The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Great book. I first read it about forty years ago, just after I'd read about his mucker Tom Sawyer, another great literary work.

So what's the problem?

Some dolt has decided that the word 'nigger' should be replaced with the word slave. I think we all know why.

Relativism at it's worst. The whole point of the book is that Finn, who is a racist, in a racists state discovers enlightenment. It's like trying to re-write the New Testament and leaving out the word Christ.

So, should we leave writings from over a hundred years ago alone and see them in the context of when they were written or, like the Ministry of Truth, re-write them to suit modern sensibilities?

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell

Of course we shouldn't change anything.

And I love how you quote socialists

Old Eric foresaw the problems with runaway socialism, so he's ok with me.

Socialism?

This is like the Parental Advisory beeps the yanks put in their gangstah rap songs. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put consvative, christian housewives in the socialist category...

Reference to drugs in a song? Blank it out. Nigger? Blank it out.

A song called Russian Roulette by Rhianna where at the end we hear a gunshot and a body falling to the floor? Perfectly fine (BTW, I really like that song).

They censured Shakespeare didn't they?

" Art made tongue-tied by authority. "

-William Shakespeare, Sonnet 66

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Old Eric foresaw the problems with runaway socialism authoritarianism, so he's ok with me.

fixed.

Eric was so left wing he joined the damn POUM (anarchist) militia in Spain. He was anti totalitarian and staunchly a lefty on economic and social policy.

Pathetic Yanks.

Bunch of sad little Rosbifs.

A-cultured Anglosaxons.

Books are re-translated all of the time. They must be, because the language becomes incomprehensible as time passes. Shakespeare is unreadable, Chaucer might as well have been Icelandic.

The connotations of words change. Their register changes. Etc. The polite words 'negro' or 'coloured' of only a few decades ago are pejorative now. One would have to re-translate the respectful 'coloured' of the civil rights movement into the closest modern equivalent of 'Black', or run the risk of making the user of the word sound like those he opossed, a social conservatist.

'Nigger' in Mark Twain's era was offensive. There was more social acceptance of the word back then, but it was nevertheless considered an offensive word. One would not have to re-translate it into a modern equivalent. A conclusion which has the nasty side effect of rendering everything I've written thus far in this post moot and pointless. Which in turn serves me right for not thinking ahead when posting.

Twain deliberatly tries to capture the speech of particular regions in particular eras, down to class, race and gender. It would be a shame if this artistic quality of his work would be lost in a re-translation. Especially when so much is easily understood by the reader, or, if not, has the even bigger benefit of teaching the reader the history of the age.

Still I would not oppose the swapping of the n-word with something slightly less offensive for educational purposes, or even for popular editions. If twelve year olds are confronted with the n-word in the classroom, it will dominate thought and discussion so much that more is lost than gained. Also, should one want to confront a twelve year old black kid with it in the first place? The offensive descriptions in the post above - as those persevering with my ramblings find out here - serve a literary and rhetoric purpose: to serve as an example. To show that one may rationally realise full well they serve a literary purpose, but the confrontation with them still makes one uncomfortable

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~~

I am decidedly bored by these manichean left-right worldviews dominating so many threads. 'It's bad, so it belongs to 'the other camp''.

Yawn...

We do get ourselves in such a muddle about what to call... erm... people who we'd do a sickle cell blood test on.

White, whitey, European, Caucasian are all fine for my skin colour.I've never been to the Caucasus but that doesn't appear to matter.

But black, nigger, coloured, African? Not only does it depend on the era one is in, but also one's own race (black people can use nigger of course...)

Then there's the lot in the middle. The half-cast, oh sorry mixed race. Whoops MEO - multiethnic origin. And how pale before one stops being black and becomes MEO? And how pale before a MEO becomes white?

Nigger is offensive, but the others it seems that one has to be careful as there is something wrong with being of darker skin.

Disclaimer: my WIFE is mixed race. Except she says she's black. How you can have Spanish and Chinese ancestry as well as African and not be mixed race beats me. My son is mixed race for obvious reasons except he appears "white" - easily paler than those from the South of Europe.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I am decidedly bored by these manichean left-right worldviews dominating so many threads. 'It's bad, so it belongs to 'the other camp''.

