I can understand how teachers would find it difficult to teach the original version in a mixed-race classroom, honestly.Then maybe they shouldn't teach it at all. If the class is not mature enough to deal with the fact that there are some pretty dark blemishes on our past, then find some lighter fare. Sugar coat our history enough and we are likely to repeat it.
Ummm... Given that a large portion of this thread has been objecting to the revised version on grounds of censorship, I'm expecting a huge outcry of "CENSORSHIP!!!" at the suggestion that the text ought not be taught at all.
Though I'm not sure I see this particular version as 'sugar-coating' history. As I understand it, they haven't changed the plot of the novel, they've only replaced a few labels. People do modern-language versions of Shakespeare's plays all the time, and while some people might not like them, and may think they're not the same as the original versions, calling them censorship, or 'sugar-coating' history is hardly a fair claim.
Shakespeare's a bad example. The modern language versions are trying to remain faithful to the original, while simplifying the text so that modern "sophisticates" can understand it.
I grew up in southern Illinois on the River. Twain was accurately portraying a portion of society. Repellent as it is, use of the word 'nigger' is an integral part of the portrayal. I would argue that changing the word changes our perceptions of Huck; changing the word lessens Huck's darker side. Changing the word changes our perception of the society around Huck; deep-seated prejudice becomes mild animosity or even awkward phrasing. And if you change those things you change or lessen the entire meaning of Huck's journey and actions.
If you want light and cheery read the new edition of Tom Sawyer with Native American Joe.
|
I'm not sure I'd call this a case of censorship, either. The problem is that it's not a sanitized, abridged Reader's Digest version, or a 19 page children's book you'll find in the Bargain Books aisle next to the Winnie-the-Pooh reading stage at B&N. This is a full-up edition of the novel that has been changed to meet the supposed mores of the current reading public, even if it's only changing a single word (a couple hundred times).
For me, it's not the word itself (which I find deplorable, with my 21st century sensibilities; and confusing, since it's currently used positively, negatively and neutrally by the very ethnic group which it derogates...), it's the idea of deliberately altering another's art because its present state makes people uncomfortable. Most importantly, it's the precedent it sets.
My examples using the Bible were less than awesome, but the point is still valid, and I think most readers here got it; I could have used a made-up book and the idea would remain the same.
If your class can not handle the N word, move on to something else. Save Huck Finn's lesson for when it can be taken in context.My experience - and I only teach a high school creative writing class - is that it's not that the students can't handle it.
It's that their parents are outraged that that word is being condoned by delegated parental authority.
The fact that the book is about the maturation of Huck as his view of Jim's humanity evolves throughout the book is utterly lost on them.
I always wanted to go into creative writing, but my obsession with sex and psychology lead to other paths.
That said, you must admit that the book opens wounds that occasionally make attempts to heal. A good friend of mine had more of a problem with how it potrayed her homeland moreso than anything else, and was on the side of the black kids who didn't care for the book due to the use of the n-word(or perhaps more appropriately, the way it was used). Just as the work functions on many levels, so does the opposition to it. That said, I don't think it should be censored in any way. I think I have also encountered more child-friendly versions of the book. The Simpsons and Family Guy also did humorous takes on it.
I'm not sure I'd call this a case of censorship, either. The problem is that it's not a sanitized, abridged Reader's Digest version, or a 19 page children's book you'll find in the Bargain Books aisle next to the Winnie-the-Pooh reading stage at B&N. This is a full-up edition of the novel that has been changed to meet the supposed mores of the current reading public, even if it's only changing a single word (a couple hundred times).
For me, it's not the word itself (which I find deplorable, with my 21st century sensibilities; and confusing, since it's currently used positively, negatively and neutrally by the very ethnic group which it derogates...), it's the idea of deliberately altering another's art because its present state makes people uncomfortable. Most importantly, it's the precedent it sets.
My examples using the Bible were less than awesome, but the point is still valid, and I think most readers here got it; I could have used a made-up book and the idea would remain the same.
