http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckle...rd-censor-edit/

 

We had a great discussion in my class when this was shown on channelone.com news

I would say no. You don't edit a work that is a literary classic, plus it provides perspective on where we were and where we are today as a society.

 

Should we update all the shakespeare's works so the words match the current english language?

This thread is going to wind up in the Filibuster. Yell at me if you want, it's being moved.

This reminds me of people wanting to cover the genitals of nude art pieces.

 

 

EDIT: But then again, if the bible can be edited and manipulated a million times then why not Huck Finn?

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

I would say no. You don't edit a work that is a literary classic, plus it provides perspective on where we were and where we are today as a society.

 

Should we update all the shakespeare's works so the words match the current english language?

I'll start off with the publisher's perspective on it.

 

Schools at this point are flat-out not including the book in their curricula now because of the 200+ uses of the N-word.

 

You can complain about political correctness here and you probably will, but like it or not...there is every reason to believe that having a mandatory assignment forcing people to read that book will provoke problems. And frankly, I'm not sure that the people complaining wouldn't have a point.

 

The issue in many cases now is "do we read the book at all". This edit gives schools a chance to at least consider keeping it as part of their curricula.

I'll start off with the publisher's perspective on it.

 

Schools at this point are flat-out not including the book in their curricula now because of the 200+ uses of the N-word.

 

You can complain about political correctness here and you probably will, but like it or not...there is every reason to believe that having a mandatory assignment forcing people to read that book will provoke problems. And frankly, I'm not sure that the people complaining wouldn't have a point.

 

The issue in many cases now is "do we read the book at all". This edit gives schools a chance to at least consider keeping it as part of their curricula.

 

Then fix the retarded politically correct school thinking. This book is a classic. It should be used as a teaching point. Kids should read the book and ask why that word is used.

 

This country is sometimes so backasswards about this stuff. You can't learn from your mistakes by erasing them from your memory as if they never happened.

Then fix the retarded politically correct school thinking.

 

This sentence is a classic.

The people complaining don't have a point. The word is used by Twain for a very specific reason, and changing it to "slave" changes the impact of his writing and what his intention was. If it provokes problems, then it's problems with people who can't handle any challenging literature. This edit gives schools a chance to choose between what Twain wrote and a stripped-down version.

 

That said, they're only planning on publishing a few thousand copies. It's all just a big publicity stunt.

I don't really understand the point of this. Mark Twain's books are classics, and they were also something like social satire for the time. Why change it? American society was not a pretty place back then.

 

Mostly, over time in US History a great deal of effort is made to teach everything that happened like it was peaches and roses, and America was always a great place where nothing bad ever happened, all of its leaders and influential figures were good wholesome people with noble intentions, and there were no hard times. Of course this is bulls***, but people end up having a delusional, inaccurate picture of what America was really like 50, 100, 200 years ago.

Its like reading the U.S. Constitution without the parts about a slave being 3/5 of a person or a woman not being able to vote... wait a minute.

Its like reading the U.S. Constitution without the parts about a slave being 3/5 of a person or a woman not being able to vote... wait a minute.

Nicely done.

This country is sometimes so backasswards about this stuff. You can't learn from your mistakes by erasing them from your memory as if they never happened.

I was waiting for this one. It's really a nice connection.

Republicans, intending to make a big symbolic show of their reading of the Constitution, have now taken a similarly sanitized approach to our founding document. Yesterday they announced that they will be leaving out the superceded text in their reading of the Constitution on the House floor this morning, avoiding the awkwardness of having to read aloud the "three fifths compromise," which counted slaves as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and apportionment.

Its like reading the U.S. Constitution without the parts about a slave being 3/5 of a person or a woman not being able to vote... wait a minute.

Ack, you beat me to it!

This sentence is a classic.

 

yeah, i figured some of you would jump on that.

Then fix the retarded politically correct school thinking. This book is a classic. It should be used as a teaching point. Kids should read the book and ask why that word is used.

 

This country is sometimes so backasswards about this stuff. You can't learn from your mistakes by erasing them from your memory as if they never happened.

Co-sign this. It's not just with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, it's the decades-long trend I started writing about above, where textbook publishers (at the demands of state departments of education) make photoshopped versions of history. What lesson is to be learned from all this? The circular logic that anything America ever does is inherently good and pure, and can never be questioned? Really that's not how the country evolved, at any given time there's been a conscience correcting things as we go. Civil Rights era, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

Ack, you beat me to it!

 

If we poke fun at the stupid Republicans that means we win the argument!

 

Does this circle jerk ever get tiring for you guys?

I would say no. You don't edit a work that is a literary classic, plus it provides perspective on where we were and where we are today as a society.

 

FWIW, n***** Jim is probably the most positive character in the book, and Twain's use was intentional. Twain was an outspoken critic of racism and imperialism and a proponent of civil rights throughout his writings, particularly in "To the Person Sitting in Darkness".

Co-sign this. It's not just with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, it's the decades-long trend I started writing about above, where textbook publishers (at the demands of state departments of education) make photoshopped versions of history. What lesson is to be learned from all this? The circular logic that anything America ever does is inherently good and pure, and can never be questioned? Really that's not how the country evolved, at any given time there's been a conscience correcting things as we go. Civil Rights era, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

 

It also results in hero worship of the past as some sort of golden age.

It also results in hero worship of the past as some sort of golden age.

"Take our country back"

If we poke fun at the stupid Republicans that means we win the argument!

 

Does this circle jerk ever get tiring for you guys?

 

I'd say a good 1/3 of this sub-board is humor and satire, and it was a good and timely fit. Twain shouldn't be censored, and neither should the Constitution. White-washing history and white-washing reality does not serve a useful purpose in the long run.

It also results in hero worship of the past as some sort of golden age.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, and pretty soon here Ronald Reagan (he is kind of a special case because there is a whole industry dedicated to rehabbing his image and trying to erase anything negative about it) pretty much have the not-so-good aspects of themselves more or less whitewashed for all intents and purposes.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, and pretty soon here Ronald Reagan (he is kind of a special case because there is a whole industry dedicated to rehabbing his image and trying to erase anything negative about it) pretty much have the not-so-good aspects of themselves more or less whitewashed for all intents and purposes.

 

Pretty much, except the right will always treat FDR as the socialist devil that he was, and the left will always treat Reagan as the right-wing corporate handout and contra-funding jerk that he was.

I'd say a good 1/3 of this sub-board is humor and satire, and it was a good and timely fit. Twain shouldn't be censored, and neither should the Constitution. White-washing history and white-washing reality does not serve a useful purpose in the long run.

Let me ask this in reply...(i may lose this argument in everyone's eyes but I'm going down fighting).../

 

Is there any situation where a parent (pick their race) would be justified in not wanting their child reading this book based solely on the language?

Let me ask this in reply...(i may lose this argument in everyone's eyes but I'm going down fighting).../

 

Is there any situation where a parent (pick their race) would be justified in not wanting their child reading this book based solely on the language?

 

Justified? Not IMO.

I don't see how those words add value to the book. While the inclusion of the words might provoke conversation between the student and parents, chances are, it won't. An edited version of the book would be just fine with me if that's what my kids were reading. I don't love the political correctness, but school is so much different today than when I was a kid. The administration probably doesn't want to get sued by some crazy parent who objects to the words their kids are being exposed to in the book.