New edition of Huckleberry Finn eliminates the "n-word"

Publishers Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20110103/45645-upcoming-newsouth-huck-f...

How touchy-feely. What a load of crap. It's a reflection of the era in which it was written when certain parts of the population were property and treated inhumanely. You can't edit that.

#2--Agree. There are so many books out there--classics included that could be censored or re-edited for a variety of reasons beyond race. They are what they are and should be left that way.

Wrong!

It's bad enough when they remove all the "swarthy" villains from Nancy Drew, and take away her sporty roadster with the rumble seat, but messing with a classic?

I do not approve of Mr. Bowdler.

Political Correctness seems to me worse than the alternative. Things were the way they were, and whether we like it or not, it is better to leave things the way they are, and learn from our predecessor's mistakes and foibles than to try to cleanse our past to make it palatable to us.

You learn to appreciate books fully by understanding & learning about the historical context they were written in. It brings depth to the text. If modern publishers sanitise texts to fit modern sensitivities, while the story remains, the wordplay and imagery are tainted. You can't separate a story from the telling and the context of when it was told. It becomes something less than the original.

What lilithcat said. Wrong!

Shame on them, and may all their books be remaindered.

So, I agree, but let me play devil's advocate.

Let's imagine you were translating the work into a foreign language. What sort of effect would you be aiming for when you picked an equivalent for nigger? If your interest were to capture the meaning of the word at the time, you'd choose a word that was derogatory, for sure. But you wouldn't choose a word that reflected how nigger sounds today--a word many listeners regard as literally the worst word possible!

For example, translating it into French I think you'd choose nègre, which has acquired a derogatory sense--although it didn't have one when the French translator in the 1880s chose that word to represent nigger. But unless I'm mistaken that derogatory sense is closer to what nigger felt like in 1880, or what negro feels like today, than to the start-screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs effect of nigger today. Maybe, therefore, if we want to "translate Twain," nigger should be translated as negro--offensive, but not atomic.

Anyway, that's my devil's advocate. In fact, I think we can and should adapt to this sort of semantic drift. But we should understand it as such, and not pretend that nigger means the same thing today as it did in the late 19th century--even in a deeply anti-racist novel like Huckleberry Finn. So, for now, we should explain, not translate. But that decision will eventually flip--and it will be time to translate Twain, just as we now almost always translate Chaucer and Beowulf, unless we're engaged in specialist study. Twain will eventually be no different.

>1 timspalding: and others...

Yes. And, in addition to the really stupid idea of changing somebody else's writing, it's contributing to a problem that it claims to address. It amounts to averting your eyes from something in order to pretend it doesn't exist.

>8 timspalding: Translations, in general, tend to tone down and "normalize." Recasting and reinventing the dialects of Huckleberry Finn in another language and trying to capture all those gradations of region, age, class, race and highly personalized characterization--what a nightmare! Nabokov complained of the amount of "brain blood" translation cost him, and he had more of it to spare than most mortals.

As for the particular case of nègre, sure, the connotation, and hence the meaning itself, changes over time. But language always does that, right? We just tend to notice it more for these touchy examples.

Outside of racial contexts, nègre is still commonly used as a term for a ghostwriter. I've heard it on bookish TV talk shows. But when the recent Polanski film came out, instead of translating the title, as is usually done, it was advertised as "The Ghostwriter." Presumably because they wanted to avoid confusion or offense that might result if they posted "Le Nègre" all over the place...

*oops--sorry for the italics everywhere

Here's from a friend of mine whose children read it for school.

All should read Huck Finn as it was written!! Huck and Jim are great and loyal friends. Each risks all for the other. Huck sees thru the evils of the times and discovers a man, not someone's property. When my kids picked up the P_C version I found a real copy to read. I explained the differance between both and... all agreed that the flavor of the original made it more difficult to read but set the tone of the story and made them think.

To quote a character in "First Monday in October"...Censorship is an outrage.

It doesn't matter what your intent is.

I don't think we can afford to be niggardly in our opposition to the inane bowdlerizing of classical works of fiction.

In a somewhat related story (authorial intent and all), Antonin Scalia argues that the 14th Amendment does not apply to women.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

From a strictly legal viewpoint, (and especially from Scalia's viewpoint) he is correct. But since he's already in error on strict construction, this is more judicial activism.

Case in point: the Constitution DOES strictly prohibit any federal law restricting freedom of speech. With the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, that prohibition applies to the states as well. Therefore, censorship...of any type...on any printed media whatsoever...is unConstitutional by Scalia's viewpoint. But I haven't noticed any great concern for 1st Amendment issues from Scalia.

He's an old guy who wants things to be just like they were in some distant past that never was.

>14 BruceCoulson:

Um, how about his flag-burning vote? That sent him to the other side of the aisle by most political reckonings. But Scalia's argument about strict construction is that it cuts both ways. Freedom of speech clearly applies to political speech like flag burning. By the standard liberal interpretation, if people come to believe flag burning is totally indefensible, it vanishes from the "living" Constitution.

Of course, those who want the Constitution to change to reflect society, not its original meaning, always believe that they'll be in control of that meaning--that the country will forever go left, not right. Scalia's argument is that we have a "dead" Constitution to guarantee certain rights whether the country goes left or right.

Of course the N-version should be used in college and be an option for high-functioning high schools, but in grade school? Research shows that early on (preschool/K), kids gauge parents' reactions to racial slurs, which they later mimic. Reading the N-version to their classmates might be interpreted as permission to use that kind of language. Can you imagine reading all 200 repetitions to your kid at bedtime? Do you not think he would try out the language, maybe on the playground? Why not substitute "slave" or "Negro" if it is closer in emotional punch to the casual use back then?

But then, I bought my kids Sam and the Tigers: A Retelling of 'Little Black Sambo'
by Julius Lester, wonderfully illustrated by Jerry Pinkney, rather than Helen Bannerman's The Story of Little Black Sambo . My mom loved the Bannerman book as a child and wanted my (adopted) brown kids to enjoy it, too. What worked in the 1930s, didn't feel right in 1990s, though!

Great Illustrated Classics' version of Huckleberry Finn didn't have N-word, as I recall (?) My kids read that series at home after their Step readers.

As they began reading for themselves, I was happy for any books that would keep boys reading, e.g., King Solomon Mines, an uncomfortably explicit mummy book, ditto a sex book that they devoured upon discovering on their bookshelves... They were welcome to read the original Huck Finn themselves at home, but I think best not read aloud by a parent or by teacher/classmates in the elementary or middle school classroom.

>16 margd:

Should grade school children—at least younger ones—be reading Huckleberry Finn? It's not Tom Sawyer. To really understand it would be to confront racism at a fairly profound level. Nigger may have suffered some drift in intensity, but the book itself is plenty profound there. Maybe the Illustrated Classics version sands that down?

