlike younger!me, it’s worth it. Maybe they won’t change their views on the word’s use, but at least they’re thinking about it.
…does this version do anything about the dialect, or just simply replace words?
I don’t think it’s ZOMG THE END OF THE WORLD
Yeah. But if you fascists start fucking with Rise Again, the zombocalypse is ON.
One point that has not been explored enough is the fact that Jim is on the raft, believing to be headed toward freedom, represented by Cairo. Even if he were to get there, all of the “niggers” are still “slaves” in the revised version. It will make no sense.
Looks like the Constitutional Scholars all had scheduling conflicts.
I larf. LOLed, even.
Subby – see, that gets at the heart of this whole thing, though.
Shouldn’t any decent teacher of literature adequately prepare the ground for his or her students – you know, by letting them in on the idea that literature is a product of its time, that concepts and ideas we find unacceptable are treated as mundane, everyday assumptions, etc? That it has to be considered in the specific context of its times so that these no-longer-accepted ideas and concepts do not obliterate the lessons of the work as a whole?
What’s the point in teaching – or reading – literature if it presents no different point of view or challenges no assumptions? That’s pretty much what separates it from Harlequin romances or just a really good story.
I can’t help but wonder if some people are knee-jerkingly agreeing that the revised words are ok because Repukes are objecting to it. While I’m sure we don’t agree at all why the revisionism is not ok, the fact is I agree with the fucktards in this instance.
Wonder away but DKW and others seem to me to be obviously arguing in good faith. You could try to demonstrate that they’re not if you think otherwise. And I’ve read the wingnut articles linked to and the arguments against revising Huck Finn aren’t very different from those being made here. The difference is that the wingnuts who are pissed off about this are often OK with censorship but have suddenly found it objectionable because it’s another assault on the white man’s right to say “nigger,” while liberals are being consistent in arguing against censorship but showing unwarranted, inflexible devotion to a principal here. Nobody is going to be hurt by this professor’s revision of the book. It’s two words and anyone who thinks that removing them from the book is going to prevent young people from gaining an insight into the horrors of the time has probably never read the book.
OMFG I just got an email in my inbox about a seminar on “Recognizing & Managing Necrotizing Fasciitis” that had a HUGE FUCKING PICTURE AT THE TOP OF IT. I am EATING. WHY?????
Do you have ZRM’s e-mail? That sounds like it would make a dandy addition to his art collection…
VS, I’m at the hospital and stuck with the iPhone. Won’t be visiting your site.
Unless you promise us footage of you, 4″‘heels, treadmill, glistening with sweat. (And, of course, BOOBIES!) And preggers. Rule 34, it must be fed.
And T&U on a stationary bike….
Meh. Just kidding, ladies. I don’t care about shoes & height, brains & values count for so much more, and yer both swell.
Also, why does John Boehner HATE HATE HATE the Constimatushun?
I apologize for the links to GOS.
I think DKW already acknowledged that his prejudices were influencing his earlier posts, actually. So I really don’t have to.
Um, OK. I just flatly disagree with this. But, it’s like I said up thread. There’s no reason we can’t disagree agreeably. ALSO, as I said upthread, I think you be against the removal of the words without hyperbolically describing ats the end of the world.
I disagree! Short women got no reason to live!
I agree with this generally – and my kid has access to my library and anything else she wants from the library – but words with that kind of charge can be a real distraction to non-adults in a classroom setting. A lot of what that word means now has changed anyway: “nigger” means a different thing and the book is an artifact of a time when you could say that. HF is no longer what it was when it was written, and there’s an argument to be made – witness the thread – that “nigger” is a large distraction to the art of the book.
I’m with 77south at 18:32, by removing the offending word from the manuscript, the ugly congenital birth defect of our society is whitewashed (VTSR). The word is nasty, brutish, and ugly, like that aspect of the culture which promulgated it.
You know what? I’m going to REVISE my statement. I shouldn’t have wondered aloud about whether people were having a knee-jerk reaction to the revisions. I should have asked it outright. That’s the more straightforward, honest approach to the discussion. And I’d certainly take anyone at his word who told me that it was not a knee-jerk reaction.
I can eat enormous quantities of ice cream, Mrs. S.
It’s two words and anyone who thinks that removing them from the book is going to prevent young people from gaining an insight into the horrors of the time has probably never read the book
Meh. I’m sort-of against the change but could be easily convinced otherwise, I think. It’s just that I think “slave” isn’t adequate. All slaves were black, but not all blacks were slaves. Thus not all blacks were seen as and treated like “niggers” owing to their slave status; this was still true in 1884, when Twain published it, and for a long time thereafter. It seems like that’s one reason for writing and studying it in the first place. Switching out the N-words for “slave” muddles that issue.
