College Students! discussion
books, books, and more books!
>
Huck Finn without 'N' word
date
newest »
newest »
Why would they do that? It's historically accurate, it may be a terrible thing to say now days, but back then it was just how they spoke. I'm pretty sure there are more modern books that have been written about that time period that use that word, and they haven't been censored.
Since I'm white, I have to admit right off the bat that this puts me in somewhat of a difficult position regarding the evaluation of such a phenomenon as the N-word. If I were black, and had to face this word in my English class, I can't quite imagine how I'd feel.Having said that, I find the suggestion to replace the N-word by 'slave' a cheap way of avoiding facing the necessary education and required delicacy in handling the book and the topic more generally (both of which are necessary, I believe, to any proper education).
We discussed the book in my high school English class, and the teacher used the full N-word as he was quoting the book. He delved into the historical background of the word, its offensiveness, etc. etc. prior to doing so, however, in effect bracing us for the ramifications of the issue.
Granted, this was in Manila (not the U.S.) where the matter is less delicate. Still, to avoid the topic, or to repress it (which is essentially what changing the word is - everyone will still know that it was changed, what it was changed from, and why it was changed) seems far from an ideal solution.
I personally would advocate leaving the book as it is, giving students the option to read it, and if they desire to read it, then /educate them/ about the historical context and intricacies of some of its language. There is no real need to quote offensive passages or to use the N-word in class discussions (except maybe if one decides to read the book as a class thereby necessitating its discussion).
I truly believe that anyone get can something significant out of Huck Finn, and I think they need to be given the choice. But it should be the choice of reading it as it is, as it is embedded in its historical context, or not at all.
You can cover up the nether-region of St. David, but everyone will know what the cover is hiding, and the issue of what it is hiding will not disappear simply because one is hiding it.
Mod
I love that Steven.
I just read the article. I too am white, but my brother's boyfriend is black and we recently had a discussion about this word. He said he only finds in offensive when people mean it to be that way. Reading it in a book set back during the time that Huck Finn takes place is fine. It seems that coddling people has gone a bit far.
I also agree that something uncomfortable or insulting now, that was normal once upon a time, leads to great teaching opportunities. History, tolerance, learning from mistakes, etc.
I was horrified that the 2 classic books, both of which can probably be found free or really cheap in their original form, will cost $25.00.
I can understand why they did this. It's not like every version of Huck Finn from now on will be censored, but having the option of reading the censored version might be more comfortable for some people. Or if there are parents or teachers who want younger kids reading the story but don't want them reading that language I think this is a good option to have. It shouldn't be used as a way to avoid talking about race and racist language though.
Samantha wrote: "I can understand why they did this. It's not like every version of Huck Finn from now on will be censored, but having the option of reading the censored version might be more comfortable for some p..."Samantha- I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that a lot of people are going overboard about this because it is just one edition, and of course, there will still be many copies of the original version available. However, I still cannot agree with it. You say that it shouldn't be used to avoid talking about racist language, but I feel that that is exactly what it is doing. By using "less offensive" material, we are losing that teachable moment to discuss with readers about the historical context and about race relations during that time. Also, this is Twain's work. What gives someone else the right to change it? I think this is just one more way of trying to shelter kids from things they really don't need to be sheltered from.
Samantha wrote: "I can understand why they did this. It's not like every version of Huck Finn from now on will be censored, but having the option of reading the censored version might be more comfortable for some p..."History does not go away because it makes people uncomfortable. No matter what you do, you cannot erase the past. Should every topic that's uncomfortable be ignored and skipped over? Then you're going to skip over a lot of violence, rape, and other world problems. The only way to learn from our past is to study it. Kids need to learn that this is what went on in the past - everything wasn't all roses and chocolate.
I agree with Jenna. Who gives them the right to change what Twain wrote? It doesn't matter if they don't like it. Don't like it? Don't read it. These people couldn't ever hope to write something like Twain, so what gives them the right to modify his work? Twain wrote his book a certain way for a reason, why should be change that?