Oh, the Supreme Court has usually supported the right to political free speech.

But the Constitution doesn't say 'the right to free political speech'; it says, 'the right to free speech'.

Yes, flag-burning should be permitted. (For one thing, it's one of the approved ways to dispose of a used flag...:)) So should pornography.

>18 BruceCoulson:

Well, that was 5/4 case, with Scalia "crossing."

I think you raise a good point. Yes, the Constitution says speech. Does it matter what they thought that meant? If you want to be an absolutist, no, it doesn't. Every form of speech is to be protected. Except nobody actually acts that way. The right wants to censor pornography people pay for and the left wants to censor political speech people pay for. Of course, both sides have their arguments. Maybe pornography is bad for us. Maybe political commercials are bad for us.

An absolutist should demand both, but if you're going to go for something less than that, shouldn't intent have some role here? Support it as I do, there's precious little about the founders believing nude dancing needs to be protected as speech, but they hammer home again and again the absolute necessity of allowing political speech... Yet somehow people who think of themselves as supporting the expansive meaning of the Constitution want to nix the very core of what the founders and ratifiers thought the First Amendment was about.

#19

I agree. (Although I'll bet I could make a convincing argument that Ben Franklin would have been highly in favor of nude dancing...:))

And this is the flaw in Scalia's arguments. He claims to be a strict constructionist; but there's never been such an animal. He's true to his vision of the Constitution (narrow though it may be), but he's putting his stamp on what he feels the Constitution says.

The key problem is 'when does speech stop being speech, and become something else?'

If I offer a police officer a gift card usable only for purchasing uniforms, am I guilty of bribery?

And if the answer is yes, then why is it not bribery to offer a politician money to remain in office?

Next, they'll ban the o word in Lord of the Rings. Then they won't fund artists like Andres Serrano and Karen Finley. PC nonsense!

he's putting his stamp on what he feels the Constitution says

I suspect he'd say that it's not a feeling. There is ample evidence they intended it to cover political speech. There isn't the same evidence for a much broader protection, and indeed counter evidence in how similar provisions were and weren't used at the time.

Back to the original topic, I find it interesting that everyone is up in arms over this, here, on Twitter, on Facebook, everywhere—yet everyone who absolutely opposes the "n-word" refuses to actually type the word. Isn't that a bit odd?

Not at all. There are a lot of words in common usage that I would prefer not to write or speak. Or, for that matter, read.

But that's a far cry from prohibiting others from using those words, especially when those words are necessary in the context of the writing to convey a particular meaning, or reflect speech patterns from an earlier time.

If I find those words offensive, I can exercise my rights not to read or listen or view.

But the right to use a word also implies the right NOT to use a word. As long as the meaning and information are conveyed to the readers (and I think we mostly know what the 'n' word stands for) the use is unnecessary.

>23 timspalding:
Actually, my first reaction to the OP was that the wording could've been improved, to: "New edition of Huckleberry Finn eliminates the word "nigger"". Since that it what has happened. No offense. Just saying.

And doggone it, Tim, I see that 439 members on your site are openly flaunting their copies of The Nigger of the Narcissus. You've got some explaining to do, dude.

>17 timspalding: Should grade school children—at least younger ones—be reading Huckleberry Finn? It's not Tom Sawyer. To really understand it would be to confront racism at a fairly profound level. Nigger may have suffered some drift in intensity, but the book itself is plenty profound there. Maybe the Illustrated Classics version sands that down?

Illustrated Classics give taste or summary of a story that's fairly fulfilling, so its version of Huckleberry Finn, as I recall it, was more of an adventure story with some scary parts. I liked Illustrated Classics books because they transitioned to more text than illustration, from color to pen-and-ink illustrations. Also, there are a ton of titles that seemed to keep the boys reading. Bonus in that I myself finally got to "read" titles such as Portrait of Dorian Grey, Hans Brinker, Count of Monte Cristo, etc. The kids went on to read some of the originals, at least, such as the Jules Verne books, Call of the Wild.

We better make sure all the kiddies aren't allowed to read any Faulkner or Welty - they used the n-word more than just a little. Plus pretty much any Americans who wrote fiction during their era - especially African-American writers.

Re the 'should school texts be edited for younger children' discussion above, I can only speak for myself but what would offend me and elicit complaint from me as a parent is if a school used an edited and sanitised version of a classic text to expose my child to the 'story'. If they're old enough to be taught using a text, they're old enough to learn about it properly and if a teacher is skillful enough they can find a way to do that with children of many ages. If a school really believes that children are too young to fully be able to comprehend these kinds of contextual semantic issues, then I would argue that the children are too young to study that book (I mean, let's face it, I don't want to try and explain Trainspotting to a 5 year old ... there are cases where a school should definitely make a decision not to teach from a text with younger age groups). But heaven help any teacher that sends my daughter home with a sanitised version of anything.

If the child is old enough to read a story on their own, they should read the real, original story.

If it's too adult for them, they'll lose interest and stop reading.

If it's not, but they don't fully understand everything, they'll come to their parents to ask questions. Or a teacher, or a librarian.

At some point, children grow up and make decisions on their own. And choices about what to read is a good place to start learning how to do that.

I certainly agree with #30 with regards to how you handle literature and children at home - this is the approach I was brought up on and I'm not too damaged by it.

The difference with schools is that they have to cater to parents with a variety of parenting approaches - I can disagree with other parents' approach to access to literature but I would never presume to force my parenting decisions on others. Outside of downright abusive parenting, the right of a parent to decide how to raise their child is sacrosanct.

That said, I think the whole education system would be a better place if they adopted the attitude to it that #30 states so succinctly.

I think the continuum that Tim mentioned way above that leads us all the way back to Chaucer and Beowulf is a valid point to make. However, I think that a 'translation' comes into play when a text becomes incomprehensible. Huckleberry Finn and other books mentioned here are far, far away from needing a 'translation' so it is a case, in my opinion, of a text needing to be taught, explained, contextualised but not sanitised. We still read Shakespeare with terms explained rather than changed. I see no real need for Huckleberry Finn to jump the queue because it contains the term 'nigger' (which, by the way, I have no problem using in the context of this discussion because it's exactly what I'm advocating our educators should do).

#31

To paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan, a teacher's lot is not a happy one. So, a certain amount of compromise is required when dealing with parents who have a different outlook on education; you are correct there.

But no, despite the best efforts of the Religious Reich, a parent's rights on how to raise their children is not sacrosanct. In their own home, yes; as long as they do not violate criminal statutes, they are free to censor and restrict as much as they feel is necessary. But living in a society requires compromise from both sides. Even religious schools are required to maintain certain educational standards and teach certain subjects. (To be fair, many Catholic schools do a better job than the public system.) But just as we would not tolerate a school that insisted on teaching that pi was exactly '3' (just as it says in the Bible), parents have to compromise on what literature their children will be taught and exposed to.

