Censorship of Classic Literature

[Soviet Heavy]

This is something that has always bothered me. I was reading the paper today, and once again, publishing companies are out to bowlderize classic novels.

The one in question is the often attacked Huckleberry Finn, for its use of the "N" Word. The idiots want to change the word to "slave", as it doesn't offend people, apparently.

So, willfully ignoring black prejudice so that some moral guardian doesn't feel dirty isn't offending anyone? I'm not black, but even I find this ignorant and arrogant. Some jerk feels that a book he probably has never read is impeding on political correctness, so it must obviously need to be rectified to fit the social norm.

The book is very important in its social message during late Nineteenth Century America, and racism is one of its main pillars. To simply change words so that they don't hurt modern people does disservice to Mark Twain, and to history. It goes completely against the message of the book.

So yeah, censorship bad, talk about it if you want.

 

[Boneasse]

Well I agree. People talked like that in those days. You can't change history, so why change the word to something else? Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not a racist, but you can't just change something like that which has existed for more than 100 years.

The book was first published in 1884, and in 1884, that was how they talked. End of story.

On another note though, it's only 1 publisher that is going to change the word, thus far.

 

[thatstheguy]

Funny how Huckleberry Finn was written by Mark Twain, who was quoted as saying "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a cock because a baby can't chew it."

 

[Ranchcroutons]

There's a reason for the N-word in Huck Finn. People who want to censor the work miss the point entirely. Mark Twain is probably rolling in his grave.

 

[Necrotech]

I agree entirely. When I first heard about this I was totally dissapointed (and realized that they dont seem to teach people HOW to read anymore, as in, literary interpritation) The novel was about understanding that racism was bad, and it was displayed in a truthful manor. It wasn't "Birth of a Nation", it was "American History X". I suppose that in the next revision of it he will have to ask Slaveman Jim to hand him an oar...but the oar will be replaced by a walkie-talkie.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Censorship is the bane of free thought and speech. Not to come out too strong, but I feel that censorship is wrong. Provided, a child might come along and pick up the book, but then you just need to explain things to them. Thats the only circumstance in which I could ever accept censorship.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well I agree. People talked like that in those days. You can't change history, so why change the word to something else? Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not a racist, but you can't just change something like that which has existed for more than 100 years.

The book was first published in 1884, and in 1884, that was how they talked. End of story.

On another note though, it's only 1 publisher that is going to change the word, thus far.

Some people may disagree with not being able to change history...

*gives nasty look at Texas school board*

Anyways, I feel the whole political correctness bullshit needs to be killed in some manner.

 

[Epitome]

When I saw this in the news I cracked, seriously removing the n word is missing the point. Whats worse part of the professers reasoning to removing the word was because the word makes people uncomfortable and they dont want to read it.

Thats the damn point?! Your -supposed- to feel uncomfortable reading it, especially in a contempory reading. If your trying to publish a book in todays time and you wanna use the n word 200+ times you better have a damn good reason to avoid the critics. But Twain's work was written when this was the mindset of the people, its whats helped the book survive as long as it has.

Also I havent looked into it but a thought occured, if you replace every use of "n word" with "slave", is the implication that Jim is just a slave and that it doesnt have anything to do with his skin tone presented? Obviously most people would make the association but remember this book is aimed at kids.

 

[Hader]

What will happen next, changing the historical records where all the Greeks called the Persians "barbarians" because Persians find it offensive today? That's just how it was; Greeks just called non-Greeks barbarians. The use of the word "******", while having a much more racially driven undertone, holds the same principle: it was just what was used at the time. Censoring facts to make some people feel better reading a book is ridiculous.

Also I havent looked into it but a thought occured, if you replace every use of "n word" with "slave", is the implication that Jim is just a slave and that it doesnt have anything to do with his skin tone presented? Obviously most people would make the association but remember this book is aimed at kids.

Yes, this particular change in words just changes the context of the text. Sure, it is a subtle change and anyone who has read it and understands the context will not be affected by this difference; they understand the context already or can easily make the connection. I'm sure the same will go for anyone who hasn't read it, but the change in context like this is just...unjustified I guess, for lack of a better word.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The character of Jim was a landmark in American literature, what with being an extremely positive portrayal of a black man and all -- and the book was published in the 1880's to boot. Trying to censor The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for being racially insensitive is completely missing the point; the book was a scathing criticism of white supremacy, not a reinforcement of it.

 

[LostTimeLady]

To change a piece of literature is to loss the original sense of the text in its historic setting, or to put it a less pretencious way, yes, the work might be offensive but the work is a product of its time. If people understand that, you shouldn't be offended. You can dislike the fact that people back then said racist things but at the time it was, rightly or wrongly, socially accepted.

They have done this in the past, granted, to things, such as no longer calling the 'gollywog's cake walk' by it's full name (not a racist thing though, it's from the Toy Symphony for pete's sake!) or the Agatha Christy story 'And then there were none' originally contained the dreaded 'N'-word in the title, and now they're wanting to do it again with something else. I understand why it's done, but I just hope no-one will ever take it too far. (Imagine if someone got hold of the novel 'Noughts and Crosses' they'd have a field day and totally distroy the point of the text).

(Just to clarify, I don't like the use of racist terms in literature, but if something's a product of it's time or, in fact, done for effect to provoke a deliberate reaction from the reader, you can't really do much about it.)

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Thanks for the responses people. I understand that many of you are already anti censorship, but I am glad that I am not alone in my feelings on this particular subject. It is disappointing that people try to force this kind of censorship on us. It is also disappointing when they removed the book from school libraries for the same reason.

I don't understand why they feel the need to do so. Books by comparison to films or games, aren't really looked on as that dangerous to children, and why should they be? They're books. It isn't going to get up and try to murder you, or whisper to you racial slurs to use in real life. The only kids who would use the book to pick up new swears have a different problem and it doesn't come from reading.

 

[Dyp100]

They're doing this AGAIN?

It seems like they can't make up their mind, back and forth, back and forth they go.

Either way, I'm totally against censorship. It was written the way it was for a reason and therefore shouldn't be edited.

How will our children see the past for what it was if we put it through the filter of our own sensibilities and morals?