Personally, I don't think the word should be edited. The reason to edit a book would be if it were unintelligible as is. I've seen portions of Canterbury Tales in the original but I couldn't read it that way. Think translation. I wouldn't edit a work because a word is offensive. Do we routinely remove f-bombs from books? The language in the books speaks to the culture it was written in. You lose some of that when you change the language.Also just my opinion- I'm white and all but I really can't see any racial slur as THAT offensive. Now, I'm female and I have a particular aversion to the word c*nt. So maybe I can understand somewhat. But I think I could put up with it in a book in a class... I mean I may not like the word but it does it's place in the English language. My sensibilities won't change that.
Irene wrote: Personally, I don't think the word should be edited. The reason to edit a book would be if it were unintelligible as is. I've seen portions of Canterbury Tales in the original but I couldn't read it that way.What if someone were to argue, though, that you simply need to study a little bit harder to be able to read the Canterbury Tales?
And what if someone argued that you needed to study a little bit harder in order to be able to get past the initial offensiveness and repulsiveness of the N-word in Huck Finn?
Huck Finn as it is provides black people with the enormous and unenviable task of empathizing with and understanding those who systematically mistreated, used, and abused people like themselves; it provides white people with the shameful realization that people like themselves treated black people in the ostensibly inhuman way they did; it ultimately provides a dialogue between black and white people who live together in an age which, while desperately espousing humanism, is painfully conscious of a past filled with twisted race relations.
Everyone needs to be open to this dialogue and willing to exert themselves for it, however, in order for it to work; in order for Huck Finn to be effective.
And I think that deep down the people who wish to implement this change are pessimistic about such a dialogue and its potential, which is really very sad when you think about it. Those in charge of educating us should lead the dialogue, and they should be strong and full of energy to take on the task.
Conceding and offering a diluted alternative just sends the message that, as a people, we're not truly ready after all to take on this dialogue.
No matter how offense a word may appear to us, education and thinking can, will, and should ameliorate its impact, just like education should make intelligible the unintelligible.
Coming back to you, Irene, I absolutely believe that great works that have become unintelligible should be updated so that their meaning is saved. But in the case of Huck Finn I don't think it is about the explicit meaning (and people's ability to understand it) as much as it is about how we treat its still-thorny subject.
So I return to my previous point and say that changing the word does not hide the dialogue it is (I daresay supposed to) invoke in us and amongst us, but rather admits defeat in a desperate sidestep.
Why would they censor this book when there are other books that use the same word, and when other words start offending people what will they do. This reminds me of a book called Fahrenheit 451 by ray bradbury
well mm if I did study harder, I probably could read Canterbury tales as it was written but in a school setting time is limited.Dino has a good point. Why some books and not others? I don't know the answer.
While technically, I'm against changing the word, just how big of a deal is it anyway? I mean it really doesn't change the story. How many times was this word used? If they changed a word five times- big deal. If they changed a word fifty times, I don't see that as a problem either. Five hundred times and maybe that would have a bigger impact.
If they have to change too much of the book maybe schools should think about using a different book in their curriculum. I don't see that book as that important- Get another one.
Or just change the word and footnote it so that people are kept aware of what the original word was.
I argue for keeping the word in and just not making that big a deal out of it. Tempest in a teapot. But the very same argument can be used for changing the word. If it isn't that big a deal, then it isn't that big a deal. Again, how much of the content of the book is being changed anyway?
From what I've been hearing they decided to make a new censored edition because a lot of schools have banned the books because of the 'n' word. I don't mind, and I think it's great because it'll get the book on many bookshelves in schools across America. And, as someone above me mentioned, there are many other editions so I don't see the problem.
Hm, you guys definitely make good points and after reading some other posts on this topic I'm thinking maybe it's not the best idea. I dunno, it's obviously a tough subject to handle.