It's unreasonable to expect, for instance, that a school librarian will strictly monitor and forbid certain children from looking at or reading certain materials. It's just as unreasonable for schools to cater to certain groups by only selecting works that contain no offensive words (or, far more important, no offensive ideas).

I suspect that the real issue has nothing to do with the word 'nigger' and has far more to do with Huck's rejection of a society and religion that would make Jim a piece of property.

#17/27 Should grade school children be reading any book at all without some discussion of the story and the writing? When you talk about grade school, I imagine you mean they would be reading these books at school under the supervision of a teacher. The point of reading any literature at any age at school is surely to discuss it. Now I'm not especially bothered whether they read the original version and discuss the implications of the language used or whether they read the Bowdlerised one and talk about why it has been censored. What I do object to is the kind of censorship that tries to pretend the original never happened and that is the danger of this kind of thing.

Everyone here who has used the expression "the n-word" (myself included) has made a decision to censor their own language. The very use of that expression carries with it a sub-text that the speaker knows the word "nigger" and chooses not to use it because they and/or their listeners find it offensive. That's fine. One day, a time will come when the next generation has never heard the more offensive version and believes "the n-word" to be the original phrase, while knowing nothing of its origins - that's the way language works, but it isn't the way literature should work; the whole point of literature as opposed to language is that literature is written down and does not change over the years as language does. At the very least, my opinion would be that any censored version should carry an introduction explaining what is being censored and why (which might well negate the purpose of the censorship for a lot of its proponents but that's tough - maybe they're the ones who aren't yet mature enough to be reading these books?)

I don't want to try and explain Trainspotting to a 5 year old

Mommy said Scotland was colonized by wankers!

Incidentally, while I could see an argument for changing that was based on the change in intensity of nigger, this does not seem to be the motivation. They instead write about removing "hurtful" epithets, and also remove "injun," which hasn't changed its intensity. (Indeed, injun is just a written form of a local dialect version of Indian, and neither more or less harsh.)

This thread reminds me of my visit to the Chicago Museum of Natural History in 1989. There was a display portraying the life of cavemen. There was a sign posted on the wall beside the diorama stating (I paraphrase):

We apologise that this display contains certain elements that are not politically correct, but we assure you that we are working hard to correct these and will get to them in time.

Do I need to comment further?

Talk about losing the plot!

Did they insult the Basques or something?

Copies of the same plaque were mounted beside many of the displays.

It reminds me of the axiom:

He who controls the present controls history; He who controls history controls the future."

(I cannot remember the source of this saying, but it is so true.)

Someone made the suggestion that the publisher had to replace the word 'nigger' because they had none left in inventory; Dr. Laura used them all.

>38 pgmcc:
It's from Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four. More precisely, it's the character O'Brien, who is Winston's nemesis and torturer.

#40 krolik

Thank you!

>35 timspalding: They instead write about removing "hurtful" epithets, and also remove "injun," which hasn't changed its intensity.

Having had my ears boxed, I can attest that some Native Americans / First Nations / Aboriginals take vigorous exception to "Indian" and "Tribes"...especially, but not exclusively, those residing in Canada.

An old boss of mine actually referred to a woman leader in her presence as a "squaw". Very bad, but to her credit, she took him aside and gently but firmly set him straight.

All kinds of landmines for the unwary or insensitive, which too often describes me. Guess I'd be super-sensitive, too, given history.

If you remove what is considered offensive to some group from literature...any literature...

The eventually you will have no literature, or anything worth reading.

Because much of what makes literature, and art in general, important will be considered offensive...by someone.

And if you cater to one special-interest group, then eventually you must cave in to all (or to so many that it makes little difference).

As an example: The Bible is generally considered to be a great work, on many levels. Roger Crumb's Illustrated Genesis is a faithful adaptation of the early books in the Bible. Should it be banned? And if so, why not the original source material?

> 36

Actually, this is one of those cases that may be more complicated than it looks. :-)

Museum reconstructions of prehistoric human lifestyles tend to reflect the values and assumptions of the time and place in which they're created. How we think about "cave men" changes not just because the data changes but because the way we think about ourselves changes, too . . . A diorama created in, say, the 1940s -- based on less-complete data than we have now, and 1930s assumptions about, say, gender roles -- would, indeed, call for rethinking. And until it was revised, it could look pretty cringe-inducing to modern audiences.

If I was a curator facing that challenge, I think I'd have worded the sign differently ("Reflects outdated assumptions," say . . . ), but then again "politically correct" had a fairly specific and, IIRC, slightly ironic meaning in the late-eighties, and was not yet the all-things-to-all-people pejorative term it is now.

Ronald Rainger, An Agenda for Antiquity and Stephanie Moser's work on images of the caveman are interesting places to start, if you're interested in museum displays of prehistory as reflections of their time.

>42 margd:

Sure, there will be an ongoing dialogue and conflicts and, one hopes, improved understanding.

But there's a vital distinction here, isn't there? Censoring or expurgating books is not about dialogue. It's a refusal of dialogue. It's an authoritarian (and potentially totalitarian) gesture that does not brook disagreement.

I can understand perfectly well that people object to the use of the word "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn or other works, or to the sympathetic depiction of the KKK in Gone With the Wind, or to many other such examples. But to falsify the past, even with well-intentioned motives, is, well, false.

The literary merit, or lack thereof, of such-and-such work will always be a matter of debate. But the historical fact of their existence ought not be denied. That's a perilous path to go down.

If I had young kids, for instance, I wouldn't want them to watch "24". I'd try by parental guile and manipulation to keep them from seeing it. On the other hand, I'd be appalled if it got expurgated or censored at a later date by "well-intentioned" folks. Because I'm convinced that this show will be a valuable document in the history of Americans' attitude toward torture.

We can all trot out examples that fit with our respective ideologies. But the historical record is another kind of question.

#44 ABVR

Thank you for the link.

I agree with you that as new information comes available through discovery and research, then depictions of life in a given era should be updated to make them more, "Correct".

I do not agree that such depictions should be altered to reflect present day attitudes or norms. This would be a distortion of the past.

An example would be documents reporting on advertising images in the 1960s and TV advertisements, especially for home appliances, etc... Such images always had a female in the "housewife" role doing the cooking and the cleaning, etc...; they were always in a husband, wife, children happy family setting, and everyone was white.

Changing dioramas in a museum, or the words in a book to reflect current norms would be like changing the 1960s images to show single parent families, mixed race familes, single sex couples, etc... which would be dishonest and a denial of what actually happened in advertising and television in the 1960s, or the period involved.

