The problem I have with your argument, and the idea in general, is that the thought process seems to begin and end with 'nigger'=bad word. Yes, it's an offensive term, but it's one with an important and relevant history, a history children (and, indeed, all people) are obligated to learn and be familiar with. There is nothing in the book or in the teaching of it that endorses or encourages racism in any form, and the fact that we find it offensive (as Twain himself, along with other Abolitionists did) is because the racism with which it is associated is so abhorrent. Censoring the word means that people don't have to consider these issues, at least not to the same ugly extent as people traditionally have, and if you continue down the path of making controversial texts and subjects 'easier' to teach in school, then you're not educating kids, you're lying to them.
I think this is a subject that polarises opinion - and both opinions have merit. I take your point - and I do understand your opinion. But I can't agree. We don't need to use the word in literature anymore. It is generally accepted that it is redundant has no merit. And yes - it has a history which should be discussed with children. It is such an emotive word and carries more power than it deserves. It's a weapon in the hands of the racists and should be relegated to the gutter and treated as the dirty little word it is. (sorry that might be a bit strong - but that's how I feel about it.) And I agree that that's because we do find racism (all discrimination) so abhorrent and 'nigger' is a hook for all the anger it evokes. I have, and still do, have many open and sometimes heated discussions about racism (and other discrimination issues) with my children and I have never lied to them. I also agree with you that we should never go down the path of general censoring. All issues should be open to discussion in a reasonable and healthy manner and removing this one word won't stop that. So I agree with a lot that you say. But I still vote for removing the word!
I think it's not being used in schools because teachers don't feel comfortable with having that discussion with their students; in my experience, schools are a cowardly lot who do everything in their power to avoid any sort of confrontation, regardless if their decision makes any sense or not. The problem with the argument of "Just the school edition, guys!" is that why would a child after reading it in school, bother going out of their way to find the book for a single word change? Wouldn't a teacher be obligated to explain the change before that segment of their lesson? If so, why change it at all? I'm not saying that classic literature isn't popular, but it's one of the few ways kids are exposed to American History is through school (unfortunately, often by force) and changing this word only leads to soften the past. By not exposing the word to children in a school setting as what it is; an archaic and ugly word from a less-the-respectful period of Americas past used to demean an entire race of people. Then you're just leaving kids with the modern context, which is a word often used for shock value in music and film. Most children aren't exposed to Skinhead rallies and don't really see that archaic intent being used, they see it on TV as a marketing gimmick. Without explaining the historical context of the word, then you risk it being used. The word "****" is taught to be a bad word when we're young, one of the baddest words there is. So for most of us, we spend our youth not swearing. When we get older and more adult and we're exposed to it more with out that negative connotation, we're numbed to its effectiveness and we use it more (for most of us. I happen to swear like nobodies business in the company of friends). I think you seriously risk putting nigger in that context if you don't give some exposure to its history.
Have you never grown a love for a book in an English class and read it again as an adult? There are some I disliked - Death of a Salesman, Catcher in the Rye I wouldn't bother with again. However continue to read many others periodically and have them on my bookshelves (Pride and Prejudice, Sunset Song, Shakespeare, Burns, War Poetry etc)
The reasoning has been set forth in more than one post, by myself and others. If you missed it, perhaps you should revisit some of the posts in this thread. Suffice it to say that your general reasoning is no different at all from those in a fundamentalist church who cheerful burn books in the parking lot. They're absolutely convinced that they're doing a good thing and removing some objectionable material that has no place in society. In their view, the material has no merit, should be relegated to the gutter, and treated as 'dirty.' Hey, kind of like how you feel in this particular instance. The argument, when you boil it down, is always the same. It goes like this: "I don't like that, so let's get rid of it."
Here's another editorial on this, found in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010704451.html
Hit a bit too close to absurdity. Too close to insults rather than reasonable and intelligent discusssion.
Why not eliminate all that "slave" stuff as well? It makes me uncomfortable that that used to be a part of our culture. They should re-write the entire book as though everyone was always totally equal in this country, like they are now.
Easy to say. Easier than actually addressing the post. You've essentially conceded the point - it is clear you can't think of a distinction. Moving on...