That is actually why my wife (a librarian) considers it to be censorship. There are children's versions of Huckleberry Finn already and teachers have the option of using them. This version is meant to be a sanitised version of the original. To her, it is the intent behind the alteration that is the problem. It is like someone saying, if society cannot handle the original, we will make a version that is acceptible to society.
Wussy? Really? Ooookay...
Yes, wussy. If the language used in that book didn't make sense for the book and its message to be conveyed properly, I would use another term.
I would agree that this sanitised version of Huck Finn constitutes censorship as by becoming the school text it will be the version that more students are exposed to. However, the issue is probably moot to begin with. Teachers choose the books the class will study. Due to the hysteria around Twain's language (ignoring the context or other qualities of his writing) and their own lack of will to confront and educate the students, parents (and society) I would bet most teachers leave Huck Finn on the shelf in the resource room and pick another safer choice.
I would agree that this sanitised version of Huck Finn constitutes censorship as by becoming the school text it will be the version that more students are exposed to. However, the issue is probably moot to begin with. Teachers choose the books the class will study. Due to the hysteria around Twain's language (ignoring the context or other qualities of his writing) and their own lack of will to confront and educate the students, parents (and society) I would bet most teachers leave Huck Finn on the shelf in the resource room and pick another safer choice.
I don't think it's a matter of education, I do think the work is a lot harder to process and unintentionally offensive than even its supporters realize.
I grew up in southern Illinois on the River. Twain was accurately portraying a portion of society. Repellent as it is, use of the word 'n!@&&@' is an integral part of the portrayal. I would argue that changing the word changes our perceptions of Huck; changing the word lessens Huck's darker side. Changing the word changes our perception of the society around Huck; deep-seated prejudice becomes mild animosity or even awkward phrasing. And if you change those things you change or lessen the entire meaning of Huck's journey and actions.
Quite right. Huck is not a good kid who has had some bad luck in life. (Well he has had bad luck.) He's a know-nothing racist redneck idiot.
The kid's practically all dark side when he starts down the river, because that's what his society has made him. It's what the adults wanted Huck to be: Just like them. The climax of the narrative is when Huck decides that he's been a racist idiot and he's become so convinced that Jim is as good as him that he explicitly, in his own words, chooses Hell over turning Jim in. He would rather be tortured forever than send Jim back into slavery.Removing the disgusting word papers over this, makes Huck look like a infinitely more sensitive, and sugar-coats the whole society that Twain was indicting. It cheapens Huck's development and undermines the entire theme of the novel.
If the use of the word is such an issue that the novel plain can't be taught to some classes, then the answer is to pick another novel. This editing is the worst of both worlds.
Mark Twain's seminal novel gets a rewrite to remove offensive language
Up next, Stephen King's complete collection will be reworked to remove all the F-bombs and N-words; since he's the world's most-read author. After that, we'll just go alphabetical...
Also up for revision, the Bible...
I was horrified by the ostensible censorship of this reprint, though the project creator's explanation intrigues me.
I grew up in southern Illinois on the River. Twain was accurately portraying a portion of society. Repellent as it is, use of the word 'n!@&&@' is an integral part of the portrayal. I would argue that changing the word changes our perceptions of Huck; changing the word lessens Huck's darker side. Changing the word changes our perception of the society around Huck; deep-seated prejudice becomes mild animosity or even awkward phrasing. And if you change those things you change or lessen the entire meaning of Huck's journey and actions.Quite right. Huck is not a good kid who has had some bad luck in life. (Well he has had bad luck.) He's a know-nothing racist redneck idiot.
The kid's practically all dark side when he starts down the river, because that's what his society has made him. It's what the adults wanted Huck to be: Just like them. The climax of the narrative is when Huck decides that he's been a racist idiot and he's become so convinced that Jim is as good as him that he explicitly, in his own words, chooses Hell over turning Jim in. He would rather be tortured forever than send Jim back into slavery.Removing the disgusting word papers over this, makes Huck look like a infinitely more sensitive, and sugar-coats the whole society that Twain was indicting. It cheapens Huck's development and undermines the entire theme of the novel.