*polite cough* FTR, I was the first person to make that observation.
Jennifer,
If we were talking about banning the original version in favour of the sanitized one, I would be with you in holding the original words sacrosanct.
Why is it necessary? Dr. Gribben’s intro (linked at 19:53) gives his rationale.
I think we can agree that there do exist people with a legitimate reason for being protected from “the n word”. That some of those people are in school and some of those schools would like to include Huckleberry Finn on their curriculum. That’s it.
Is this being primarily driven by concern trolls with knotted panties? Probably. Doesn’t mean that it is without merit.
I don’t actually remember the Anne Frank thing. Still, I don’t think that this sets a bad precedent. Requiring that materials taught in public schools don’t use hateful epithets regardless of context is totally different than not requiring materials taught in public schools recognize the superiority of the One True Religion.
In other words, since “nigger” doesn’t mean “slave,” that substitution makes no sense. Particularly since I think the distinction is not unimportant in the story. Maybe a better choice would’ve been to swap it out for (a) a recognizable slur with less bite, (b) textual “bleeping” like “n_____”, or (c) a nonsense word–“nana” or something–explained via footnote on its first use.
I think DKW already acknowledged that his prejudices were influencing his earlier posts, actually. So I really don’t have to.
You don’t have to do anything but he was confessing to a prejudice on one narrow point, not to making bad faith arguments all around. And he and others haven’t been.
Um, OK. I just flatly disagree with this.
Who’s going to be hurt then and how if you disagree? The counter argument is fairly concrete, that black kids and Native Americans in a classroom could be if the words are kept in. I can see that but I can’t see who’s going to be hurt by their removal.
Maybe a better choice would’ve been to swap it out for (a) a recognizable slur with less bite, (b) textual “bleeping” like “n_____”, or (c) a nonsense word–”nana” or something–explained via footnote on its first use.
How about not teaching it until a grade when it’s determined the little snowflakes can comprehend that the US was not always the idyllic paradise that it passes for today?
D-K W – I think this is an agree to disagree thing. I can see you are arguing in good faith and even agree with a good bit of what you’ve observed. If I’m having a knee-jerk reaction to anything here, it’s to the insatiable drive this country seems to have for watering down everything to its lowest common denominator, which I think ultimately leads to mediocrity across the spectrum, in addition to a loss of diversity in and straightjacketing of acceptable thought. I’ve vented about this over at my blog and you’ve probably seen that. I see a link between Thomas Kinkade and editing Twain, and that link is a continuing softening of brain matter.
How about not teaching it until a grade when it’s determined the little snowflakes can comprehend that the US was not always the idyllic paradise that it passes for today?
Unfortunately, even when it’s taught at an age-appropriate level (or just kept in the fucking library), it’s challenged. Which is why (although it pains me to say it), I’m not *completely* against this revision shit.
I’m of the opinion that the weight of the word, it’s history is so profound that it does hurt the reader if its left out. If other people don’t see it that way, groovy, I guess. But I won’t be swayed in this.
And I’d certainly take anyone at his word who told me that it was not a knee-jerk reaction.
Mine is a different prejudice. Sure assuming that wingnuts are wrong is a good bet most of the time, but stopped clock and all.
I like genre fiction and video games and doing your mom. These are all valid forms of expression, some even rise to the level of Art (with a Capital A). But all of it is seen as some form of lesser achievement since it’s not sculpture or oil painting or opera or classic literature. Although I concede that sex with your mom isn’t a major achievement since everyone does it.
Because it is Old or because it follows the same form as stuff that is Old, those aren’t inherently valuable. At least not to me. I’d do your mom even if she wasn’t Old. So I have an overblown (Veiled Your Mom Reference) response when Old stuff gets special rules and preferential treatment.
Old stuff gets special rules and preferential treatment.
Last time I tip your mom.
How about not teaching it until a grade when it’s determined the little snowflakes can comprehend that the US was not always the idyllic paradise that it passes for today?
Works for me. Give them Lord of the Flies instead. Follow it up with “Heart of Darkness” then maybe “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” And that should clue the little snowflakes in to how history works.
No, you’re right, DKW. I was making the wrong argument about the wrong person. And, like, I said before, a more honest approach to discussion is to simply ask questions, not “wonder aloud.” Which is kind of what Fox News does all the time.
Works for me. Give them Lord of the Flies instead. Follow it up with “Heart of Darkness” then maybe “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” And that should clue the little snowflakes in to how history works.
In high school lit, we studied Huck Finn (again) alongside Babbitt and Silent Spring (among other muckraking books). We all got an eye-opening history lesson that term.