Yawn...

Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo.

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.

So, should we leave writings from over a hundred years ago alone and see them in the context of when they were written or, like the Ministry of Truth, re-write them to suit modern sensibilities?

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell

Hyperbole much? Few things grate on me as much as the use of 1984 to protest against teeny weeny insignificant issues like this, or speed cameras or whatever. Orwell's Oceania was the perfect expression of the sheer malevolence of the totalitarian state, and should never ever be used to describe nothing else other that, except maybe the perfect cup of tea.

Originally Posted by alh_p

Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo.

Originally Posted by Subotan

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.

Hyperbole much? Few things grate on me as much as the use of 1984 to protest against teeny weeny insignificant issues like this, or speed cameras or whatever. Orwell's Oceania was the perfect expression of the sheer malevolence of the totalitarian state, and should never ever be used to describe nothing else other that, except maybe the perfect cup of tea.

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.

Originally Posted by alh_p

Old Eric foresaw the problems with runaway socialism authoritarianism, so he's ok with me.

fixed.

Noooo, you didn't fix it! It's a very important point that runaway ideologies become authoritarian. I like capitalism and egalitarianism, but I should admit that the runaway versions of them are bad...WITHOUT trying to rebrand them.

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

What happens when you imagine it?

if they think it is damaging to children...then just take it off the school curriculum...... and even that is a dumb idea.
changing a book to make it PC is a travesty.

I think some of you are missing the point. The word was offensive then, and is offensive now. But Mark Twain did this deliberately to highlight the character of Jim against the rest of the white trash in the book. IA is right, this is a whitewashing of a critically satirical book. By removing the n-word, the publisher is attempting to clean up the past.

The word has nothing to do with Twain, it has everything to do with the story and point he is trying to get across. No point in teaching the book if it gets neutered, which may very well be the end-goal of the publisher.

I hear they are also taking out "Injun" as well. Someone on Slashdot said it best, there isn't an editor alive qualified to touch Samuel Clemens' work.

Originally Posted by Slyspy

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.

i agree with you, but the problem was that this seminal piece of literary work was not being taught in schools precisely because teachers were uncomfortable reading it in a classroom in the 21st century.

personally i think that says more about the teachers than anything else, but is it better to see it part of the curriculum in modified form, or not taught at all?

Twain wrote the n-word because he specifically wanted to use the word the n-word. He didn't choose slave or black or spook because those didn't convey the message of the book the way he wanted to. The point of the book is to throw at you this utterly backwater society of the times by taking this hateful word that is still very much taboo to say in the public discourse and then have every single white person use it as a common descriptor, "n-word this and n-word that." Which was really how it was back then, it's not even fiction in that sense. The book portrays Jim as one of the better characters in the book while most of the white southerners are complete white trash, even though the society takes it for granted that that Jim is just a n-word and thus lesser then everyone else. By taking the word out and swapping it with a "politically correct" term, you take the fangs out of the entire bite towards racists. Which is why racists like to do this kind of stuff under the guise of being "politically correct". The word slave doesn't have the same effect as n-word does, so your impression of the white trash southerners saying "slave Jim" instead of "n-word Jim" is not as negative, which humanizes them more and makes them less hated in the eyes of the reader.

You turn the Southerner's into the poor misguided ignorant people who just didn't know any other way of life besides slavery rather then the hate filled bastards many of them actually were. It doesn't take a genius or an education to figure out that blacks are people too, hell Huck figured it out by the end of the book.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Which is why racists like to do this kind of stuff under the guise of being "politically correct".

you know what, i really wasn't aware that bnp/kkk members were at the forefront of those demanding the reincarnation of huck-finn as a pleasant and innocuous tale..........................?

Slave doesn't cut it for a whole plethora of reasons, least of which was the Barbary Corsairs.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you know what, i really wasn't aware that bnp/kkk members were at the forefront of those demanding the reincarnation of huck-finn as a pleasant and innocuous tale..........................?

bnp/kkk members are at the forefront of keeping those they hate down. If they notice that by treating blacks as babies who can't handle a word, they get to censor books which satirically criticize their philosophy, then they will go along with it.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What happens when you imagine it?