If the use of the word is such an issue that the novel plain can't be taught to some classes, then the answer is to pick another novel. This editing is the worst of both worlds.
The problem then is that this creates a semi-paranoid question of it is being taught to one group and not another. Accusations would tend to run hot and then quite paranoid as people start saying individual teachers are attempting to push some kind of agenda with respect to the racist beliefs held in the book or that a school is holding secret racist classes with respect to the tome.
I was horrified by the ostensible censorship of this reprint, though the project creator's explanation intrigues me.Mark Twain's seminal novel gets a rewrite to remove offensive language
Up next, Stephen King's complete collection will be reworked to remove all the F-bombs and N-words; since he's the world's most-read author. After that, we'll just go alphabetical...
Also up for revision, the Bible...
I would argue that this book is a better example for the feelings brought up by the word and its history moreso than Huck Finn. I have only heard the book mentioned once in my life, and it was by my very pro-black teacher who hated the book with a passion, unable to get more than a few pages in. The attitudes summed up by the title alone(i.e. you are property to the point that you are owned by/assigned to an inanimate object) create a divide, and the intense opposition to censoring or editing it are viewed by many who have a problem with the word alone(much less the title of the book) as encouragement of this attitude, although that may not be the case.
Quite right. Huck is not a good kid who has had some bad luck in life. (Well he has had bad luck.) He's a know-nothing racist redneck idiot.
The kid's practically all dark side when he starts down the river, because that's what his society has made him. It's what the adults wanted Huck to be: Just like them. The climax of the narrative is when Huck decides that he's been a racist idiot and he's become so convinced that Jim is as good as him that he explicitly, in his own words, chooses Hell over turning Jim in. He would rather be tortured forever than send Jim back into slavery.Removing the disgusting word papers over this, makes Huck look like a infinitely more sensitive, and sugar-coats the whole society that Twain was indicting. It cheapens Huck's development and undermines the entire theme of the novel.
If the use of the word is such an issue that the novel plain can't be taught to some classes, then the answer is to pick another novel. This editing is the worst of both worlds.
The same holds true for To Kill a Mockingbird. It is taught in school and gets challenged almost as much as Huckleberry Finn for the use of the N-word (used by racist townsfolks that cannot understand why a white lawyer would defend an innocent black man). The offensive language helps underscore the message in the book.
The problem then is that this creates a semi-paranoid question of it is being taught to one group and not another. Accusations would tend to run hot and then quite paranoid as people start saying individual teachers are attempting to push some kind of agenda with respect to the racist beliefs held in the book or that a school is holding secret racist classes with respect to the tome.
The same problem exists when the book is taught in one school and not another, or one state and not another. I know it raises my suspicions intensely to learn that it's not being taught somewhere. The proper course is to teach it in the context. Twain was writing in a day when the antebellum South was being romanticized as part of the developing Lost Cause mythology, which still persists today and you can observe on these very boards any time the Civil War comes up.
Huck Finn is not a book about how it's cool to use the n-word all the time and it ought to be normal, which ought to be obvious to anybody who gets to the halfway point. It's a book about how the slaveholding south, which Twain grew up in, was ruled and run by a bunch of evil a~$$$*@s and we should be celebrating its demise instead of its defense.
Yes it's hard to read. Yes it's unpleasant. Yes it's going to stir up feelings which are not all pleasant. Yes not everybody is going to come out feeling vindicated. It might piss some kids off. It might make some cry. The goal of education is not to make everybody feel good.
I dare say that any book, fictional or otherwise, which attempts to capture the time period and fails to use the word in quotes of primary sources or in the mouths of period characters is not capturing the period at all. It's like teaching about Nazi Germany and not mentioning the Holocaust, or Stalin and not the gulags and engineered famine.
And pushing an agenda with respect to the racist beliefs held in the book? That's one of the main reasons to teach it. Racism isn't religion. The schools are not required to be neutral. Quite the opposite, raising children to live in a multiracial, multicultural country requires an anti-racist agenda.