New edition of Huckleberry Finn loses the N-Word

[Le Libérer]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html)

What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave.
The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun. The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it.
"Race matters in these books," Gribben told PW. "It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."
Unsurprisingly, there are already those who are yelling "Censorship!" as well as others with thesauruses yelling "Bowdlerization!" and "Comstockery!"
Censoring 'Huck Finn' and 'Tom Sawyer'
RELATED TOPICS
Books
Mark Twain
Their position is understandable: Twain's book has been one of the most often misunderstood novels of all time, continuously being accused of perpetuating the prejudiced attitudes it is criticizing, and it's a little disheartening to see a cave-in to those who would ban a book simply because it requires context.
On the other hand, if this puts the book into the hands of kids who would not otherwise be allowed to read it due to forces beyond their control (overprotective parents and the school boards they frighten), then maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge.
It's unfortunate, but is it really any more catastrophic than a TBS-friendly re-edit of "The Godfather," you down-and-dirty melon farmer?
The original product is changed for the benefit of those who, for one reason or another, are not mature enough to handle it, but as long as it doesn't affect the original, is there a problem?
What do you think -- unnecessary censorship or necessary evil?

[Red Future]

not totally related but found this on Socialist Worker about Mark Twain

http://socialistworker.org/2010/04/21/the-twain-they-didnt-teach

[Le Libérer]

not totally related but found this on Socialist Worker about Mark Twain

http://socialistworker.org/2010/04/21/the-twain-they-didnt-teach

To quote this article"

Yet Twain was one of the most forthright critics of American ruling-class ideology at the turn of the 20th century. Especially toward the end of his life, Twain's published and unpublished writings and speeches are overwhelmingly antiracist, anti-imperialist and revolutionary:

I am said to be a revolutionist in my sympathies, by birth, by breeding and by principle. I am always on the side of the revolutionists, because there never was a revolution unless there were some oppressive and intolerable conditions against which to revolute. [1]

[Red Future]

last line of that quote is fantastic

[Dimentio]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html)
What do you think -- unnecessary censorship or necessary evil?

This is my opinion.

For the school editions, take away the racist terms and replace them with neutral terms or at least non-racist terms.

For editions aimed at book stores, keep the original. The reason why is that adults should be able to understand the context and evil of racism, while children might not interpret anything which is not overtly stated as a criticism as a criticism (which is why villains in children's books always are evil).

[Sean]

I'd say Dimento's is probably the most reasonable approach. Its horrible to hear about books getting nerfed but at the same time there are entire book plots from my childhood which I never committed to memory simply because one of the characters was called something like "Fanny" and that was vastly more interesting.

[manic expression]

Ridiculous. Taking "nigger" out of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is like erasing references to war in All Quiet on the Western Front. If someone isn't "mature enough to hand it (racism)"...then don't read the book. It's really that simple.

[Diello]

Because as we all know, the best way to discourage racism is to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Heaven forbid we have kids learning about the existence of the word "nigger." I mean, once they realize they can put those six letters in that sequence, it's all over for them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is my opinion.

For the school editions, take away the racist terms and replace them with neutral terms or at least non-racist terms.

For editions aimed at book stores, keep the original. The reason why is that adults should be able to understand the context and evil of racism, while children might not interpret anything which is not overtly stated as a criticism as a criticism (which is why villains in children's books always are evil).Huck Finn, unlike Tom Sawyer is mostly read in High Schools by 14-16 year olds so my opinion is to keep it in but I think your option is much better than just cutting it from the book. Since the book is about racism, I think it's a mistake to take the word out - take it out of Scorsese or Tarintino movies (if it bothers people) where it is totally superfluous and used as texture rather than for any point about racism.

The sad thing is while the Confederacy is being *ahem* whitewashed and celebrated as historical (white) heritage this month, an anti-racist book that shows the hypocrisy of southern white christian "values" is the thing that's being censored.

On a side note, last night on PBS they had one of those Civil War documentaries and the whole thing was about General Lee and all his sacrifices and struggles and hopes and dreams and how he was distraught because the war was dividing his family. Boo fucking hoo... you know who else had their family divided... every fucking slave EVER! Not that I advocate government censorship or requirements on programming, but I was fantasizing while I was watching that documentary that there was a law that mandated that for every minute spent talking about the personal life or struggles of confederate leaders or plantation owners, fifteen seconds of that minute must show someone being whipped or hobbled or babies being taken from their mothers or people being raped by slave-masters.

Man, I'm grumpy this morning... venting with that digression really felt good.