This actually makes me really sad. All in the name of political correctness. The book is not advocating the use of the word. In fact, it is very much against the racism of the time and a great example of how literature can be used to make a statement about society and potentially change it. That is how people talked at the time and it is important to accurately convey that. I suppose if it gets the book around the ban, that's one decent reason. But the ban shouldn't be there in the first place.
Nicole wrote: "This actually makes me really sad. All in the name of political correctness. The book is not advocating the use of the word. In fact, it is very much against the racism of the time and a great exam..."Nicole- I love that you stated that the ban shouldn't be there in the first place. I agree completely. You mention how others are saying that the reason for this edition is to make it more accessible to schools that won't allow it in the classrooms because of the word choice. Well, I think that instead of appeasing these people by giving them a new edition, we should fight their choice to ban it in the first place.
Sashana wrote: "From what I've been hearing they decided to make a new censored edition because a lot of schools have banned the books because of the 'n' word. I don't mind, and I think it's great because it'll ge..."Should we change books just because some people think they should be banned or don't agree with their content? Should we change Harry Potter so that he's not a wizard because the Christian church is pushing to have it banned because of the wizardry? Should Twilight be edited to remove vampires?
I like what Neil Gaiman said about it on his Twitter:"People asking about http://wapo.st/eRHo6W. It's public domain, so you can make Huck a Klingon if you want, but it's not Mark Twain's book."
That's pretty much how I feel about it, too.
And the idea of Huck as a Klingon makes me laugh. Related, a #KlingonHuck tag has emerged...
Cue Mark Twain rolling over in his grave...nowHas anyone read his autobiography that recently came out? It's interesting that this "expert" decides to change his work when he clearly states in his autobiography how much he hates editorial changes to his work, especially when they replace a word with another that loses the original underlying meanings. Mark Twain loved language, especially finding words that explicitly evoked his "between-the-lines" meaning.
Well think of it like this they censor one book they'll start to censor more books because religions, ethnic groups, or other groups will start complaining and it will make it harder to get published.
Ralph wrote: "Sashana wrote: "From what I've been hearing they decided to make a new censored edition because a lot of schools have banned the books because of the 'n' word. I don't mind, and I think it's great ..."Whoah! You obviously misinterpreted what I said. No, I do not think it is okay from someone to censor books or even ban them- especially in this day and age. But, since many schools across America are banning the book this edition will get HuckFinn on many more bookshelves. There are many editions of this book out there and there have been no protest-so what's the big deal? No one is forcing anyone to buy this edition. I'm a senior and I attend a very diverse high school and I would be very uncomfortable to read this book in class with my white friends saying 'nigga' in every other sentence. So yes, I can see why some school boards and parents are a bit jumpy. Please don't get rude or sarcastic with me because we share opposing views.
I agree that reading it aloud repeatedly in the classroom could be a bit uncomfortable and I think it is important for teachers to be very careful in how they plan classroom discussion when talking about the book. Bring it up at the beginning and get all of the information out there and then try to limit the use of the word as much as possible from there.
I can't believe that they're doing this. Under no circumstances should you edit / censor someone else's work.I understand that it's uncomfortable word - it's awful, and I hate reading it myself. But that's part of the lesson of these books I think. You can't avoid something just because it's uncomfortable. It's a word that has a lot of power and meaning behind it, and it's important to understand the implications of it.
And schools shouldn't be banning the book because of the word. I understand that they're trying to avoid offending anyone, and trying to avoid sticky classroom discussions, but that's what school is for. If these kids can't learn how to discuss a difficult issue like this with respect and maturity in school, where can they?
Also, I think there are other classic books used in classrooms, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, that use that word. Are just going to stop reading any classic that deals with race and has that word in it?
Sarah wrote: "I can't believe that they're doing this. Under no circumstances should you edit / censor someone else's work.I understand that it's uncomfortable word - it's awful, and I hate reading it myself..."
