[static-harmony]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=725119&f=29

What do you say?

[pokkeherrie]

No, they shouldn't. Certainly not for political reasons.
Why not add footnotes or an introductory essay explaining the historic context of the word "nigger" instead? Censoring it completely is basically falsifying history.

But one acceptable reason I could think of to revise books is when they are written in olde language (medieval or earlier) to make them more accessible for modern day readers. But that is more another form of translating rather than revising.

Obviously that's not the case here, everyone knows what the word "nigger" means.

[tesla69]

unacceptable

[demonrail666]

To erase the word 'nigger' from Huckleberry Finn is to avoid having to deal with an important chapter in America's social history. The writer in that article talks about a different America under Obama but surely, without evidence of what things were like, how are future generations ever going to gauge the true nature of that difference?

[evollove]

Oh! So THAT'S the "n-word" I've been hearing about. "Nigger:" used nowadays as an offensive hate-filled racial epithet. Why can't the press just grow up and use the word? Faggots.

Anyway, scary. The implications . . . my God. There goes our culture.

Authors can revise their own work, and there are some honorable examples of this.

But this "slave" shit is fucking stupid for any number of obvious reasons.

Besides, our language is evolving, and I'm pretty sure we'll be using "enslaved" in the future. Keep an eye out for a re-revision.

Fuck. Next up: Conrad's "Slave of Nacissus." Adios Faulkner. Years from now, we'll take the word "nigger" from Toni Morrison books. "But she's not racist. Obviously." Yeah, well neither was Mark fucking Twain. Obviously.

[Glice]

For me, it's a lot more benign than the nay-sayers are saying. Twain's audience now have options - one version voided of certain inflammatory terms, and the masses of orthodox, 'as is' versions. If you're sensitive to the word 'nigger', or would rather your children weren't confronted with such terms, you now have that option. Personally, I think it's a weak parent that chooses that, but they're more than welcome to that option if they want.

There are at least 3 On the Roads, several Ulysseses, shelves of Shakespeares and an entirely baffling array of Bibles (especially if you include pseudepigrapha, upper- and lower-apocrypha and the various non-Christian traditions).

The point being that books - especially historically or culturally significant ones - will survive revision. Speaking specifically about Twain, the replacement of 'nigger' with 'slave' is dubious, certainly, but if Twain is worth anything (and I haven't read him to know, nor have I ever been interested enough in American literature to bother) he'll survive the revision.

I've also seen a few people mentioning Burroughs, here and elsewhere - Burroughs isn't, so far as I know, taught to young and impressionable children. It's as preposterous to compare Twain to Burroughs as it is to compare Twain to de Sade or Bataille.

[Glice]

Also, why wasn't Twain racist? Because he's a good writer? Because he's a canonical great? Because his books, from our perspective, 'subvert' racial relations? He's a writer. Writers know words. If he was British (where the word nigger only accrued its negative connotations much later) it'd be a different matter. I don't have a problem with him being a racist, per se, but I don't really think that 'oh, he wasn't a racist, so it's alright for him to say nigger' is a decent defence.

[tw2113]

Chances are the kids are either going to be too young to know what the word actually is. If they do, chances are you've already talked to them about he meaning and its connotations, so it shouldn't be too much of a worry. If the parents HAVE NOT done that, they should, before allowing the kid to read them.

Seriously...address the topic with your kids, don't keep putting it off and the changing of this book is going to do just that...put it off even longer.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

To erase the word 'nigger' from Huckleberry Finn is to avoid having to deal with an important chapter in America's social history. The writer in that article talks about a different America under Obama but surely, without evidence of what things were like, how are future generations ever going to gauge the true nature of that difference?

this.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by Glice

For me, it's a lot more benign than the nay-sayers are saying. Twain's audience now have options - one version voided of certain inflammatory terms, and the masses of orthodox, 'as is' versions. If you're sensitive to the word 'nigger', or would rather your children weren't confronted with such terms, you now have that option. Personally, I think it's a weak parent that chooses that, but they're more than welcome to that option if they want.

There are at least 3 On the Roads, several Ulysseses, shelves of Shakespeares and an entirely baffling array of Bibles (especially if you include pseudepigrapha, upper- and lower-apocrypha and the various non-Christian traditions).