Mr. Clemens’ work will be less challenging to read. I’m sure he would be pleased by that.
After all, the last thing we want to do to Americans is challenge them.
You lost me DKW. Were you doing Art or Art’s mom?
Hasn’t it always been obvious that the best way to get a teen to read something is to tell them that it’s Naughty and they’re Too Young?
My knee jerks strongly in the direction of free speech
about ugly reality. Funny how just 10 yrs. ago we started making war movies horrific and grisly (Pvt. Ryan) but we’re still hothouse flowers about other things (Janet Jackson’s nipple.)
As for the N word, and the “rappers say it, too” idiocy, I’m afraid that for many African-Americans, they can’t believe that a white author using it is anything but racist.
Hard to have debates about the nuances of the racism of Lincoln or Twain with
1) racists who don’t give a shit
2) scarred victims of racism
This thread has made a Paul Fussell quote bounce around my head, and thanks to these wondrous tubes, I’ve found it, will post next.
The publisher could have avoided all this grief coming from the right by using the term “SEIU thug” in place of the n-word. That would give a more “modern” feel to the manuscript dontyathink?
You lost me DKW. Were you doing Art or Art’s mom?
Art, for Art’s sake.
Note that last was pronounced “sockee”…
I think that’s fine too, but the issue isn’t one of comprehension. It’s that some of those being taught and teaching the book experience an avalanche of a word that defines them as something less than human, tossed out casually by the narrator on page after page. So the question becomes: despite that, is the book worth being taught? The answer to that seems to have been settled.
Then:
Can the book be properly taught by avoiding that word?
The guy at Auburn thinks so. I don’t, but you can avoid repeating it as often as Twain did. It’s not necessary in 2010. If you properly mask it, a kid can intellectually witness that it’s being employed constantly without being an emotional witness to its use some 200 times.
The publisher could have avoided all this grief coming from the right by using the term “SEIU thug” in place of the n-word.
“ACORN” and “New Black Panther” would have worked as well, as would “Obama”
One wartime moment not at all vile occurred on June 5, 1944, when Dwight Eisenhower, entirely alone and for the moment disjunct from his publicity apparatus, changed the passive voice to active in the penciled statement he wrote out to have ready when the invasion was repulsed, his troops torn apart for nothing, his planes ripped and smashed to no end, his warships sunk, his reputation blasted: “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.” Originally he wrote, “the troops have been withdrawn,” as if by some distant, anonymous agency instead of by an identifiable man making all-but-impossible decisions. Having ventured this bold revision, and secure in his painful acceptance of full personal accountability, he was able to proceed unevasively with “My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available.” Then, after the conventional “credit,” distributed equally to “the troops, the air, and the navy,” came Eisenhower’s noble acceptance of total personal responsibility: “If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.” As Mailer says, you use the word shit so that you can use the word noble, and you refuse to ignore the stupidity and barbarism and ignobility and poltroonery and filth of the real war so that it is mine alone can flash out, a bright signal in a dark time.
So never?
If you think it’s good in a curriculum it’s good in a curriculum even without one word. It’s an important book and leaving high school without seeing it (in the US anyway) seems kinda sad. Since control of schools is often fairly local you’re not gonna see the book in a lot of places unless it gets sanitized somehow. I’m with T&U in not liking the move but seeing it as a contextual necessity in some instances.
77south said,
Add Johnny Got His Gun and I’m in.
Note that last was pronounced “sockee”…
Oh you kids and your modern euphemisms.
I’m with 77south at 18:32, by removing the offending word from the manuscript, the ugly congenital birth defect of our society is whitewashed (VTSR). The word is nasty, brutish, and ugly, like that aspect of the culture which promulgated it.
This. Based on what I’ve learned about the book in this thread, I agree with 77South and CapIndustry’s assessments. Leave it in and let people consider their country’s past as it really was.
Does anyone know which poor Republican had to read this?
==
“All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..”
===
I wonder if it will cost them re-election?
Can the book be properly taught by avoiding that word?
I think part of the problem stems back to the 1931 movie as well as subsequent adaptations, which were santized for the American audience. Once those hit the screen and were popular, the book almost had to be taught as a cleansed adaptation.
Jennifer,
I certainly see your point too. “Because it is subversive” is more than enough justification for me and sanitizing classic texts to make them less offensive is kinda the opposite of that.
In this specific case, I don’t think “nigger” and “injun” do much to promote independent thinking, but I do accept that the act of removing those words shares characteristics with efforts to discourage individual thought.
