Huck Finn changes

[BookStop]

Is selective editing a bad thing? One person points out that this is not much different than editing a rated r/17 film for tv. Is that ok?

I am actually torn as i see both sides to the argument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110104/en_yblog_newsroom/huck-finn-gets-some-changes

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But in this case editing the book doesn't make it more suitable for young readers -- it was already suitable. I read it when I was quite young, and I understood perfectly well what the author was trying to do by putting those words into the mouths of his characters.

To change the language changes the character, changes the setting ... to a large extent changes the impact of the story. Water the story down, and there is no use teaching it in the schools at all.

Geez, while we're at it, why don't we modernize the whole thing by making Huck into a girl, the raft into an RV cruising the highways of the south. Jim could be an undocumented worker from Mexico— On second thought, let's not.

 

[J Riff]

The people who want to change ooks like this are the ones who need to change. I hope someone is keeping an eye on them.

 

[Connavar]

Censoring,editing classic books is a like crime to me. You cant avoid less correct times of history by editing away literature.

Many classics are offending to people today in parts but that doesnt stop them from being great works that is often read.

 

[Fried Egg]

I think that if you can't read a book in it's original form without being offended, don't read it. It that means less people get to read the classics, so be it. Maybe put little stickers on the cover warning potential readers that they may offend certain readers. Let the buyer beware but don't interfere with the text.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree with Teresa. I read it when I was young too, along with a whole load of stories that used bad words, and I am a fairly reasonable bloke (trust me on this). Is the original version going to turn impressionable young readers into foul-mouthed Klansmen? I doubt it. So who is the censorship for? The more I think about this the more it seems wrong. It's like cutting the brutality out of 1984 or A Town Like Alice.

 

[BookStop]

I am in agreement too. Huck Finn in particular is a classic I think kids can get behnd and understand the statement it makes in its completely entertaining way.

The only thing that really gives me pause is that it may make black children uncomfortable. Even though we have come so far, there is still so much racism that kids are exposed to all the time.

But what do we do? Not teach the book in classes where someone might be made uncomfortable? Do we bring focus specifically to the children that might be made uncomfortable? Do we remove the book from schools altogether, perhaps sneaking it out only to those that really want to read it?* Maybe teach it along with a unit on the evils of racism?(maybe along w/ The Education of Little Tree)**

As a parent, I would have no problem with my children reading Huckleberry Finn. I would like to think I'd be caring and responsible enough to ensure my kids were ok reading this, even if I were a person of color. But I am not naive and am fairly certain many parents would not raise thier kids to be so accepting and interested in thier culture and history. It's unforutnate, so I do still 'see' the other side of the argument.

*not that I think those are decent solutions
** perhaps not an entirely bad idea

 

[Fried Egg]

They can teach it in schools, but if they are concerned, warn parents first so that they can withdraw their children if they don't want them exposed to it. Then it's the parents decision.

 

[Clansman]

I agree completely with Teresa's comment above. The book was/is already suitable for young readers. I read the book when in grade 10 (gasp! almost 30 years ago!), and loved it. I also had a teacher who loved literature, and explained what Twain was trying to do. Twain is obviously taking straight aim at a culture he deplored. This is patently obvious to anyone who reads the book, which is exceedingly difficult to take out of context (although there are no doubt morons who do so).

The criticism of the language is a criticism of history. People actually spoke the way that Twain wrote it, which is part of what makes the book so real. African Americans at that time, and for long after, were routinely called "n****r", which itself was a derivation of the English word "negro" and/or the French "negre". The word has changed meanings over time, and is now unusable because its meaning is simply horrific. Yet some persist in using it.

Racism cannot be eradicated from history as if it never existed. BookStop, you make a great point. Taught in context, the book is very instructive about racism.

What's next? Perhaps The Merchant of Venice be re-written to make Shylock non-Jewish (modern presentations of the play actually accentuate the burdens placed upon Jews in Venice at the time, and ameliorate the obvious anti-semitic tones of the play (which were a huge part of the Elizabethan/Jacobean culture of England)). Will Catcher in the Rye be re-written to take out Holden Caulfield's swearing, and the very brief reference to homosexuality in the middle of the book? Will The Lord of the Rings be changed to remove the apparent racism of the "white", noble and beset Men of the West vs. the "swarthy" Eastern/Southron men "under the Shadow"?

Stupid. Just stupid.

 

[CyBeR]

I think that if you can't read a book in it's original form without being offended, don't read it. It that means less people get to read the classics, so be it. Maybe put little stickers on the cover warning potential readers that they may offend certain readers. Let the buyer beware but don't interfere with the text.

I instantly thought of this image when I read this:

I agree with editing any book, just as long as these fanatics go all the way. But since I know that's never happening, I can only say people are really worrying me with this trend of proofing everything against everything.