They should also give Huck a Blackberry with an unlimited talk and data plan. It would make him easier to relate to for today's youth.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Just Huck and Jim, two dudes chilling with their homies and texting and making light-hearted wisecracks and witicisms. Huck: You know Jim, my dear friend, the difference between cats and dogs, you see, is that dogs believe that they are human, whereas cats believe that they are God. Jim: Ahahahaha! Indeed, indeed, yea verily and forsooth! Good show, old boy, good show!
works well with other authors - I love to see people play with Shakespeare, Agatha Christie etc. I love the Reduced Shakespeare Company. Dr Who did a wonderful job of both but there have been more serious adaptations
I agree with Steerpike and the Wise Baby (Forkfoot to friends, family and Sherdog ). Evelon, I disagree with you on just about every level possible, including molecular.
Your comments on my process of thought being on a level with those who burn books outside churches are insulting. But that's what you intended them to be. As far as conceding - my opinion hasn't changed. Your rantings are not likely to make any difference to that.
What if both editions were clearly labelled and individual readers had a choice about which they read ? I went back yesterday and read parts of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn etc. Quite frankly sometimes I would like not to read it and would actually have both on my shelves because my modern sensibilities does make it jarr and takes me out of the text. It depends why I am reading it whether it is for historical value or to do the thing Mark Twain is amazing at and that is grabbing you by whatever appropriate part the anatomy he can and dragging you along with his stories. On just a story level I do think the word nigger can ruin the flow when reading for a modern reader. Especially one who may not be as well versed in the history. For me it is like reading the kiddie versions of other literary classics. (yes I started out with the copy of Jane Eyre that was less graphic about the red room and did not suggest Rochester was trying to commit bigamy). Sometimes it gives the intent of the author to entertain you with the story better. This is more about giving choice than taking anything away - if they were banning the other versions then that would be different.
On the contrary, they're accurate. Which is demonstrated by the fact that you've been unable to address them. My point is that those who engage in the burning, or banning, etc. have good intentions, by and large, and believe they are making things better by ridding society (at least to a degree) of a work that has no merit. That's is precisely their rationale, and it is exactly the same as the rationale you set forth. If you think you can distinguish it, please do so.
Except that these books will be used almost exclusively in schools where they are assigned as the only version to be read. Outside of that context, I don't see many people ordering this new version.
which is why i still don't undestand the problem. Personally i will be ordering it, think it is more in keeping with spirit of the work. Schools at least in the UK have always had different editions of certain books whether to make them shorter to fit in with class time, cut out naughty bits or unsuitable material etc. Those inspired will pick up the other version later in life. This isn't book banning it is offering analternative. Any parent that feels strongly can make sure child reads both versions.
Oh, I don't think so. Twain really didn't like this sort of over-sensitivity, and I suspect he'd have some rather biting things to say about this were he alive. Given Twain's personal views, I don't think he fell upon the words by accident. The 'spirit' of the work is embodied precisely in the language he chose to use. In the grand scheme of things, I think this edition will be a relatively minor blip on the radar, and it's not really that big of a deal in any objective sense. It does provide for interesting discussions though!
I meant more in what it does to me as a reader whilst I read it. Fact is Twain as well as not liking oversensitivity wrote amazing stories. You can tell reading them they are designed to enthrall. If I am going ooh due to being born in 1976 rather than 1876 it takes me out of the story. Twain for me is one of the best for producing seamless stories where the only oh gosh that is awful/terrible/eww moments are intended. I was actually surprised at my own reactions last night. My Gran would have said nigger - and she was no racist, everyone was taken at face value. (Pretty amazing since everyone else around her was). Even with that actually yes I like the option of reading the edited version.
You assume that they are accurate because it suits your point of view to do so. I have not, do not and will not hold the view that any work should be banned, burned or otherwise be removed from any society but will never be able to convince you. I don't have to. I don't even want to. You've made you statement and for what it's worth you'll stick by it. Your perogative. However, for you to suggest that you know, without doubt what is in my mind, is arrogant. You don't know me. I have never said that Huckleberry Fin in its original form should be banned, and neither, as far as I am aware, has anyone else. My biggest hatred is for the word 'nigger' and I did say it wanted relegating to the gutter. On that you base your conviction that I am well on the way to being a book-burning, censor loving activist. I stand by what I said about the word. You defend it if you must.