At the same time, reducing suffering and discomfort do the same. It’s harder to hate the system when the system treats you well. But no one is proposing that people should suffer more because it “builds character” and makes them less reliant on their authority figures. Well, other than conservatives.
Because it is Old or because it follows the same form as stuff that is Old, those aren’t inherently valuable. At least not to me. I’d do your mom even if she wasn’t Old. So I have an overblown (Veiled Your Mom Reference) response when Old stuff gets special rules and preferential treatment.
Well, I agree with you to some extent, and there’s a huge debate to be had (and that is taking place constantly) about the “literary canon” and how various forms of art aren’t considered Art, mostly because they were produced by groups of people who aren’t privileged enough to determine what Art is. But, you know, Old things tend to be valued and discussed more because a) the ideas behind them have stood the test of time or have provided the foundation for New things, and b) because the stuff that sticks around over the years tends to be the stuff that’s “better,” at least if you use the metric in point a.
You lost me DKW. Were you doing Art or Art’s mom?
What I was saying was that lots of people may fuck your mom, but when I do it – it has cultural significance.
The counter argument is fairly concrete, that black kids and Native Americans in a classroom could be if the words are kept in.
I have a Carlin-esque stance on this: By putting up a fuss about certain words you give those words far more power than they actually have. I would add nigger and injun to his list of seven words. (Wait, is that revising prior art?)
It’s an important book and leaving high school without seeing it (in the US anyway) seems kinda sad.
If by senior year in high school or hell even sophmore year in high school, a kid still holds unchallenged the delusion that America is some anesthetic paradise devoid of any taint of oppression or hatred, then either that kid is low-normal or the school has done a lousy job educating him.
So no, I don’t think it should be taught after high school but I also don’t think it should be taught before middle school.
I’m with 77south at 18:32, by removing the offending word from the manuscript, the ugly congenital birth defect of our society is whitewashed (VTSR).
This. Based on what I’m learning about the book here, I agree with 77South and CaptIndustry. (OK, and vs too). Leave it in and let people contemplate the history of their country.
What I was saying was that lots of people may fuck your mom, but when I do it – it has cultural significance.
In the great nation of Bacterium, of course.
How about not teaching it until a grade when it’s determined the little snowflakes can comprehend that the US was not always the idyllic paradise that it passes for today?
Subby has a point with “so never.” In far too many cases, that age just doesn’t ever come. Not that, you know, I don’t agree with the sentiment, just don’t phrase it that way or a lot of parents followed by a lot of pundits and politicians are going to hit the ceiling.
Who is being spared embarrassment by removing “nigger” and “injun” from the story?
It’s that some of those being taught and teaching the book experience an avalanche of a word that defines them as something less than human, tossed out casually by the narrator on page after page.
I totally agree with this. And I hope that I haven’t diminished the gravity of the word or made it seem as if I fail to recognize how hurtful it can be. (Obviously, i don’t personally *know*, but I don’t want to seem as if I’m just dismissing the n-word as offensive, or somehow on par with the word “fuck”). And, as I said, if it means that kids will read the book with less discomfort and are able to talk about the book beyond just the use of the word, then I’m okay with it.
I think we also need to remember that this book was specifically pointed at *white* audiences and the overuse of the n-word was intended to make a point to them. Which provides another interesting level of discussion–is a white author justified in using this word to upset white people?
*polite cough* FTR, I was the first person to make that observation.
Uh, sorry kiddo… I only read the revised thread that was approved for high school use.
Who is being spared embarrassment by removing . . . “injun” from the story?
Ticket re-sellers and gift taker-backerers?
Not that, you know, I don’t agree with the sentiment, just don’t phrase it that way or a lot of parents followed by a lot of pundits and politicians are going to hit the ceiling.
Yea. That wasn’t a formal policy pronouncement, especially given this is a comedy blog… 🙂
Who is being spared embarrassment by removing “nigger” and “injun” from the story?
Well, that’s also another thing we should look at…who is protesting over these terms being used most? If it’s white people, then fuck those motherfuckers. But my understanding is that a lot of the people raising objections to the book are people of color.
Ticket re-sellers and gift taker-backerers?
Also any number of fans of sporting agglomerations that play both professional and amateurly at the college level and below.
”
Uh, sorry kiddo… I only read the revised thread that was approved for high school use.”
SEE WHAT HAPPENS?!!!
Er, that was the Fussell quote. But it had italics in the original, and I’m HTML-Trig.
Cranky old Fussell wrote an essay about the Bowlderizing of children’s books. He’s agin’ it! Fuzzy memory, haven’t read it in 20 yrs., but he did seem like a cranky old white man of privilege when I read it. OTOH, he has always stood for plain speaking about ugly humanity.
