The last post, about Huck Finn, was rather passionate. And while I still support my opinion (of course I do!), I've been thinking it over and researching. So here's a bit of balance: A discussion between New York Times contributors (Ivy League English and law professors, language and literature experts, and recognized authors) about the edits made to Huck Finn.
Do Word Changes Alter 'Huckleberry Finn'?
A catalogue of the writer's thoughts - particularly those more organized, relevant, and creative.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.
NewSouth Books and Professor Alan Gribben are editing Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. They are replacing the n-word with "slave" to protect the sensitivities of young readers. [For the record, they're also replacing "Injun" - because little boys from the deep South should never speak in dialect.]
I don't even know where to start with this ridiculous decision. My first inclination is, "Did anyone ask Mark?" Well, ok, he's dead, but he's already said how he feels:
The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug. (Mark Twain)
Is "slave" even an accurate replacement of the n-word? Off the top of my head, I can think of three, four, even five connotations the n-word bears that have nothing to do with slavery.
Is changing literature like this a good idea? What kind of precedent does it set for those after us? It tells them that we can just over-write the bits of history we find distasteful: apply a little white-out, pick a different word, and ta-da! Same, but different. No one's found offense with the slavery and abuse in ancient Greek plays (not to mention the incest, murder, mutilation, and rape). But Twain hits closer to home because he's more recently dead? I don't see how that's relevant. He wrote about his time period as he saw it in the language that was common then. It's not our place to edit the past!
In a Publisher's Weekly article announcing the new version, Gribben says he heard teachers across America complaining that they couldn't teach Huck Finn anymore because of the "hurtful" language. I ask: What good is a teacher who can't adequately set up the context for a historical piece of literature? who can't encourage and then manage a healthy discussion of the changes in language between an insensitive little white boy 150 years ago and (overly?) PC little children in America today?
As a writer, a scholar, a reader, and an English degree-holder, this debate gets under my skin. The fact that Gribben is a Twain scholar and an English professor is even more frustrating. Thomas Wortham, a UCLA Twain scholar, told Publisher's Weekly that "a book like Professor Gribben has imagined doesn't challenge children [and their teachers] to ask, 'Why would a child like Huck use such reprehensible language?'" Thanks, Gribben - as if we didn't have enough empty, cracker-like classes as it is.
It's lunch time. I can't stomach any more idiocy right now.
I don't even know where to start with this ridiculous decision. My first inclination is, "Did anyone ask Mark?" Well, ok, he's dead, but he's already said how he feels:
The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug. (Mark Twain)
Is "slave" even an accurate replacement of the n-word? Off the top of my head, I can think of three, four, even five connotations the n-word bears that have nothing to do with slavery.
Is changing literature like this a good idea? What kind of precedent does it set for those after us? It tells them that we can just over-write the bits of history we find distasteful: apply a little white-out, pick a different word, and ta-da! Same, but different. No one's found offense with the slavery and abuse in ancient Greek plays (not to mention the incest, murder, mutilation, and rape). But Twain hits closer to home because he's more recently dead? I don't see how that's relevant. He wrote about his time period as he saw it in the language that was common then. It's not our place to edit the past!
In a Publisher's Weekly article announcing the new version, Gribben says he heard teachers across America complaining that they couldn't teach Huck Finn anymore because of the "hurtful" language. I ask: What good is a teacher who can't adequately set up the context for a historical piece of literature? who can't encourage and then manage a healthy discussion of the changes in language between an insensitive little white boy 150 years ago and (overly?) PC little children in America today?
As a writer, a scholar, a reader, and an English degree-holder, this debate gets under my skin. The fact that Gribben is a Twain scholar and an English professor is even more frustrating. Thomas Wortham, a UCLA Twain scholar, told Publisher's Weekly that "a book like Professor Gribben has imagined doesn't challenge children [and their teachers] to ask, 'Why would a child like Huck use such reprehensible language?'" Thanks, Gribben - as if we didn't have enough empty, cracker-like classes as it is.
It's lunch time. I can't stomach any more idiocy right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)