Ceinwenn Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Not sure if anyone here has heard about this, or if any of you have been following this, but I would love to hear what people think! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-hotchkiss/finn-rewrite-twists-twain_b_805776.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/05/mark-twain-new-editions-offensive-words_n_804523.html Is the publisher justified? Are they destroying history? Is it censorship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladymacbeth Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 It just sounds unnecessary to me. Who is offended enough that they need to censor the books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I think this is another example of political correctness going mad, I don't like a lot of the words in the story but they have their place in the story, 'Huckleberry Finn' is a classic and loved by many people and I don't think its fair to change the story, you have to ask yourself, where does it stop? how many more books can this happen to? Thanks for the links Ceinwenn very interesting indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblybear Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I think it's a shame. The story was written in a way that accurately reflected the times, and it should be preserved for that reason. Who is the publisher to make a decision to tamper with a classic novel like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anisia Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 The book should be kept the way it was written. Yes, the word changed is offensive, but it's part of a history that won't change by re-editing the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smilerbabeuk Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 One of the reasons huck finn is a classic is because it was ahead of its time with regard to racism. Its set in a racist time, so the words and story is accurate social history, but huck realises that his initial thoughts and attitudes are wrong. It's about anti-racism. How can you be offended by that. Besides, changing the words in a book won't wipe away the realities of our history. It's wrong to change them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixie Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Whether the word is offensive or not does not matter from my point of view. There are lots of things I may find offensive in books. I believe in freedom of thought and speech, though. Therefore, the author should have the right to say it without it being altered, and I should have the right to disagree with or not read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Whether the word is offensive or not does not matter from my point of view. There are lots of things I may find offensive in books. I believe in freedom of thought and speech, though. Therefore, the author should have the right to say it without it being altered, and I should have the right to disagree with or not read it. Well said Pixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Books do furnish a room Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 This is not an easy one. The title of an Agatha Christie book was changed to remove the same word; is that any different? Also I think there is a line somewhere. If you look at the German propaganda about the Jews in the 1930s; could this be published as stand alone "literature"? I know this is not literature in the same way Huck Finn is; but ... who makes that decision? On the whole I would not be in favour of changing it. Interestingly my wife would be (she is black). She came to this country in 1976 and says that before then she never realised that the n word referred to her; until it was used against her on the streets of this country. To her it is a more personal issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 This is not an easy one. The title of an Agatha Christie book was changed to remove the same word; is that any different? Also I think there is a line somewhere. If you look at the German propaganda about the Jews in the 1930s; could this be published as stand alone "literature"? I know this is not literature in the same way Huck Finn is; but ... who makes that decision? On the whole I would not be in favour of changing it. Interestingly my wife would be (she is black). She came to this country in 1976 and says that before then she never realised that the n word referred to her; until it was used against her on the streets of this country. To her it is a more personal issue. Which is very understandable, what a horrible thing to happen to your wife, I am so sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Some interesting thoughts! Personally, I do not necessarily disagree with it - if it is going to be given to young children to read, then maybe the sanitised version is better? As an adult, I would not choose to read a redacted version, I think I'm adult enough to understand that that word is not now acceptable, but is an integral part of the story. The changing of Injun Joe & half breed bother me more, funnily enough. Edited January 8, 2011 by Ceinwenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I can see the sense in changing the text for school versions; I don't suppose that this is a new thing. But for an adult version, it should be kept as it was. As others have said, we know it's an offensive word, and keeping the original language of the book could act as a useful starting point in a discussion about racism. As a Catholic, I was surprised by the anti-Catholic stance of Charlotte Bronte's "The professor", but, knowing the time it was written in, I couldn't be offended by it. I wouldn't want those passages taken out. It's a personal thing of course, and I can understand both opinions. Perhaps the answer is to have both original and redacted texts printed. But could we end up with stickers on the front cover of books "warning - offensive words" or similar. Not sure where this could end Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWords Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As a Catholic, I was surprised by the anti-Catholic stance of Charlotte Bronte's "The professor", but, knowing the time it was written in, I couldn't be offended by it. I wouldn't want those passages taken out. Salman Rushdie managed to get himself in a lot of trouble by writing about things which Muslims felt strongly about, so religion is a longstanding area where conflict arises over words. I'm not sure that the editing of any text against the authors' wishes is a good idea (though there are good arguments for making some attempt at contextualizing the story with a preface), but it is hard to see how crafting an atmosphere where religious beliefs are compatible with some texts - there is always going to be a minority of religiously inclined individuals who seek out things to take offense at. Always. And no, before you ask - even I'm not crazy enough to send people off to Jack Chick's rants with a direct link. But could we end up with stickers on the front cover of books "warning - offensive words" or similar. Not sure where this could end CDs, DVDs, computer games, and most other popular entertainment already carry warnings for profanity. I'm not convinced that those warning are woth the paper they are printed on - certainly not in the case of the warnings stuck on the front of Harry Potter (which has warnings about possible satanic elements), nor some spoken word CDs (Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks stand-up routines are far more intelligent than the attacks set out against them by the moral majority, if only for their insistence on honesty). Frank Miller wrote in an interview that the those who come after complex works, in the hope of suppressing them, are really rather stupid. They don't read the things they want to ban, they simply go after the titles which carry warning labels. Warning labels are bad. When our ability to get our hands on novels which are too inflammatory for some to allow to exist unchallenged, as in the case with books which have gone before courts, we risk losing much more than books from shelves. As readers, and as people who can think for ourselves, we should be aware of censorious intent in the minds of publishers who hope to clean up our history but we should not make things easier for these people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 It seems to me to replace one offensive word with another, equally offensive in it's connotations is fairly useless. The book is what it is, and it would be great if we lived in a "sanitized" world where that or any other offensive word was never ever used against anyone. We don't, and isn't it better to prepare our children against the slings and arrows that may be shot at them then to leave them ignorant and defenseless? We can only fight what we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Martini Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If someone gets offended by the material in a book I think they should put down the book. There's no reason to rob others of the chance to take in a part of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 There's a very interesting (mostly one-sided) debate on the NY Times website, if anyone's interested. I just finished reading Huck Finn last night and I loved it. I had the unchanged text and can't imagine reading it any other way. It's so important for the context of the story to leave it unchanged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookJumper Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 if it is going to be given to young children to read, then maybe the sanitised version is better? I can see the sense in changing the text for school versions; I don't suppose that this is a new thing. I personally would advocate not changing it, especially for younger readers. Rather than sheltering them from words they hear every day on the street and on the telly anyway, editors/teachers/parents/etc. could if anything use the book to talk to children about the issues a word can raise. The only protected child, I feel, is an informed child. Besides, when I was little and I realised that a lot of the books I was borrowing from the library had been altered, I felt offended and patronised - I would have rather the books hadn't been available at all, and do unto others and all that. In general, if one were to edit out the potentially offensive in literature,* we'd be chucking most of the canon out with the bathwater. * Or literary criticsm for that matter. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, for instance, comes out with some truly cringeworthily racist/sexist comments in his Shakespearean criticism (often in the same sentence), but I find it better to contextualise Coleridge in his century and move past it to the commentary itself, which is for the most part still brilliant and relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.