Oh, and I’ve heard it said that HF is a notably violent book, but nobody ever notices it. Probably because racism isn’t the only major flaw in our culture.
I’m officially ready for a group hug, then maybe a smoke.
I have a Carlin-esque stance on this: By putting up a fuss about certain words you give those words far more power than they actually have. I would add nigger and injun to his list of seven words. (Wait, is that revising prior art?)
The only words on that list that could be possibly considered equivalent to racial slurs are “cocksucker” and “cunt,” and even those aren’t necessarily the same in certain contexts.
There’s a difference between dirty words and hateful words.
DKW-
Say hi to mom for me, will ya? Haven’t spoken to her for a few weeks since she called me to ask me if she had ESPNU on her cable system.
I always thought one of the main goals of “Huck Finn” was to humiliate the racists.
Remove their constant reliance on a guttural insult and they look less stupid.
DAE find it curious that “asshole” gets bleeped on TDS but “dickwad” sails through unmolested?
Hey, I don’t even need the hug. Don’t feel like anyone has stepped on my toes or belittled what (I believe) are my honest and legitimate opinions, and don’t think I’ve done that to anyone else who differs. Quite the feat.
it’s to the insatiable drive this country seems to have for watering down everything to its lowest common denominator, which I think ultimately leads to mediocrity across the spectrum, in addition to a loss of diversity in and straightjacketing of acceptable thought.
too late. The suburbs already exist.
I always thought one of the main goals of “Huck Finn” was to humiliate the racists.
You’ll note who’s trying to ban it, Owl
Also any number of fans of sporting agglomerations that play both professional and amateurly at the college level and below.
That term is so hurtful to fans of Cleveland baseball. Haven’t they suffered enough?
“Hey, I don’t even need the hug. Don’t feel like anyone has stepped on my toes or belittled what (I believe) are my honest and legitimate opinions, and don’t think I’ve done that to anyone else who differs. Quite the feat”
Well, you’re a better woman than I.
Hey, I don’t even need the hug. Don’t feel like anyone has stepped on my toes or belittled what (I believe) are my honest and legitimate opinions, and don’t think I’ve done that to anyone else who differs.
Me, neither, especially now that DKW has stopped putting words in my mouth and started putting something else into some poor mother’s mouth.
Oh gosh, you both are then!
Oh gosh, you both are then!
Nah. I just love these kinds of discussions.
I jumped out of a third-story window rescuing kittens from an exploding meth lab.
I suspect that T&U was really rescuing meth from an exploding kitten lab.
I am EATING. WHY?????
Perhaps you were hungry.
So pretty much all of us agree it’s a crappy idea? I imagine it’ll catch on big time, then.
There’s a difference between dirty words and hateful words.
My eyes are getting bad as I age, I don’t see any difference between them.
a guttural insult
For instance, “You ghoch-rhackling arschlicher!
My eyes are getting bad as I age, I don’t see any difference between them.
Well, I’d rather be called an asshole than a cunt, and I’d imagine that most black people would rather be called an asshole by a white person than a nigger.
Slurs are dehumanizing and hurtful. Dirty words are just offensive.
Fargin Bastiches
Slurs are dehumanizing and hurtful. Dirty words are just offensive.
Words have the power I give them.
one of the words Twain invented: “painstaking”
An example of a correct use of the word “painstaking”:
After a painstaking 10 minutes of activity, we left actor212 nailed to the wall with a large wooden spike.
” Dirty words are just offensive.”
And fun!
Dirty words are just offensive.
Or really stimulating, depending on context.
After a painstaking 10 minutes of activity, we left actor212 nailed to the wall with a large wooden spike.
Typical man.
It was more like a splinter and it wasn’t that good. I had to go finish the job myself.
Slurs are dehumanizing and hurtful. Dirty words are just offensive.
For me,
dehumanizing and hurtful=offensive
You may see it differently and I’m cool with that.
Words have the power I give them.
Sure, but when a guy harassing you on the street calls you a cunt or a frat boy threatens you and calls you a faggot, it’s hard *not* to give power to those words.
Or really stimulating, depending on context.
Well, yes. And I personally don’t find them offensive.
For me,
dehumanizing and hurtful=offensive
I gotcha. I guess I’m operating under the normal understanding of the word “offensive,” which is something that’s not acceptable within polite society or is considered distasteful. In that context, the term “offensive,” in my opinion, downplays the significance of the words.
Sure, but when a guy harassing you on the street calls you a cunt or a frat boy threatens you and calls you a faggot, it’s hard *not* to give power to those words.
