New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' loses the N-word
 
Page:  1 2 >

01/04/11 6:58 PM

[content.usatoday.com]

In a bid for more readers and classroom acceptance, a new edition of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is giving the Mark Twain classic a slight but significant makeover, Publishers Weekly reports. Gone is the N-word.

The word (which this newspaper does not print) appears 219 times. In its place, Twain scholar Alan Gribben of Auburn University is substituting "slave." He's also doing away with a slang term for Indians in the forthcoming edition from NewSouth Books.

"After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach this novel, and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore," he told PW. "In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable."

Gribben said that he grew up never hearing the N-word and that while reading the novel aloud during his 20 years of teaching he replaced it with "slave."

Naturally, the news is being greeted with cries of "political correctness" and "censorship." Others say it's bad scholarship.

Legal blogger Jonathan Turley calls the editorial decision an "offense against the original work."

The editing of a classic raises very troubling questions from the right of an author to have his works remain unchanged to the integrity of literary and historical works. Like all great works, the book must be read with an understanding of the mores and lexicon of its time.

To Right Pundits, "One of the great novels of all time is about to be neutered" for "today's politically correct, racially sensitive culture."

Removing the n'word from Huckleberry Finn will instantly remove much of what makes the novel so great. It may remove the very essence of the story. Huck Finn learns throughout the book that most of what he's been taught about blacks is not correct. He also learns that Jim, his friend and companion who happens to be black, is a man worthy of respect and admiration. He learns he's not at all like those with prejudices towards blacks have made him out to be.

 

01/04/11 7:00 PM

I agree that it's stupid to remove the word.

 

01/04/11 7:34 PM

One of the finest examples of American literature to be censored? I'm appalled.



So, Nigger Jim is out. What's next? Changing the character in Tom Sawyer to Native American Joe?

Meanwhile, a Republican congressman from Iowa has no problem discussing the abortion issue with kindergartners. [www.huffingtonpost.com]

This country has lost its collective mind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2011 07:40PM by PeedroPaula.

 

01/04/11 7:57 PM

RhettButler posted:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/01/new-edition-of-huck-finn-loses-the-n-word/1

In a bid for more readers and classroom acceptance, a new edition of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is giving the Mark Twain classic a slight but significant makeover, Publishers Weekly reports. Gone is the N-word.

The word (which this newspaper does not print) appears 219 times. In its place, Twain scholar Alan Gribben of Auburn University is substituting "slave." He's also doing away with a slang term for Indians in the forthcoming edition from NewSouth Books.

"After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach this novel, and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore," he told PW. "In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable."

Gribben said that he grew up never hearing the N-word and that while reading the novel aloud during his 20 years of teaching he replaced it with "slave."

Naturally, the news is being greeted with cries of "political correctness" and "censorship." Others say it's bad scholarship.

Legal blogger Jonathan Turley calls the editorial decision an "offense against the original work."

The editing of a classic raises very troubling questions from the right of an author to have his works remain unchanged to the integrity of literary and historical works. Like all great works, the book must be read with an understanding of the mores and lexicon of its time.

To Right Pundits, "One of the great novels of all time is about to be neutered" for "today's politically correct, racially sensitive culture."

Removing the n'word from Huckleberry Finn will instantly remove much of what makes the novel so great. It may remove the very essence of the story. Huck Finn learns throughout the book that most of what he's been taught about blacks is not correct. He also learns that Jim, his friend and companion who happens to be black, is a man worthy of respect and admiration. He learns he's not at all like those with prejudices towards blacks have made him out to be.

This shit has been going on for too long. Censoring Twain? Really? Is this to suggest the greatest American author - and perhaps the greatest American - who ever lived made a fucking mistake putting the word "nigger" in that book?

Give me a fucking break.

This would be a great country if it weren't for all the fucking stupid people living in it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 12:07AM by Riktor.

 

01/04/11 8:14 PM

Even though I greatly oppose of the word, I don't think we need to be re-writing classical works from brilliant writers.

 

01/04/11 9:22 PM

How the fuck is this going to help kids in the classroom if they never see examples of historical context in fiction?

 

01/04/11 9:28 PM

Actually, I think they should remove that word. I mean, if they do, then people won't be racist anymore. Never mind that:

Removing the n'word from Huckleberry Finn will instantly remove much of what makes the novel so great. It may remove the very essence of the story. Huck Finn learns throughout the book that most of what he's been taught about blacks is not correct. He also learns that Jim, his friend and companion who happens to be black, is a man worthy of respect and admiration. He learns he's not at all like those with prejudices towards blacks have made him out to be.

 

01/04/11 9:32 PM

Well, hell, we're already rewriting history. Why not rewrite everything? Terrific idea. eye rolling smiley

 

01/05/11 5:00 AM

Political correctness gone too far. I wonder how Mr. Mark Twain would feel if he knew that "they" were re-writing his classic work (that's what it amounts to). The book should be left as it is, it's how the world was back then, it should not be tampered with.