Derogatory words were used in literature in the past and that is a fact. More people being more sensitive, or more politically correct, nowadays is also a fact. The historical documents should be left as they were to show the mistakes of the past. Inappropriate language, as gauged by todays norms, should be unnacceptable if used out of the context of reflecting life in a foregone era.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it! (George Santayana)
I looked that one up! :-)

It's true that the response to the word nigger is very different now than it was in the mid 19th century. But I think it's less a result of a change in the meaning of nigger and more of a change in the acceptability of racism in US culture.

I have not done a particular study of the use of nigger, but I have read a great deal in the history slavery, abolition and race. The polite term for most of US history was negro. Nigger almost always carried a derogatory connotation. I have never seen it used by abolitionists, but frequently by their enemies. Although only snippet view is available in google books, the uses cited in Leon F. Litwack's North of Slavery are suggestive of general use.

Nigger meant inferiority and separation. But for most of US history the inferiority of black people and the need to keep them apart from whites was almost ubiquitous in white thinking. The time around the American Revolution, when the northern states enacted gradual emancipation, is often viewed as an opening when slavery and racist assumptions where called into question. But even at than time the debate was more over whether blacks were inherently inferior or inferior due to their condition of enslavement. And as formal freedom was slowly granted in the North laws where enacted to exclude blacks from politics and to maintain social separation.

So though it's been a long since I've read Huckleberry Finn I suspect that Twain's use of nigger was an honest reflection of this pervasive racism. As such, it is only appropriate for modern readers to react with hostility. But hostility at the word or the novel is misdirected. Because the novel, and it's accurate picture of 19th century culture, provides an opportunity to think about what it meant to live in a world where the oppression of blacks was reinforced so casually in daily speech. Removing nigger from the book (as if it is the word and not the history of racism that give offense!) also removes this opportunity for learning.

#47 Well said!

>47 eromsted:
as if it is the word and not the history of racism that give offense!

Exactly.

Well this debate can go on forever...and it will. Being a white parent of children with a black father I have had many experience with this word in more ways then one. I personally never use the word in any form of speaking in addressing anyone but have been called the name many times. For such a little word it can bring out the worst in people of both races. But can we say that one race (white people) are banned from using it but then it is perfectly okay for the other race (black people) to use it as greetings towards one another?

I dont agree in the Political correctness of changing the classics because it does take away from text and by changing the original text now it becomes someone elses work. One of my all time favorite book will always be Gone With the Wind and as we all know the word is used many times. Personally I know the word is there and I just glance over them and get on with the true story of the book. .

I can't help thinking this book is more about Alan Gribben rather pathetically attempting to further link himself to the author who's been the subject of much of his career (write your own classic, Mr. Gribben, because you're no Samuel Clemens). Still, there's little reason for alarm. As long as it isn't intended as a replacement, and it's clearly presented as not the original work, then it isn't really a threat to the original. The edition in my library is safe from revisionists, and there are plenty more out there.

Even without a meddling professor, the emotions surrounding the words considered offensive are certainly interesting from a sociological point of view. Words have more power than they deserve for some people, and the arguments will undoubtedly continue. As a wise man once said, "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

So how does the reading of the revised Constitution play into all of this?

I'm with #30.

The schools are offering education or they are not.

A so called education based on bowdlerised texts is so much pablum and an intellectual insult to the student.

If "education" is to cater to the prejudices of the unsophisticated, then it's no use complaining that our education system falls short of "top drawer".

The US has to make up its collective mind. Do we want high quality education or do we want to be PC and comfy?

#22: It seems frustratingly limited to interpret the constitution in such a way that if we passed an amendment saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", that would force the Supreme Court to change things.

#46: Changing dioramas in a museum, or the words in a book to reflect current norms would be like changing the 1960s images to show single parent families, mixed race familes, single sex couples, etc... which would be dishonest and a denial of what actually happened in the 1960s, or the period involved.

The dioramas in a museum are not what happened in the past; they're one picture of what happened in the past. Other pictures of the past can be equally or more true. I think your example of 1960s pictures is perfect; what on earth makes you think there weren't single parent families in the 1960s? The source I read said that the US divorce rate is four times that of the 1960s, and that it's now 40 to 60% for a new marriage; meaning that 10% to 15% of 1960s marriages ended in divorce. Which is not to mention cases where parents died or there never was a marriage in the first place; my great-grandfather's wife ran my pregnant great-grandmother out of town on a rail, for example. "During World War II, an estimated one million American soldiers married women from over fifty different countries." Including the Philippines and Japan. And Filipinos that were in the US prior to WWII were heavily male, and couldn't go home and return, or bring a wife over, so they often married white women. I'm not going to go through the history of gays in the US, but there have been same sex couples for forever, even if they were just "roommates". Do we look at history through the viewpoint of our time? Of course. But there's so much the 1960s willfully ignored about itself.

As for this, I find it stupid to edit Huckleberry Finn in this way. Use it as a perfect example of how language and attitudes have changed and go on. But I don't disagree with Great Illustrated style editions. And Huckleberry Finn is a easy case because it is anti-racist and the word is so core to the text. I'd like an uncensored Doctor Dolittle or Nancy Drew to be available for adults, but I don't want to raise my children on the racist biases of an older age; if Nancy Drew's only use for Chinese is as drivers and villains, I will offer my kids Encyclopedia Brown and other modern mysteries instead.

#44: If "education" is to cater to the prejudices of the unsophisticated, then it's no use complaining that our education system falls short of "top drawer".

The US has to make up its collective mind. Do we want high quality education or do we want to be PC and comfy?

Because PC isn't so often the prejudices of the sophisticated. Feeding our children a diet of racist literature is not going to make them more educated, but it will confirm that any racist attitudes they have are supported by the authors we see fit to offer. There was a time to throw Aristotle off the curriculum and import modern theories, and there's a time to throw out any old author who doesn't offer enough to offset the archaic attitudes he (and yes, we're almost always talking he here) brings to the table. And the high quality educations were comparing ourselves to aren't teaching Twain; they're teaching Goethe and Sōseki.

#54 prosfilaes what on earth makes you think there weren't single parent families in the 1960s?

I believe you took my comments up with an inverted meaning. I quoted advertising in the 1960s as portraying a restricted lifestyle view by not showing the real social diversity that existed. This practice would be quite correctly considered today to be flawed and discriminatory. To alter the historical record would be to deny that this practice took place and would be like covering up a huge social crime. I have edited my wording to more clearly make my point.

I have edited my wording to more clearly make my point.

I wish you wouldn't do that. Now someone reading the thread from the beginning will come to prosfilaes' post and might think him an idiot for reading something that isn't there. There are times when it makes sense to edit a previous post, but this isn't one of them.