 

[plebeian]

Wow that is shocking. The most shocking thing to me is that to censor the language is to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of the social message in the book!

The story reminds me of when I was 12 or 13 and read Farenheit 451 for the first time. I read in as part of an advanced reading class in junior high school and bits of the text were literally redacted with black marker. My friends and I were all offended by this and several of us checked out complete versions from the library or bought them with the support of our parents. The funny part was that, when we read the regular parts it was hard to figure out exactly why it was censored in the first place.

 

[Perpetual Man]

I agree with everything that has been written here. It's not the first time that I have seen reference to old books/films being 'updated' to fit changing times.

One that springs to mind is the film The Dambusters which featured a black Labrador dog named 'N*****r' Probably a little racist at the time, but it is a mark of history, that in real life there was a dog owned by Guy Gibson with the unfortunate name, also the mascot of the 617 squadron. With talk of the film being remade (by Peter Jackson) there was a lot of fuss made about the name of the dog and that it should be given a new moniker.

Surely this is not only changing a movie, but trying to alter history as well, much the same as the changes in Huck Finn would be.

No matter how bad these words and usage appear in this modern overly political correct times, they are part of history, of the language a representation of the time in which they were written, and should not be changed for that reason if no other.

It would be interesting to see if someone wrote a novel today, set in those times whether they would be allowed to use such authentic language!

 

[Clansman]

One that springs to mind is the film The Dambusters which featured a black Labrador dog named 'N*****r' Probably a little racist at the time, but it is a mark of history, that in real life there was a dog owned by Guy Gibson with the unfortunate name, also the mascot of the 617 squadron. With talk of the film being remade (by Peter Jackson) there was a lot of fuss made about the name of the dog and that it should be given a new moniker.

Well, Jackson had no hesitation in totally re-writing some of the main and supporting characters (Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Elrond, etc.) and significant chunks of story line (Elven archers at the Battle of the Hornburg? C'MON!)in the Lord of the Rings, so it is unlikely that he would bat an eyelash at getting rid of an obviously controversial name for a dog which does not play a large part in the story.

 

[J-WO]

Literary liposuction. What an age.

 

[Vladd67]

When will people realise the past is a foreign place people had different views and beliefs and it annoys me when people judge peoples behaviour in the past by our present day standards.

 

[Toby Frost]

Absolutely. I think it's safe to say that any author over 50 years old will have used inappropriate words or voiced dodgy opinions: it's the overall message and moral that really ought to be taken into consideration, surely. Both Orwell and Chandler came out with some comments we would now see as dubious, and I would regard both of them as very moral authors.

Besides, as Perpetual Man says, the words in it are part of history, and history is not an entirely pleasant place. Perhaps it's better that we are reminded so, although the views of black Americans would be interesting to know. It's tricky and uncomfortable, but I think editing it is wrong somehow, in the same way that there's nothing wrong with changing the title of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None.

At least we Brits won't have to deal with the Dambusters dog problem - being set in WW2, everyone in the remake will probably be American anyway.

 

[JunkMonkey]

At least we Brits won't have to deal with the Dambusters dog problem - being set in WW2, everyone in the remake will probably be American anyway.

Apart from the bad guys. The way Hollywood type-casts British actors as villains, all the Nazis will be played by Alan Rickman, Charles Dance, Anthony Hopkins etc.

It's tempting to imagine a rewritten Nineteen Eighty-four:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a teddy bear — forever.

 

[sloweye]

Whatevers next? banning Bernard Cornwell's sharpe series because the French get called frogs?
Half the (c)rap bands kids are listening to use the word all the time, so its not like kids haven't heard the word before.
It's part of history, simple as that.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

But in this case editing the book doesn't make it more suitable for young readers -- it was already suitable. I read it when I was quite young, and I understood perfectly well what the author was trying to do by putting those words into the mouths of his characters.

To change the language changes the character, changes the setting ... to a large extent changes the impact of the story. Water the story down, and there is no use teaching it in the schools at all.

Geez, while we're at it, why don't we modernize the whole thing by making Huck into a girl, the raft into an RV cruising the highways of the south. Jim could be an undocumented worker from Mexico— On second thought, let's not.

I agree with you here completely, TE. I am completely against censorship of any kind and I do NOT approve of "political correctness". At least, not here in the United States where the Bill of Rights specifically lists our "right to free speech". Am I right?

Any word can offend someone. Should we take out every word that exists? Since when did we have to go to the Newspeak dictionary?

 

[Ursa major]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a teddy bear — forever.

The forever bit of that wouldn't last long if Thread Bear's teeth had anything to do with it.

<--- Thread Bear


I wish they would leave classic fiction alone. By all means provide an explanation of the context in which a work was produced, and meant to be read, but leave the text alone.