Exactly. Editing/censoring someone elses work is just awful. Personally, I think that everyone is just too politically correct these days. It's not like when a kid reads Huck Finn, they'll see the "n" word for the first time and then automatically start calling every black person that.
Ralph wrote: "Sashana wrote: "From what I've been hearing they decided to make a new censored edition because a lot of schools have banned the books because of the 'n' word. I don't mind, and I think it's great ..."Twilight should be edited to not exist.
I have a story, but I promise there's a point to it. Indulge me.My great-grandmother passed away Nov. 2010 at 99 yrs old. This is one of the memories I have of her while visiting her in MS in Spring '08.
She grew up and then raised her children on a cotton farm. Both my grandparents would have to come home from school early so they could pick enough cotton to fill up their bag before dinner. So they are obviously country people. I mean really Southern country people.
This time when I went to visit her, she, my grandparents, and her daughter and son-in-law who she lived with were all watching the presidential debates. My grandparents are Democrat, her daughter and s-i-l are Republican. Since they are sr citizens, they can vote early in MS and did while we were there. The entire day, my great-grandmother harrassed them trying to find out who they voted for. When she got frustrated, she tried to get my grandparents to find out who they voted for and late that evening, she recruited me for the same purpose. But she still didn't get an answer. So before going to bed, she got frustrated and said, "I bet they voted for McCain. I'm gonna vote for that young nigger gentleman and cancel out their vote."
Point being: CONTEXT!!! The fact that an actual word is being used does not matter as much as how that word is used. Its been several years since I read Huck Finn and I don't have a copy on me now {it's at home :(} but one of the lines I remember from the book, I'll have to look up the exact phrase later but when Huck and Jim are on the raft along the Mississippi River, Huck says something to the effect of him realizing that Jim was 'a pretty decent fellow for a nigger.' To me, that epitomized the meaning of the book. This is my long argument for why context is more important than the actual word and why Huck Finn, or any other piece of classic lit, should not be censored.
I don't believe that I am really in a position to judge the decision to remove the 'n word' from Huck Finn because I agree with Steven when he says as an African American student, I don't know how comfortable I would be with reading the term, other students reading the term, and actually discussing the term-- especially in a region like the one I went to high school in where it is predominantly white. However, as a lover of literature and phobic of change, I would like if they didn't change it. I believe that it becomes an issue of censorship and in my book (no pun intended) that's just wrong. In my opinion, Poppa Twain is rollin' in his grave right now!
"Should we change Harry Potter so that he's not a wizard because the Christian church is pushing to have it banned because of the wizardry?"Careful there. It's not the "Christian Church" that is having it banned, I'm Christian and my church didn't call for it to be banned. BUT there are also cases like Laura Mallory, google her sometime. Crazy lady.
Found another great article about this. I brought up this story in my American Lit class, apparently I caught my professors interest because he sent an email out the next day with a link to an article asking us to read it so we could discuss it the next day.
Here is the link!
I dislike the censorship move because language is something that changes over time. We can't push today's definitions on yesterday's texts. There are times when Negro, Colored, Black, African American, Negar (and various spellings culminating in today's "N" word and slang variants), were all considered the "acceptable" form. They weren't necessarily positive connotations, but even the "n" word wasn't always derogatory and was used to denote someone of dark skin or mixed-race. I know that some people would feel uncomfortable with it today. I understand that. But also, understanding the English language in the context of history is important. That's why we have history, so we can learn from it. If I remember from my literature classes correctly, it was during the 1800s that it started getting the pejorative connotation and the early 1900s that it became completely taboo, but even as late as the late 1800s, people were still using it without a racist slant.
Now I'm rambling, but my view is that understanding the history and context is important.
I think it's awful. Even though Huck Finn wasn't my favorite book, I don't think anyone has the right to censor it. It's a historical piece and should be left as is.