#56 :-)

For what it's worth, this has shot Huckleberry Finn to the top of the Project Gutenberg download list, even above the Kama Sutra (which is something of a joke, since we only have a French edition without illustrations, but still gets lots of downloads.)

Tweet from Library of America:

"A few school district servers rejected the Harriet Beecher Stowe Bicentennial e-mail we sent yesterday due to the phrase "Uncle Tom." Sad."

http://twitter.com/#!/LibraryAmerica/status/79691162587381761

In commenting on a review on Amazon I referenced "Little Black Sambo". Now I did not call anyone derogatorily a "Little Black Sambo", I just referenced the book. It was censored. BTW, his parents Big Jumbo and Big Mumbo passed OK.

However, if you search Little Black Sambo in Amazon books you will find many editions for sale.

Weird.

I, like certain people we know, haven't bothered to read this thread as a whole. So I apologize if this is redundant. However, I think I've scanned enough of the thread to be somewhat amazed about the position many posters seem to be taking.

As I understand the facts, some publisher has brought out an edition of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn where "the N word" has been edited out or replaced by some other term.

So?

The ranters against political correctness and defenders of free speech obviously have no mirrors in their houses. Get a clue, guys. This is ONE EDITION. The originals haven't been banned. The originals have not been suppressed. You or anyone else can read what ever edition you want. Indeed, you can read the originals, "N word" included, free from Goggle Books and are going to have to pay for this edition.

So what, exactly, is the issue here? Is it that someone should so offend your "politically correct" sensibilities that they bring out an edition of a "classic" that is somewhat differently edited? How dare they!! Don't they know what ethics demands???? Maybe there "ought to be a law," you think?

There is a useful and important distinction between cultural and literary criticism—and political hysterics. Nobody is suggesting a nigger-less Huckleberry Finn should be banned. We are have a conversation about whether such an edition is a good idea from a literary, historical, cultural and aesthetic vantage point--and then whether it represents a more general trend. Clearly the distinction isn't one you acknowledge.

>60 JGL53:
Actually the original Little Black Sambo when first published in 1899 was a story about a South Indian boy. The author was a Scottish woman.
It wasn't until 1927 in an American publication, illustrated by Frank Dobias that the little boy was depicted as an African.
Many of my old story books from the fifties still include the story, only one of them has the little boy depicted as an Indian. Newer reprints of the same story collections changed both the title and the illustrations.

The book has seen it's share of controversy....the difference between Little Black Sambo and Huckleberry Finn I believe is intent......not sure if the author of Little Black Sambo was sending any kind of message,other than a story of a brave little Indian boy, but Twain was using his verbage for reason.

>61 lawecon:

You seem confused about some differences regarding censorship, expurgation, and edition.

The editing of texts from primary source(s) is a scholarly discipline, premised on methodologies about how best to respect the source(s).

Censorship and expurgation serve other agendas.

What if I "edited" your post and substituted words in order to improve it, claiming that I am a better writer and thinker than you are. Hey, it's only one post. I'm not banning you. I just know better than you. But let's still call it lawecon. No biggie.

>61 lawecon: I think lawecon makes a great point. Do I feel that removing the word nigger from Huck takes away from the work as a whole, yes, but I certainly respect the choice others might like to have to read an edition without it. In the same way that abridged novels can't truly compare to the real thing (or even an English translation of a book written in another native language), I'm glad to have them around. Hopefully they can provide an introduction to the work accessible to all different levels and ages of readers, and perhaps later in life that reader might choose the "real thing".

I'm glad that as a child my parents chose to tell me the more mild versions of fairy tales. I enjoy the original versions now, but I think it was wise not to terrify me with them at a young age. I understand that Twain's work is a bit different, as the use of nigger does speak to a specific period and has important meaning, but I just don't find myself that worked up over it, at least as long as the unedited version is available as well. I think by taking it out one might miss out on a good teaching experience for younger readers, but it's really not my choice to make. If an edited version allows someone to read a classic they might otherwise not read/let their child read at the time, well then, couldn't it in a way be considered a good thing?

>65 Sourire:

I respect the example you give about parents attempting, according to their lights, to adjust how much a child gets exposed to, and when...

But please note that you're talking about a certain sample of immature readers, whereas this discussion and publishing practices regarding the "n-word" (instead of nigger) is becoming common currency in conversation among ostensibly serious adults.

Instead of facing a deeply troubled historical legacy--which would be the grown-up thing to do--some people are embracing the infantile formula as the solution.

The world needs more grown-ups. Not fewer.

Again, great point. I guess my feeling is (and I completely understand how many might disagree), that if this allows more readers and more schools to teach the book, then I think that is a "good" thing (with good being a relative term). Would I rather the book be intact and it used as a lesson on history, race relations, etc, yes. But, if one were to pose me the question of whether I'd prefer I child read a slightly edited version or simply not be able to read it at all, I'd chose the former. It is truly sad that we have not come to a point in time where that question wouldn't need to be asked, but in all truth we haven't. Huckleberry Finn, just like so many other books which have been banned throughout the years does have more to give than what lies in the edited portions, so I think that even an edited version is more worthwhile than simply no version at all.

Again though, I'd like to stress I do agree that it is a travesty that the discussion even needs to be had, and more people need to be adult about it. Further, like I said, I have no issue with anyone who takes more of a ideal stance as opposed to the more compromising stance I take. There are merits in both. I am against the idea of banning and editing books, but I guess my pragmatic side got the best of me on this one.

>65 Sourire:

" If an edited version allows someone to read a classic they might otherwise not read/let their child read at the time, well then, couldn't it in a way be considered a good thing?"

Not so sure. If we change history books to portray history how we would like it to be.....then start teaching the revised lessons.....is this a good thing ? At least they are learning something ?

Huckleberry Finn as written is part of our American history.

Just seems wrong to change a work of art to fit our comfort zone. I think someone said it before in this thread, instead of changing a piece of literature....if you think your child is not ready for it....then wait until they are.

You are a reader and at some point in time you explored the original version of various fairy tales on your own. Not too sure many people have the imagination or curiosity to do this. Watering down what is objectionable will have the effect of tamping down any questions and the discomfort that may result.

Can't stop someone who is intent on doing something like this.....but it seems counter productive to what reading literature is all about.

Kind of like republishing Payton Place without all of the sex scenes. It would deminish the novel and the time period that the novel represents.

"Not so sure. If we change history books to portray history how we would like it to be.....then start teaching the revised lessons.....is this a good thing ? At least they are learning something ?"

Is that not what we have done- horrifying as it is. In the US at least, not only do our history (or science or whatnot) books say different things from those of other countries, but even state to state. I speak not necessarily in terms of focus (as in more focus of New York's geography in New York and California's in California, but to actual content) Do I like or agree with this, no. Would I rather kids learn something, anything, other than be forced not to learn at all simply because we can't all decide on what exactly to put in the book, yes. It's not ideal, or even good, but to me better than the alternative. Again, I understand and respect the right to disagree.