[Le Libérer]

Itsa horribly liberal agenda to apologiize for racist or sexist language.instead of owning up to it. Pretending the word "Nigger" didnt exist doesnt make it go away. Its will be here forever. Using language in its context isnt wrong. It's pointless to censor any language, it's not like no ones going to know what was ommitted.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Itsa horribly liberal agenda to apologiize for racist or sexist language.instead of owning up to it. Pretending the word "Nigger" didnt exist doesnt make it go away. Its will be here forever. Using language in its context isnt wrong. It's pointless to censor any language, it's not like no ones going to know what was ommitted.Merchant of Venice should take out all the anti-Jewish refernces. Couldn't Shylock just be a wacky but grumpy upstairs neighbor always complaining about the noise made by the Merchant and his parties?

[Diello]

Merchant of Venice should take out all the anti-Jewish refernces. Couldn't Shylock just be a wacky but grumpy upstairs neighbor always complaining about the noise made by the Merchant and his parties?

I think The Diary of Anne Frank would be much less offensive if they replaced "Nazis" with "mean men with boots."

[Dimentio]

The record was the idea that Jar Jar Binks somehow was a racist stereotype on... well... something.

I think we could call this kind of Liberalism for Insultism, the idea that words somehow shape reality and if we take away the bad words, nothing more will ever happen. That is a convenient way of escaping from the actual social problems and brushing them under the rug of political correctness. At the same time, it is creating a permanent strata of victims, who are supposed to be deriving their social status from their victimisation.

[Wanted Man]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Sp1101watjj.jpg/240px-Sp1101watjj.jpg

One can't exactly eliminate a word from the language, so I don't see why they try. It's not unusual that old books get "updated", but this seems like a kind of whitewashing more than anything. Instead of dealing with the fact that all white people at the time called black people "niggers", let's just pretend they didn't. Yup, that works.

Maybe in 100 years, they can replace "slaves" with "forced volunteer workers" or something like that.

Also, doesn't this "update" kind of imply that "niggers" are by definition slaves?

[gorillafuck]

Do these people not realize that it actually lessens the anti-racist message to remove the word "nigger"?

Disregard anti-racism, the story has historically accurate usage of the n word! Oh the horror!

[Diello]

Do these people not realize that it actually lessens the anti-racist message to remove the word "nigger"?

Disregard anti-racism, the story has historically accurate usage of the n word! Oh the horror!

I guess anti-racism is offensive because you have to acknowledge racism to get to anti-racism.



I'd say Dimento's is probably the most reasonable approach. Its horrible to hear about books getting nerfed but at the same time there are entire book plots from my childhood which I never committed to memory simply because one of the characters was called something like "Fanny" and that was vastly more interesting.

You wouldn't be thinking of Fanny from The Faraway Tree, would you?

[Sasha]

what he said: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-11-2011/mark-twain-controversy

[#FF0000]

what he said: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-11-2011/mark-twain-controversy

I was just going to post this.

[synthesis]

Disregard anti-racism, the story has historically accurate usage of the n word! Oh the horror!

I think this only works with children if the teacher is excellent at explaining the historical context in which the "accuracy" resides.

If you don't know about the plot of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, look it up. In its time, it was intended to be anti-racist, but how comfortable would you be if it was presented to schoolchildren if you weren't sure how well the teacher would be able to persuasively explain that what was normal then is unacceptable now; and how that came to be?

[southernmissfan]

The far-right will hold this up as "progressives" and anti-racists censoring a novel. The reality, as some posters have already stated, is that it is the liberal position of removing anything controversial instead of acknowledging reality. It's easier to "remove racism" than to explain racism. Because when you have to explain things like that, guess who looks bad?

[Vanguard1917]

And the 'liberal-left' in the US has the nerve to call the right stupid... This is one of the dumbest, thickest, most idiotic proposals of the year so far. Though admitedly the year is young, so this is probably just the tip of the 2011 liberal-bullshit iceberg.

[Obzervi]

All that they're doing is whitewashing history, pun intended. Btw this is just more white liberal stupidity and how they constantly patronize people of color. It was white liberals who got their panties in a twist over the presence of the "n" word, because they would rather live in a fairy tale world where equality exists and racism never happened. I'll bet you anything the average person of color is against this change.

[NGNM85]

This is absolutely asinine. They're mutilating a masterpiece of literature as a sacrifice to the gods of political correctness. It's pathetic how people can be so terrified of language.

[Proukunin]

they're taking the cigarettes out of new pictures of people like robert johnson and jackson pollock on the US stamps.

I hate the n word. But I dont think it should be taken out of history to try and erase it from the public. we cant hide what happened.

[Magón]

There was a debate I saw on TV about this, and the two men debating were white and black. The white guy was saying they should get rid of the N-word, while the black guy was saying they should keep it in, not because of it's racist connotation, but because it makes people remember and learn from history, rather than trying to cover it up and make it seem like people back in the 1800s weren't intolerant of blacks, and so replace it with another less "hurtful" word.

Personally, I think they should have kept it, no doubt about it.