I’ve been called worse and my psyche hasn’t taken a hit for it. They call it ‘taking offense’ for a reason: You have to accept it for it to hurt.
They call it ‘taking offense’ for a reason: You have to accept it for it to hurt.
Not everyone has had the kind of training you have, Willy. Most people can’t arsed to even look at the contradictions they create much less how someone else’s behavior impacts them.
I’ve been called worse and my psyche hasn’t taken a hit for it. They call it ‘taking offense’ for a reason: You have to accept it for it to hurt.
Not to be an ass, but are you a white, straight dude?
When calls me a cunt in hostility, I’m not “offended.” I’m *scared.*
A bowdlerized Huck Finn? Fine & dandy if it gets the story out to places it otherwise couldn’t reach. The original isn’t going anywhere, after all.
The REAL controversy here is having the most hardcore Originalist bunch of Goopers in modern times editing down a public recital of their Holy Screed – to be politically correct?! As attempts to own the USC go, that’s some major fail right there – especially since more than a few of their supporters really mean it when they yowl about going back to the Founding Fathers’ original intent. For them, “blacks = 3/5 person” isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Looks like the Constitutional Scholars all had scheduling conflicts.
Oh my. You couldn’t ask for a better image to prove that the Teabaggers are just disposable vote-modules (political Handi-Wipes™, if you will) for the GOP. Boehner even gave a weekly press conference right in the middle of reading Teh Bestest Constitution EVAR – sheesh, might as well just be passing out some more Big Tobacco checks, dude.
Sure, but when a guy harassing you on the street calls you a cunt or a frat boy threatens you and calls you a faggot, it’s hard *not* to give power to those words.
Threats of violence are different. I’d be foolish not to pay attention.
A fearful idiot mouthing off due to a massive inferiority complex is easy to ignore.
kittens don’t do meth.
They do heroin.
When calls me a cunt in hostility, I’m not “offended.” I’m *scared.*
Actor kinda hit it, I was trained well. My mom was born out of wedlock, back in the 30s they were called bastards. Imagine growing up with that as the ‘appropriate’ epithet for your own fine self.
When she had kids she made sure we all were self-contained and impervious to insult. (Our last name – her married name – was one easy to mock so she wasn’t just pushing her freak onto us. We got shit for it all thru our early life.)
The REAL controversy here is having the most hardcore Originalist bunch of Goopers in modern times editing down a public recital of their Holy Screed – to be politically correct?!
Anyone who believes they’re doing it to be politically correct hasn’t thought about the obvious.
Whichever poor soul got that bit would be recorded reciting about blacks being 3/5 a person. Just in time for the re-election campaign to kick off.
But there’s a difference between being called a name and being called a name that’s been used historically to oppress and intimidate people like you. Again, it depends on the context, but a lot of the time, the words “nigger” and “faggot” are words that have implied threats behind them.
Hard to have debates about the nuances of the racism of Lincoln or Twain with
1) racists who don’t give a shit
2) scarred victims of racism
Yep.
I do think Twain used the word he meant to use, and that there’s a damned good reason to keep the text intact, except: A fellow-student’s vehement objection to Huck Finn (this was a *college* course, not HS) led me to write a paper on fucking American Psycho as a kind of test/penance, and I’ll say this: it’s not easy to read & discuss that shit if it’s people like you who are being brutalized. Requiring it in high schools, where attendance is likewise required…I would not like to ask it of everyone.
So: There’s definitely a place for a somewhat sanitized version; though I wouldn’t ban either word completely, the tsunami of Nigger can be overwhelming, and can make it close to impossible to get through it to the meat of the book.
re: reading the Constitution in the House
And yes I am aware that I’m still wearing the Ann-nym costume. The box wine is just to scrumptious to stop.
I spent 99% of my school years as the only black person in the class.
I’m picturing reading Huck Finn in class. The second
someone reads the word nigger aloud every head in class turns toward me looking for a reaction. I wouldn’t like it.
I’m not saying it should be changed, I just understand the hurt caused by that word.
Ellis Hennican just made an astounding observation on Facebook. If you want to leave the N-word in Huck Finn, then don’t get all rowdy when rappers use it.
Late to the conversation – but what else is new – but this particular topic has been a source of fascination for me for the past couple days. A few thoughts:
Huck Finn has been a source of controversy since it was published. One reviewer of the time objected to the “courseness” of it by noting that Huck “not only itched, he scratched”. As someone above noted, “Nigger Jim” doesn’t appear in the novel but from later descriptions. I want to say it first came from Hemmingway, of all people, but I can’t remember. One of the first televised productions of Huck Finn went so far as to refuse to cast a black man in the role of Jim. Think about that for a while.