The point being that books - especially historically or culturally significant ones - will survive revision. Speaking specifically about Twain, the replacement of 'nigger' with 'slave' is dubious, certainly, but if Twain is worth anything (and I haven't read him to know, nor have I ever been interested enough in American literature to bother) he'll survive the revision.

I've also seen a few people mentioning Burroughs, here and elsewhere - Burroughs isn't, so far as I know, taught to young and impressionable children. It's as preposterous to compare Twain to Burroughs as it is to compare Twain to de Sade or Bataille.

People that are sensitive toward certain words/ideas should avoid them, if unable to approach them from a realistic/honest perspective.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by evollove

Oh! So THAT'S the "n-word" I've been hearing about. "Nigger:" used nowadays as an offensive hate-filled racial epithet. Why can't the press just grow up and use the word? Faggots.

Anyway, scary. The implications . . . my God. There goes our culture.

Authors can revise their own work, and there are some honorable examples of this.

But this "slave" shit is fucking stupid for any number of obvious reasons.

Besides, our language is evolving, and I'm pretty sure we'll be using "enslaved" in the future. Keep an eye out for a re-revision.

Fuck. Next up: Conrad's "Slave of Nacissus." Adios Faulkner. Years from now, we'll take the word "nigger" from Toni Morrison books. "But she's not racist. Obviously." Yeah, well neither was Mark fucking Twain. Obviously.

And yet you used another hate-filled epithet.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by pokkeherrie

No, they shouldn't. Certainly not for political reasons.
Why not add footnotes or an introductory essay explaining the historic context of the word "nigger" instead? Censoring it completely is basically falsifying history.

Correct. Is there at least a disclaimer on the revised edition?

I bet this Alan Gribben guy is feeling a bit like a twat now. But then again, is this all that different than a censored version of a raunchy film on television? I guess so, since it's presented in an educational environment, but perhaps the novel shouldn't be taught to students until they've reached high school or college level, where they'd have a better understanding of the word's context.

I wonder if people will be getting wiled up like this, 50 yrs from now, when they're teaching The Empire Strikes Back in a classroom, and they get to the scene where Han shoots first.

Originally Posted by Glice

Also, why wasn't Twain racist? Because he's a good writer? Because he's a canonical great? Because his books, from our perspective, 'subvert' racial relations? He's a writer. Writers know words. If he was British (where the word nigger only accrued its negative connotations much later) it'd be a different matter. I don't have a problem with him being a racist, per se, but I don't really think that 'oh, he wasn't a racist, so it's alright for him to say nigger' is a decent defence.

"Twain was undoubtedly anti-racist. Friends with African American educator Booker T Washington, he co-chaired the 1906 Silver Jubilee fundraiser at Carnegie Hall for the Tuskegee Institute – a school run by Washington in Alabama to further "the intellectual and moral and religious life of the [African American] people". He also personally helped fund one of Yale Law School's first African American students, explaining: "We have ground the manhood out of them [African Americans], and the shame is ours, not theirs, and we should pay for it." And his repeated use of that derogatory term in Huckleberry Finn is absolutely deliberate, ringing with irony. When Huck's father, poor and drunken white trash by any standard, learns that "a free nigger ... from Ohio; a mulatter, most as white as a white man ... a p'fessor in a college" is allowed to vote, he reports: "Well, that let me out ... I says I'll never vote agin ... [A]nd the country may rot for all me." It is very clear here whose racial side Twain is on. Similarly when Aunt Sally asks if anyone was hurt in a reported riverboat explosion, and Huck himself answers "No'm. Killed a nigger," she replies, "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt." The whole force of the passage lies in casual acceptance of the African American's dehumanised status, even by Huck, whose socially-inherited language and way of thinking stands firm despite all he has learnt in his journey down-river of the humanity, warmth and affection of the escaped slave Jim – the person who truly acts as a father to him."

- source:The Guardian

[Keeping It Simple]

Mark Twain was lucky he didn't live in a society plagued by overopinionated, pseudo-intellectual, posturing socialist shitheads preaching the Orwellian canons of political correctness. The social cancer thought up by "smoke dope and hope" marxist hippie cunts.