*edited to add: I also think there is an important distinction to make here. As far as I know, the book in no way presents itself as an original or unedited version. I don't own it, so I can't be sure, but from what I have read about it, it makes it clear it is an edited version of Huck Finn. It's not purporting itself to be the full and accurate thing, whereas the type of academic editing suggested generally is.

You seem confused about some differences regarding censorship, expurgation, and edition.

The editing of texts from primary source(s) is a scholarly discipline, premised on methodologies about how best to respect the source(s).

Censorship and expurgation serve other agendas.

And what about translation? If Huck Finn had been written by Geoffrey Chaucer, would you have a problem with modern publishers changing his words? Why is this different? (see Tim's point in post 8)

>69 Sourire:
Yes we did, in many cases, rewrite history...made it what we would like it to be. It wasn't until I was out of school and reading on my own that I learned some of the truths about this country and our role in history. When some of the truths were revealed, I was angry....mostly because I questioned so many things in school and usually found myself in all kinds of trouble.
Don't you think that some of the problems we, as a country, face today are because we view ourselves through a selective lens ?
If we are aware of what we did and can see the results as being less than positive, why then would we continue to do so ? Take another piece of history and make it more palatable ? If we change what we want, make our behavior's less reprehensible...what is the incentive to change ? Children who are not taught the truth will no doubt become adults who are easier to control.

Certainly not ALL of them...you said yourself that you investigated on your own, but I am going to repeat myself and say that many others do not.....remain blissfully unaware and are stubbornly holding on to an idea that is founded on less than the truth.

Personally, I see this as dangerous.

Fine to disagree :>) Would be a boring world if we didn't !

>69 Sourire:
Yes we did, in many cases, rewrite history...made it what we would like it to be. It wasn't until I was out of school and reading on my own that I learned some of the truths about this country and our role in history. When some of the truths were revealed, I was angry....mostly because I questioned so many things in school and usually found myself in all kinds of trouble.
Don't you think that some of the problems we, as a country, face today are because we view ourselves through a selective lens ?
If we are aware of what we did and can see the results as being less than positive, why then would we continue to do so ? Take another piece of history and make it more palatable ? If we change what we want, make our behavior's less reprehensible...what is the incentive to change ? Children who are not taught the truth will no doubt become adults who are easier to control.

Certainly not ALL of them...you said yourself that you investigated on your own, but I am going to repeat myself and say that many others do not.....remain blissfully unaware and are stubbornly holding on to an idea that is founded on less than the truth.

Personally, I see this as dangerous.

Fine to disagree :>) Would be a boring world if we didn't !

71> But rewriting history text books isn't the same as changing a word in an edition that's clearly marked as different. And as I believe was brought up in the previous discussion, the n-word doesn't mean the same thing now as it did when Twain wrote it down so it could be argued that this is more of a translation issue anyway.

Though I personally don't have any problems with the changing of Sambo from an Indian to a Black child, or with the n-word in various literary works (one of Joseph Conrad's comes to mind) I also don't think it a biggie if all the books of the former were changed from now on to Little White Sambo and another word was substitued for all uses of the n-word in all of history. I would think it rather goofy, but what the hey.

OTOH, I think the changing of actual history by A-holes on education boards in Tex-ass and other southern states is evil. What the hell can decent people do about crap like that? - Something, one would hope.

#72: Personally, I see this as dangerous.

Is there a movie adaptation of Huckleberry Finn that hasn't edited out the n-word? Considering that they usually do, would they not also be "dangerous" by your standard? Perhaps more so since kids are more likely to be exposed to a film version of the story rather than to the book?

But really, Huckleberry Finn is not a history book. It is a piece of literature and should be taught as such. It has all the implications of relevance to culture that any other piece of literature has and changing the wording does indeed change the message. But saying that Huckleberry Finn is "history" is almost as sloppy as saying that the Bible is a science book.

>70 PaulFoley:
I tried to talk about translation a bit in my post >9 krolik: and agree that it will always be a vexed issue. But I think it's prudent to respect the materiality of the source text as much as possible.

As for the particular cases of "translating" from the English to the English, I can understand the reason secondary school kids resort to "translations" of Chaucer. But even then, some translations will be better than others; the problem doesn't go away. For grown-ups, it's better to go to the source and make up your own mind. It doesn't rule out using helpful secondary sources. It's not a question of all or nothing.

~62

You are right. I don't acknowledge that distinction. I particularly don't acknowledge that distinction in an America where all claims for the superiority of one thing over another have become political. You know: "Drugs are bad for you. Thus drugs should be illegal." "Immigrants don't "fit in," thus "we" should deport them." Etc.

And in this instance, Tim, tell me how this distinction of yours works. Suppose that you and all the other contributants to this thread and 99% of the rest of the American public concluded that it was a really bad idea to have an edition of Huck Finn that did not include the word "nigger, " "from a from a literary, historical, cultural and aesthetic vantage point," of course. Presume that "we all," concluded that this was "political correctness" probably only advocated by "unAmerican crazy liberals who are trying to distort history." Etc.

So?

Anything flow from that?

Apparently not in the America you live in. Now if you could just convince Congress........

~64
Censorship and expurgation serve other agendas.

What if I "edited" your post and substituted words in order to improve it, claiming that I am a better writer and thinker than you are. Hey, it's only one post. I'm not banning you. I just know better than you. But let's still call it lawecon. No biggie.

======================================

Right, no biggie. At least no biggie if my original post was still around, was available on better terms than your edit, etc. In fact, you can do that right now. Take my original post, substitute terms you find appropriate and repost it as another new and improved post.

Of course, if you took my original post and substituted your post, thus denying people access to my original post, or if you represented your edit as my original post, that might arguably be a biggie. But that isn't the situation we are talking about, is it?

~72

Certainly not ALL of them...you said yourself that you investigated on your own, but I am going to repeat myself and say that many others do not.....remain blissfully unaware and are stubbornly holding on to an idea that is founded on less than the truth.

Personally, I see this as dangerous.

=====================================

You need to talk to Tim. He doesn't believe that this viewpoint exists.

John Jakes North and South trilogy contains the n-word.

>75 Lunar:
I did not mean to say that Huckleberry Finn was a history book.....what I meant was that Huckleberry Finn, as a piece of literature, is part of our American history.....novel's, photo's, paintings are, to some extent, reflections of the time period during which they are created.

Politically correct Huck Finn, courtesy of Family Guy.

>79 lawecon:
I would be happy to talk to Tim .....his opinions may not be the same as mine but his thoughts and opinions were formed by his personal experiences and life choices. Since no two people experience things in exactly the same manner, it would be foolish to dismiss what he says as not having any value. Doing so would be a disservice not only to Tim but to myself as well.