I’d also note, as others have, that this particular edition is being published by a company owned by two white Northerners living in Alabama. That just cracks me right the hell up. They said they’re putting out this version in response to teachers requesting it, as the original was giving some classroom fits. Which brings me to my next thought.
While in Athens, I had this co-worker. She’s an upper-middle-class African-American from a family of academics and I’m a lower-middle-class white boy from a family of bulldozer mechanics. We bonded over the Marx Brothers, Prince, and high quality marijuana. We’d occasionally get together, get stoned, watch movies and discuss the movement of the cosmos.
One time, our conversation drifted to this very topic, as noted earlier Huck Finn has long been a source of controversy. She said she was not necessarily in favor of its banning from classrooms or its bowdlerization, but she could understand why some felt that way. She could even see the sense, given the racial charged atmosphere in today’s schools, in changing the way Huck Finn is presented in classrooms. Of course, I was shocked and dismayed, and made arguments that it’s an important piece of literature and to change it would rob it of its power and that kids, especially white kids, need to see that.
She noted my arguments and did not disagree, but said, and I quote, “You’re the most empathetic to black issues white guy I’ve ever met, but you’re still a white guy. You don’t understand. You don’t understand how it feels to hear that word said by a white person like it’s nothing. You’ll never understand how that feels.” And she’s right.
Finally, I think it’s hilarious this such a hot topic of conversation in the internet salons of the country, given that most Americans look at books – especially ones that don’t involve boy wizards, sparlkey vampires or Jesus totally kicking non-Real True Christian-might-as-well-be-atheists asses – like Superman looks at kryptonite. Present company excluded, of course.
Um, since this work is public domain now, can’t we come up with a more compelling revision than just changing one word?
Huck and Jim? Let’s just take that to the next level- hot feral brotherly love. Then there’s Huck’s cross-dressing- that’s got a lot of potential, especially once he gets caught: hot genteel/feral extortion. The business with the feuding families and the wholesale slaughter- needs more frickin lasers.
And maybe add in a zombie race war with a ghost dance subplot.
Feral naive grifters drift through decadent raw capitalist-imperialist society, taking what’s available and some of what’s not, revealing the strength of the carnal love shared between Jim and Huck.
I’m thinking Adam Levine and Terrence Howard in Mary Poppins meets Natural Born Killers.
The discussion of the altered Huckleberry Finn has gotten deeper than where I care to wade this late, but I wanted to comment on an earlier topic:
Apropos because it went from Ten Little Niggers to Ten Little Indians before the name we all know it by. Would it have been a better story if they kept Christie’s original title?
Bizarrely, I have an edition of And Then There Were None— that’s the title they used– where the island’s named was changed to “Soldier Island”, and even the two uses of the phrase “nigger in the woodpile” were changed to “fly in the ointment”…
… and then they painstakingly put back some anti-Semitic slurs that had been removed since 1940 in the US. I guess they figured “Jewboy” or “that was the damnable part about Jews– you couldn’t deceive them about money– they knew!” didn’t count since y’know, Christie didn’t actually write “kike” or “yid”.
[For the record, it’s a 2004 edition put out by St. Martin’s Press, ISBN 0312330871 if you really have to look it up.]
I’m just disappointed that this whole issue will detract from the already neglected aspect of Huck Finn, namely: that Tom Sawyer is *not* a hero in the novel. The name Tom Sawyer carries the connotation in the US of a wily but good hearted youth, but in this novel he’s depicted as nothing more than a sociopath willing to sell out both his friend Huck and his friend’s friend Jim at the very first opportunity to make a buck.
But despite this, the character of Tom Sawyer has become a role model – not surprisingly, to any observer of contemporary US society.
Twain wrote at length about why he chose those words. They aren’t in there because ‘they didn’t know better’ they’re in there to show what people really were like.
I’ve been told that the 3/5ths is out of the version they’re reading because they’re skipping portions which have been amended out of the constitution. I can buy that, but then they’re skipping all the Supreme Court rulings which expand or contract upon what the Constitution says. I don’t buy that.
Hmm, now that I think of it, somebody needs to redo the Huck Finn story, but put them on the silk road in a diesel truck and have Hajii Jim being scared to death of being imprisoned and tortured at Bagram.
Huckleberry Finn AND ZOMBIES.
Whoop-de-doo, sissy, I have FIVE WEBSITES OPEN RIGHT NOW. God bless you Windows Millenium Edition!
Praise Bob!
Melinda RULEZ!!111!!
Feral naive grifters drift through decadent raw capitalist-imperialist society, taking what’s available and some of what’s not, revealing the strength of the carnal love shared between Jim and Huck.