I see that kid feeling extremely uncomfortable, and I do not doubt at all the possibility of said child rejecting Huck Finn on that basis alone, despite it being a criticism of racism.

Originally Posted by Slyspy

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.

See:

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i agree with you, but the problem was that this seminal piece of literary work was not being taught in schools precisely because teachers were uncomfortable reading it in a classroom in the 21st century.

personally i think that says more about the teachers than anything else, but is it better to see it part of the curriculum in modified form, or not taught at all?

I see that kid feeling extremely uncomfortable, and I do not doubt at all the possibility of said child rejecting Huck Finn on that basis alone, despite it being a criticism of racism.

Uncomfortable in an all white school, ok. But why made extremely uncomfortable by huck finn and rejecting it on that basis? Everyone knows that it's historical and the teacher will introduce it properly.

“Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo.”

Maman est en haut,
Qui fait du gateau,
Papa est en bas,
Qui fait du chocolat…

I prefer “V’la bon vent, V’la joli vent, V'la bon vent Ma mie m'appelle”

I don’t know. The problem is Nigger is now offensive and was used as an offensive name at that period.
But to change it is somehow to mild the Racism, to soften the Period.
Because it was no white Slaves at this time, to change “nigger” to slave is to erase this aspect.
Yes words change. Josephine Baker had the “Revue Nègre” in Paris but nobody would call a black with this word in France now. At least not in public…
But in alteration to denial, we change the perception of the Reality: A War Lord becoming a Local Authority, a thug a freedom Fighter etc.
But, as far as I remember, at school, a teacher is here to explain the context and the book.
This book, in the original version shows what ware racism, slavery and a kind of society of that period.
Would you cut off the child prostitution in Dickens, or put Fantine (Cosette’s mother, Les Misérables) at the trap because he became a prostitute, or Gavroche should go home because we don’t want Children Soldiers?

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

bnp/kkk members are at the forefront of keeping those they hate down.

If they notice that by treating blacks as babies who can't handle a word, they get to censor books which satirically criticize their philosophy, then they will go along with it.

you made two statements there, and yet failed to demonstrate a link between the two. i refuse to accept an implicit link in the absence of evidence.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Uncomfortable in an all white school, ok. But why made extremely uncomfortable by huck finn and rejecting it on that basis? Everyone knows that it's historical and the teacher will introduce it properly.

So the teacher has to say to the class "Ok kids, now remember when Twain says the word "nigger", he's not being racist!"? We're educating children here, not fully developed adults.

But to change it is somehow to mild the Racism, to soften the Period.

I completely reject this. The racism of the South wasn't just nasty name-calling, but all the associated hatred, prejudice and murder that that society upheld. By saying that our ability to view the racism of the period has somehow been softened by the minor edits to the text, you shift the focus of the debate away from the deeds and towards the language.

Originally Posted by Brenus

Would you cut off the child prostitution in Dickens, or put Fantine (Cosette’s mother, Les Misérables) at the trap because he became a prostitute, or Gavroche should go home because we don’t want Children Soldiers?

Don't be silly. Bad things in novels that happened historically do not approach nearly the same level of controversy as what the word "nigger" does today.

Originally Posted by Subotan

So the teacher has to say to the class "Ok kids, now remember when Twain says the word "nigger", he's not being racist!"? We're educating children here, not fully developed adults.

We aren't educating children. Young adults. Who teaches huck finn in grade school?

Teach it at GCSE - they're 15-16 years old by then. Considering by 16 the "children" can legally get married and start a family I'd hope they can cope with a Nasty Word that they'd've heard for years from other sources, and probably with no teacher led discussion.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you made two statements there, and yet failed to demonstrate a link between the two. i refuse to accept an implicit link in the absence of evidence.

I don't have one. But it really doesn't take a link to a biased website to note that throughout history, bigots always gloss over their bigotry through "reasonable" arguments. We can't have gays equal in the military because it will disrupt unit cohesion. N-word's can't be integrated with the white because their brains are genetically inferior. hey, I'm looking out for the coloreds I don't see why we need to punish them by having them subjected to the superior standards that whites must go through in school. Let's not have the n-word in Huck Finn because I'm just looking out for the kids and blah blah blah.