Personal attacks are not beneficial to debate.....may help in declaring a "winner" , however since this tread seems to be more about "why" we feel the way we do about this subject, rather than who is right and who is wrong....not sure a "winner" is called for.

I would be happy to talk to Tim .....his opinions may not be the same as mine but his thoughts and opinions were formed by his personal experiences and life choices.
=====================================

Very, ah, psychologistic and postmodern.
======================================
Since no two people experience things in exactly the same manner, it would be foolish to dismiss what he says as not having any value. Doing so would be a disservice not only to Tim but to myself as well.

=================================

I am not dismissing what Tim has to say as of no value. I am pointing out to Tim that his apparent dismissal of my views on this topic as not representative of what is "going on" (e.g., without any empirical basis) is incorrect. In this instance, what I quoted you as saying is exactly illustrative of the empirical basis of my opinion. You consider this new edition of certain of Mark Twain's works to be "dangerous." What does one do about things that are "dangerous?" Many people seek protection from institutions that are suppose to defend their citizens against dangerous things.

I am sorry that you apparently interpret every criticism of your views as a "personal attack." Particularly strange in this instance where I was simply utilizing what you said as illustrative of what I believe to be a widespread attitude on this topic. However, I really can't help you with the perception that you are being attacked when your views are subjected to critical analysis. Some people understand that criticism based on evidence and argument are impersonal and are meant to "get at" or "get nearer to" truth. Some don't. The difference is probably largely a matter of whether one can sometimes acknowledge being wrong about what in fact exists in the world, or whether ones "opinions" are really tenants of a secular faith. Some of us have a more "scientific" view of opinions and are less attached to them as a part of our egos, some of us have a more "religious" view and believe that they are personally being attacked when their views are criticized. At least that is my current working hypothesis. But that, like other hypotheses, is subject to argument and evidence.

>77 lawecon:

The distinction here is simply between aesthetic and culture criticism and law-making. In a free society they have no necessary connection. That is, I can talk about the effects of some cultural phenomenon without any implications whatsoever for whether the government should fund it or ban it. I hate reality TV. I like oregano on pizza. No government policy is involved here.

When you find one of those free societies, let us know. I have heard of such things, but in the society I live whenever anyone can convince his fellows that something is "a danger" it is regulated by government or banned by government. "Freedom" of that sort is simply a matter of counting noses and recognizing that bureaucracies, once established, never die.

A) I just came into the post as well, and have scanned the conversation. My initial reaction is that people who come in midway should read the other posts before making their post.

B) I can see Tim's point about changing mores. I have made a similar argument in using Bible translations that use language that is not gender specific (i.e. "human" for "man," or "humanity" for "mankind" when the intent is clearly "all people.") I think the language has changed enough that we should honor the shift.

However here we are talking about translations of a text where the original language had a distinction between "human" and "man." And I should add that I have a hard time with "What are humans, that Thou art mindful of them?" vs, "What is man that Thou art mindful of him?"

C) One of Lenny Bruce's funniest routines was there someone was trying to teach Lyndon Johnson to say "Negro."

>78 lawecon:
if you represented your edit as my original post, that might arguably be a biggie. But that isn't the situation we are talking about, is it?

On the contrary, that is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about. This altered text, unless I'm mistaken, is being presented to unsuspecting readers with Twain's name on it. And they will reasonably assume that it is what he had written.

Thus it would be analogous to me fiddling with your words and signing "lawecon" and having readers assuming the post came from you. Any distinction between my altered effort and the original post floating somewhere out in the ethers would easily be lost. (Especially if there is institutional backing for the "corrected" version.)

This, in my estimation, is a biggie.

>84 lawecon:
What I said was that, I felt changing history to make it more palatable is dangerous. And yes I suppose that includes Huckleberry Finn. It isn't so much the novel itself, it is the propensity of this country to rewrite history so as to water down some of the mistakes we've made and inflate that which we've accomplished.

>87 Arctic-Stranger:
Yes it was one of his funniest.

>78 lawecon:

What, you would rather the book be entirely credited to the editor? The book, on the cover, clearly states it is edited. Like I said earlier, I do not actually own the book, so I can't tell you what is in the introduction, but I'd assume mention of how the book is edited would be part of that.

So, it would instead be analogous to you rewording Lawecon's post, and then stating the post was original written by lawecon, edited by krolik.

Isn't that what "abridged" means? (And does this version give any hint that it has changed the language of the original author?)

I wonder what some African-Americans would say to this. A bunch of white people talking about the use of the word nigger seems a bit narrow.

I believe abridged refers to edits that reduce the length of a work as opposed to something like merely replacing words.

As to whether or not it gives any hint, like I said, since I do not own it, I am not sure. I do however know it says that it is edited, and the person who edited it does give an introduction. I was able to find this except from the introduction, leading me to believe that no, it does not present itself as the original work of the author without any modifications:

http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawy...

"Far more controversial than this reuniting of Twain’s boy books will be the editor’s decision to eliminate two racial slurs that have increasingly formed a barrier to these works for teachers, students, and general readers... Twain, it should be remembered, was endeavoring to accurately depict the prevailing social attitudes along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1840s by repeatedly employing in both novels a linguistic corruption of “Negro” in reference to African American slaves, and by tagging the villain in Tom Sawyer with a deprecating racial label for Native Americans. Although Twain’s adult narrator of Tom Sawyer is himself careful to use the then-respectful terms “colored” and “negro” in Chapter 1, the boys refer to slaves four times with the pejorative n-word.... It goes without saying that textual purists will object strenuously to these editorial alterations of an author’s final manuscript. However, literally dozens of other editions are available for those readers who prefer Twain’s original phrasing... " etc etc and much more explaining.

>91 Arctic-Stranger:
Not sure....haven't heard from any African-Americans regarding this. I suspect this has very little to do with complaints from African Americans and everything to do with presenting our White selves in a better light.

Perhaps if it IS being done with the correct intentions it isn't as bad as all that but I suspect that the motives are more for glossing over history and less to do with being offensive.

Every so often a school will decide to "ban" a few books....Huckleberry Finn is one of these books. Again, somehow I don't think it is because of a big out cry from our African-American population but more from those people who want their children "protected" from those nasty words we once used to call individuals who are different than ourselves. This will not make the fact that it happened go away......reminds me of the people who used to cover their ears when "The Da Vinci Code" was mentioned. Or parents who want to ban Harry Potter from school libraries.....it serves only to make us less tolerant rather than more so.

Guess I just do not see the advantage of sugar coating anything. If indeed we are confident in our moral's and values and we work to instill them in our children.....it wouldn't matter what they read or hear or see, they will have the tools to make up their own minds as to how to handle life and all that is thrown in their direction.