Hot damn.
Even worse: we not only had to read Hamlet in high school but also performed it on stage, but you stab one guy with a poisoned épée …
Whoop-de-doo, sissy, I have FIVE WEBSITES OPEN RIGHT NOW. God bless you Windows Millenium Edition!
Wot, you don’t just use a tabbed browser?
It sort of reminds me of Truly Tasteless Jokes, which featured the 1980’s PC term “African American” in a bunch of racist jokes. Because saying “What kind of bike does an African-American kid get for his birthday? Yours! Get it? African-Americans steal things” is more sensitive.
… the 1980?s PC term “African American” …
1980s? That term is still being used, AFAIK.
I’m kind of on the fence about the whole nigger-in-Huck-Finn thing. Years ago, when I was young and knew everything, I thought it was a great novel and decided that blacks who objected to black kids being made to read it were philistines and race baiters.
Now, I have to wonder if they don’t have a point. I also wonder just how good a book it is. It was taught to me in high school as this great cornerstone of American literature–Hemingway said there was nothing like it before and nothing since, or something like that. And there are some lyrical passages and great jokes.
But the whole thing starts to go off the rails when the Duke and the Dolphin appear, and it really jumps the shark when Tom Sawyer shows up. It collapses into a farce, and not an especially funny one.
I also have to wonder about Twain’s bona fides when it comes to racism. I can’t forget his astonishingly racist essay about Indians, “The Noble Red Man.” He heaps insults on them, including “the scum of the Earth,” and sneers at them for being hungry and desperate enough to eat grasshoppers. (Some people have tried to spin “The Noble Red Man” as Swiftian satire, but I think that’s bullshit.)
That said, I think this bowdlerized version of “Huck Finn” is a thoroughly stupid idea. I’d say it’s worthy of the scorn the conservatives are heaping on it, if I thought those people ever argued anything in good faith.
God bless you Windows Millenium Edition!
LOLWUT
Obama was exposed before he was even born!
You know who else exposed himself prenatally?
(a) Julius Caesar! (b) Macduff!
Do I win anything?
Do I win anything?
Another year’s free access to Sadly, No!
T&U:
Here is the preface to this edition, written by the guy who made the choice to expurgate “nigger” from the text, as well as”injun.”
You can decide for yourself his intent. I personally don’t think they’re dishonorable, given how genuinely contentious this book is. He himself says that it’s not an edition for serious academic scholars. Which made me go “huh,” given that the book, when taught in classes, is done so in pursuit of academic scholarship. I still think it stinks on ice.
I also thought a good chunk of the flap these days wasn’t merely from that word, which never seemed hard to explain (just possiby uncomfortable), but more from the fact that Huck himself experiences an awakening that causes him to rebel against his socio-religious indoctrination: his world not only tells him that slaves are inherently inferior, but god himself is complicit in this inequity, and that bucking this means he bucks the divine and commits himself voluntarily to hell.
THAT is what scares the shit out of authoritarian religious folks and makes them want to protect all their little Hucks.
It’s one of the most impressively subversive books for that time (and for some time after) in American Lit. I don’t know about “greatest,” but I’m not Hemmingway. The way he also captured the language hadn’t quite been done like that, at least for America. It really should be read out loud in parts.
One of the other things this editor is doing, apart from taking out words, is bringing the two books together in a single volume again. In that preface, he goes into some of the publishing history of the two books, which happened far apart and by two different publishers, the second being Twain’s own house. It’s probably less jolting to have Tom re-appear when they’re read back-to-back.
But IIRC, those two rapscallions were meant to both satirize supposedly-Royalty-free America’s love for (and apparent beholdenness to)…European Royalty. But I think they were also supposed to be a “logical extension” of Tom and Huck themselves and the childhood “pretend” games they’d play and the lies they’d tell. They were what Tom and Huck would be without their consciences.
And speaking of Tom, his appearance isn’t really meant to be funny. It’s meant to contrast Huck before and after his time on the rivier. Huck’s matured, but Tom, with his family and money, got to stay in childhood a little longer. He’s still the “bad” good boy (or the “good” bad boy), and Huck is a genuine fugitive and criminal. We know there’s lots at stake when Tom concocts that very Tom-esque escape plan for Jim, but we’ve come to see Huck and Jim as real people, and Tom still thinks in terms of stories. It’s painful, outrageous, and definitely not amusing. More “WTF??” I think that by putting the slave laws of the South next to the fantasies of ‘educated” childhood, Twain was trying kick the legs out from under both by the invidious comparison.
Hope this wasn’t lecture-y. I still read this book every so often, and it’s a personal favorite.