Here's something that I thought was a bit funny: I was watching "To Sir With Love" today, and in one scene on the blackboard behind Sidney Poitier was written "Mark Twain" and a list of some of his books. Unfortunately, "Huckleberry Finn" was not among the book titles.

[quote RhettButler]
Removing the n'word from Huckleberry Finn will instantly remove much of what makes the novel so great. It may remove the very essence of the story. Huck Finn learns throughout the book that most of what he's been taught about blacks is not correct. He also learns that Jim, his friend and companion who happens to be black, is a man worthy of respect and admiration. He learns he's not at all like those with prejudices towards blacks have made him out to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 04:08AM by Joan Cootes.

 

01/05/11 8:01 AM

Next we'll be painting bikinis and loin cloths on nudes.

 

01/05/11 11:19 AM

Reminds me of the sentiment in Angels and Demons, during a discussion of the hammer-and-chisel 'Great Castration' of nude statues by Pope Pius IX in 1857 so no one would see the male parts of the statues:

"Are you anti-Catholic, Professor Langdon?"
"No, I'm anti-vandalism."

If you want to not teach the book because you can't do a good enough job placing the words on the page in historical context, or feel it isn't significant any more, that's one thing. Educate our children about it or don't teach it, but don't go vandalizing our books or removing them from our libraries.

 

01/05/11 1:07 PM

When did people abandon honesty and maturity with children in favor of treating them like they're stupid? If you don't expect students to be able to think critically and make decisions, they won't. If you treat them like young adults without being condescending, they'll often surprise you.

 

01/05/11 1:52 PM

Imaginary_Kevin posted:
When did people abandon honesty and maturity with children in favor of treating them like they're stupid? If you don't expect students to be able to think critically and make decisions, they won't. If you treat them like young adults without being condescending, they'll often surprise you.

I dunno about you but I graduated from the public school system in 2007, so I like to think I at least kind of still am relevent here.

No they fucking won't. Kids are fucking retarded.

 

01/05/11 2:24 PM

OnslaughtSix posted:
Imaginary_Kevin posted:
When did people abandon honesty and maturity with children in favor of treating them like they're stupid? If you don't expect students to be able to think critically and make decisions, they won't. If you treat them like young adults without being condescending, they'll often surprise you.

I dunno about you but I graduated from the public school system in 2007, so I like to think I at least kind of still am relevent here.

No they fucking won't. Kids are fucking retarded.

You only graduated a year before I did, so I'd say we're both relevant.

I'd have to agree that a lot of kids are fucking stupid, or totally apathetic about their education. However, I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that teachers treat them like fucking stupid kids - not just in terms of intellect, but also when dealing with morality. When we censor words and ideas from people because we don't think people can handle them, it ensures that people won't know how to handle them in a mature manner.

 

01/05/11 2:34 PM

Not all kids are retarded. My kids graduated in 2007 and 2008, so I have relevant and current experience with kids and they can think critically.

It's not right to re-write history that was written through Mark Twains eyes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 02:37PM by OMS.

 

01/05/11 4:38 PM

I'm with Lisa on this one. This is rewriting history in a way and could set a very dangerous precedent. Books reflect their times. They reflect their cultures. They are also a reflection of the authors who wrote them. There's a reason Mark Twain chose the language he did for his works. And he would be horrified if he saw what some are doing to his works 100 years after his death.

 

01/05/11 3:50 PM

Thanks Leo.

As one person (from the news coverage that I've been watching) put it, it's like erasing an identity and it's an example of how the world has changed. We've gone from "n****r to Mr. President".

Sadly, that was our culture back then. There's even an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" where they used the N-word...and that was filmed in the late 70's to early 80's...but that was the "culture" back then. I bet no one would ever censor "Roots"...I haven't watched it in forever and I've never read the book, but I'm sure the word is there too.

 

01/06/11 4:51 AM

leo3375, that's pretty much what I was trying to say a few posts back.

 

01/06/11 9:12 PM

Roger Ebert Gets In Trouble Over Huck Finn Tweet

Lots of fuss over literature this week.

Roger Ebert had to backpedal on his Twitter today after a controversial remark landed him in trouble with some of his followers.

Roger took a moment to comment on the newly announced reprinting of Mark Twain's classic tale, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

The film critic responded to the controversy about the N-word being censored in the book, by tweeting, "I'd rather be called a N—- than a slave."

The backlash was swift and soon, hundreds of people flooded Twitter with comments, insisting Roger didn't have the right to use such a phrase because he has and will never be labeled that in his life. Seeing the error of his ways, perhaps with some help from his African-American wife Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert, Roger followed up his comment with this:

"I'll never be called a N—– *or* a Slave, So I should have shut the **** up."