[evollove]

Originally Posted by Glice

There are at least 3 On the Roads, several Ulysseses, shelves of Shakespeares and an entirely baffling array of Bibles (especially if you include pseudepigrapha, upper- and lower-apocrypha and the various non-Christian traditions).

I've also seen a few people mentioning Burroughs, here and elsewhere - Burroughs isn't, so far as I know, taught to young and impressionable children. It's as preposterous to compare Twain to Burroughs as it is to compare Twain to de Sade or Bataille.

And it's preposterous to compare scholars attempting to arrive at a definitive Ulysses text with what's going on here.

And since you're unfamiliar with American lit, you have no idea how huge this is, at least on a symbolic level.

Look, as a Jew, I've had to deal with a ton of blatant anti-semitism as I've gone through world literature (though the English and French seem to have other nations beat when it comes to this). And yes, it has led to some distress, particularly when I was younger. But I would never suggest chopping up, say, Dickens simply to appease future generations of young Jews. The text is what it is, and one must put on their critical thinking cap and hopefully find good resources to navigate this issue. This is part of true literacy.

Which is the basic problem with revising this seminal American work. Yes, more children may read the book thanks to the revision, but in a more significant way they will grow less literate.

[Glice]

I should amend what I said - I'm fully aware of the position Twain has within the canon of American lit; I just don't like American writing, with a paltry few exceptions.

Look, as a minority, I can also play the minority card [etc]

Broadly speaking I agree with you; I just don't think there's a problem with giving people the choice of editions. America has this really peculiar relationship to the orthodoxy in texts that every book has to be the same forever... I'm reading a book about Shakespeare editions at the moment, and I'm genuinely surprised at the enormous diversity in copies of his work there is. And, for us, Shakespeare is the canon.

I mean, why are people getting annoyed with this revision and not others - because this one is politically motivated, right? My basic point is that books are always revised, then re-revised, then redacted, then re-issued as fair copy (etc). I don't agree with the person who thinks this book should be voided of the word nigger, but if someone else finds that word offensive (regardless of the content), good for them.

[pokkeherrie]

Originally Posted by Glice

I mean, why are people getting annoyed with this revision and not others - because this one is politically motivated, right?

Yes, exactly. It's not OK to revise books for political reasons.
I suppose you endorse the North Korean translation of Anne Frank's diary as well?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in602415.shtml

I can see you point about several versions of the book being available and like I said above, I think it's alright to revise old books into modern language (for English I did think of Shakespeare when I wrote that), but that's not the case here.

Plus, there is still the danger of the revised version being the only one that's commonly known (especially if that's the one that's being used in schools).

[Glice]

I get the impression that the Anne Frank thing is of a very different order. I can't imagine readers of Twain being left in much doubt as to what 'slave' refers to, while to utterly change the intention and content of a book is very different. A bit like the recent Arabic translations of Mein Kempf.

For me, it's fascinating that something like Lady Chatterley's Lover was unpublished until about 50 years ago; now we're arguing about the use of the word nigger, a word I'm deeply uncomfortable saying. I think that's the bottom line really - if I was comfortable saying nigger in public then I'd see no reason to censor it. I'm not saying it's not ridiculous, because I think people are intelligent enough to cope with it, but it's one of the most politically sensitive words in American English, so it's not really that surprising or offensive that it has been censored, to me.

 

[the ikara cult]

Totally wrong to revise it, you might as well start renaming the Ministry of Love in 1984 and calling it the Ministry of Taking You In and Fucking You Up And Twisting You Up Until All Hope Is Squeezed Out of You so You Will Even Betray The Love Of Your Life

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

im somewhat sensitive with messing with old writtings and it feels like covering up.

That's precisely what distinguishes the Huckleberry Finn case from say the Ulysees or On the Road one. The tinkering with novels by Joyce and Kerouac was aimed at disclosing what those doing the tinkering felt to be the 'truest' versions of those books. It's debatable whether they achieved that but the intent remains the same. Either way, it's an entirely different thing to want to conceal parts of them: one being motivated by a love of literature, the other by a suspicion of it.