>92 Sourire:
You are right there will be other copies available.

But I feel that in doing this there is a element of pandering to a group of individuals who feel that they can't possibly subject themselves to reality......future members of some fringe group of some sort.

We could always tear out the pages with the word nigger on it. Had a woman in the bookstore the other day buying books for her home schooled children. Told me she doesn't get books from the library because she can't tear out the pages she doesn't want them to read. YIKES !

Oh that just hurts. Tearing pages out of a book? Ouch.

I guess changing the word does beat banning the book, which I heard has been done.

> 93 Please note those were not my words, but the words of the person who edited the version of Huck which this whole discussion revolves around. I was just trying to clear up the confusion that seems to have surfaced lately about whether or not the book presents itself as unedited and is trying to pass itself off onto unsuspecting readers as the real thing. After reading the except from the introduction, it is pretty clear to me that it does not attempt to do so. Whether the changes are good or bad is irrelevant to that post.

Edit >93 faceinbook: and 94 re ripping out pages: Once in 5th grade we were assigned a book (I can't for the life of me remember what it was called) that I don't think the teacher had read. She must have merely bought some kind of teaching guide. When she finally figured out the source of much whispering and giggling (a fairly graphic description of a sexual encounter), she made as all rip the offending pages out of our books. Even then, at merely 11 years old, it made me upset.

Yes, I fully understood that was a quote.

(And I can remember when you passed around books, and immediately went to the pages that automatically fell open because the spine was broken there. The good parts!)

Somehow, changing things in a piece of literature makes me feel about the same way I felt when the lady told me she was tearing out pages she didn't want her kids to read.

~88

Really. So the editors of this revision have no where acknowledged what they have done. And you know this for a fact because you've seen a copy of this edition. Really?

Subsequently reading further in this thread - I guess not "really". But it is nice to have a strawman to burn when convenient.

~97

And how is that - how you feel?

Tim aside, running around in this discussion, hiding in the shadows whenever anyone tries to mention its name, is the same doctrine that underlies most of the recent revisions to copyright law. The old view was that you had an exclusive and temporally limited right to SELL your "creation." The new view is that you have a right to control all uses of your "creation," forever and ever, and there should be a remedy applied to anyone who infringes on that right. In other words "there ought to be a law" protecting the sanctity of a creator's creations and his absolute will over their uses.

Some of us think that this confuses theology and copyrights. Some of us think that it is aesthetics - without, of course, mentioning any theory of aesthetical judgment. (Sort of another version of "I have a right to my opinion"?)

99> The new view is that you have a right to control all uses of your "creation," forever and ever, and there should be a remedy applied to anyone who infringes on that right.

But this came about not because a large number of people felt there ought to be a law (which was your problem in some posts above where you were afraid that nigger would be outlawed because of public outcry) but because a few large corporations (Disney) gave money to the right politicians.

>98 lawecon: Really. So the editors of this revision have no where acknowledged what they have done. And you know this for a fact because you've seen a copy of this edition. Really?

That is not what I wrote. Your "really" is just you having a conversation with yourself. Like the sound of your own voice?

But you are correct that I should have looked more closely, and I need to qualify my statement to avoid inaccuracy. I did overstate my case (without, however, resorting to the absolutes you seem to want to attribute to me). For that I am sorry. I should've spoken more precisely of the covers of the books, and the misuse of the word "edit".

For instance, look at the cover of the contested version, which is what a person in a bookshop or library will see:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1588382672/ref=dp_image_z_0?ie=UTF8&...

Along with Twain's name and the titles, it says "Edited and with an Introduction by Allen Gribben"

Now look at this cover:

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Huckleberry-Ignatius-Critical-Editions/dp/15861...

Along with Twain's name and the title, it says "Edited by Mary R. Reichhardt"

The first example would be more accurately described as expurgated or censored. Not "edited" in the scholarly sense.

And yes, if one reads Gribben's Introduction, one will learn about his methods. These are acknowledged. I'm not saying they're nowhere acknowledged. But I am saying that this kind fo "scholarship," and this kind of product packaging, are bad news.

>99 lawecon:
Did ANYBODY say they wanted a law made against the edited version ?.....guess I'm not very clear on this. As I read it this is a discussion regarding what we as individual's think about revising a piece of literature to make it either more palatable or current or what ever you want to call it.

I didn't read anything about an out rage that would call for the instituting any new laws..... some valid points were made on both sides but I didn't hear anyone talking about legal recourse or the expectation that there even be such a thing.
Only one individual who seems to have the mistaken impression that we are all going to call in big brother so as to stop such foolishness when indeed such foolishness is perfectly legal.
A foolishness we have a right to agree with or not.....we, as readers are, as far as I am aware of, also allowed to have feelings about this issue.....at least I'm pretty sure it still works that way.

I know....I know...pretty liberal of me...however I make no excuses...since I tend to have strong feelings about many things....I would be apologizing constantly. For some the world is written in black ink on white paper and so be it....for others the world is a colorful, if often confusing, place. If I were asked to choose, I'd stick with the colorful version.

99> The new view is that you have a right to control all uses of your "creation," forever and ever, and there should be a remedy applied to anyone who infringes on that right.

But this came about not because a large number of people felt there ought to be a law (which was your problem in some posts above where you were afraid that nigger would be outlawed because of public outcry) but because a few large corporations (Disney) gave money to the right politicians.

==============================

Where, pray tell, did I ever express a fear that the use of the term "nigger" would be 'outlawed because of public outcry?"
It is amazing the strawmen that the posters in this thread
can impute to others when they apparently have no valid
argument.

As for why the laws are as they are, I couldn't say.
I can say, however, that this view goes far beyond Disney. The original
legislation was during the rein of Clinton, and he is the most fervid defender of this sort of view. A tool of the evil Disney interests, you think?

~102

Yes, I know. You have a right to your opinion. I heard you. Now if you could just get around to an informed opinion.....

But I am again confused about what you are saying. You now maintain that no one called for legislation on this issue. But then what did you mean when you said in post 72 that:

"Certainly not ALL of them...you said yourself that you investigated on your own, but I am going to repeat myself and say that many others do not.....remain blissfully unaware and are stubbornly holding on to an idea that is founded on less than the truth.

Personally, I see this as dangerous."

Let's see, many people, unlike yourself, don't investigate on their own, remain blissfully unaware, stubbornly hold on to ideas that are founded on less than the truth. and this is "dangerous." Now you have, at least in your own mind, identified a social evil, one that is dangerous. And your proposal is, ah, nothing? Strange, such portrayals of the child like character of the populace, followed by a characterization that "this is dangerous" usually preface a call for something very specific. Can you guess what that may be?