Or just use steer clear of all derogatory phrases, you know, just on principle. We know he didn't mean any harm by it, but some words have the power to do a lot of damage to a lot of people. We trust he sees that now.

 

01/07/11 1:09 AM

Can't wait 'til Slavey Tardust's last album gets updated so that it's safe to listen to again.

 

01/07/11 4:12 AM

^^ HAHAHA!!!! very funny... but seriously, where does the "political correctness" end??? Do "we" keep re-writing history/novels/songs/whatever???? Could you imagine if everything was re-written?? What would the school children be learning then???

 

01/07/11 6:10 AM

I think to be honest. The fact that things like this have to be censored actually shows that the world which has supposedly moved on from racism, really hasn't. We should be at a point where we can let things like this exist in the past and still look at them as a product of the past which we can learn never to repeat. Move on from it properly by accepting that it has happened (in some places still happening) and deal with it properly. I wouldn't want them to not teach the horrors of what my country Britain did to the rest of the world in it's imperialist age.

What are they going to do next, claim the Jewish holocaust never happened?

 

01/07/11 6:53 PM

Who's next? Faulkner?

There has always been a double standard anyway.
When the N word is spoken by an African-American, no one says anything.
When it's said by someone who's white, then peopel call it racism.
There's something wrong with that.
You can still hear it constantly in many rap and hip hop songs.

 

08/18/11 2:17 PM

Bump.

Sorta related to the topic...

My son is reading To Kill A Mockingbird for his 9th grade Pre-AP English class, which I've never read nor have I seen the movie (which he also needs to watch). He just came to me and asked what time period is the book written because it has the words "nigger", "negro" and "colored".

I knew the movie was made in 1962 and just found out the book was written in 1960 and is set in 1930's.

That being said, where is the outrage to change the wording of this book, which is mandatory reading (at least for my school district)?

 

08/19/11 5:44 AM

Churchy posted:
I think to be honest. The fact that things like this have to be censored actually shows that the world which has supposedly moved on from racism, really hasn't. We should be at a point where we can let things like this exist in the past and still look at them as a product of the past which we can learn never to repeat. Move on from it properly by accepting that it has happened (in some places still happening) and deal with it properly. I wouldn't want them to not teach the horrors of what my country Britain did to the rest of the world in it's imperialist age.

What are they going to do next, claim the Jewish holocaust never happened?

It wasn't a Jewish holocaust, it was an anyone who doesn't fit the Nazis ideal of the 'aryan race' holocaust.

 

08/19/11 3:50 PM

I love SWA's Straight Out of an Ethnically Rich, Yet Financially Burdened Community.

 

08/25/11 3:39 AM

Absolute crap.. how the hell can any one group just 'decide' that they have the right and the power to edit one of the better books ever written.. Thankfully the real thing will still exist somewhere.. but then it will become some kind of 'crime' to show a kid the original text.. corrupting young minds and all that..

 

08/30/11 6:11 AM

OMS posted:
Bump.

Sorta related to the topic...

My son is reading To Kill A Mockingbird for his 9th grade Pre-AP English class, which I've never read nor have I seen the movie (which he also needs to watch). He just came to me and asked what time period is the book written because it has the words "nigger", "negro" and "colored".

I knew the movie was made in 1962 and just found out the book was written in 1960 and is set in 1930's.

That being said, where is the outrage to change the wording of this book, which is mandatory reading (at least for my school district)?

I agree

 

08/30/11 6:13 AM

objectivedrone1 posted:
OMS posted:
Bump.

Sorta related to the topic...

My son is reading To Kill A Mockingbird for his 9th grade Pre-AP English class, which I've never read nor have I seen the movie (which he also needs to watch). He just came to me and asked what time period is the book written because it has the words "nigger", "negro" and "colored".

I knew the movie was made in 1962 and just found out the book was written in 1960 and is set in 1930's.

That being said, where is the outrage to change the wording of this book, which is mandatory reading (at least for my school district)?

I agree

I agree

 

08/30/11 6:14 AM

objectivedrone2 posted:
objectivedrone1 posted:
OMS posted:
Bump.

Sorta related to the topic...

My son is reading To Kill A Mockingbird for his 9th grade Pre-AP English class, which I've never read nor have I seen the movie (which he also needs to watch). He just came to me and asked what time period is the book written because it has the words "nigger", "negro" and "colored".

I knew the movie was made in 1962 and just found out the book was written in 1960 and is set in 1930's.

That being said, where is the outrage to change the wording of this book, which is mandatory reading (at least for my school district)?

I agree

I agree

I also agree

 
nin forums : Current Events & Politics : New edition of 'Huckleberry...
Page:  1 2 >
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum. Please log in at the top of the page.
 
terms of use | privacy policy