The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - The Politically Correct Version

[Purple Materia]

The infamous "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is getting a revision - the n-word, which appears over 200 times in the book, is being replaced with "slave". The revised edition will be released sometime this month.

What are your thoughts on this?

I'm personally against censorship, and this is just an awful idea. If you have a problem with the book, then don't read it. People say that Twain is a racist, which is far from true. He wanted it to be historically accurate, not politically correct.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

Oh wow. This is something.

What's next, are we going to erase every aspect of the n-word? I mean seriously people, it's a bad word I'll agree with that but it's a part of history.

This has bad idea written all over it.

 

[Livewire]

The use of the word is what gives the novel its social relevance and power. Censorship is bad as is, and now this. It essentially robs Huck Finn of its scholastic importance, as the N word and race in America play a huge role in the overall theme of the novel. You might as well not read it.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

I know, LW! It's the same as if we erase Hitler from history!

Huck Finn should stay the same.

 

[Purple Materia]

If they censor the N-word, they might as well make Huck's father into a saint, Tom into a role model, and completely remove the fact that Jim and Huck swim nude when they're on the Mississippi. If anyone's READ the book, they'd know that it's against racism - Jim's a runaway slave, and Huck helped him escape. The word wasn't racist back then, and it's not used in a racist way. People need to grow up.

 

[Sydian]

Umm African-Americans still call each other the n-word, so obviously they're not minding it too much. I'm not in favor of the censorship either, because it was originally written with the n-word, and should rightfully stay that way. It shows how the times were back then and it's like erasing a part of history. You don't see us taking the Holocaust out of history books and such.

Sorry if this came across as rude to anyone, just my two cents.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

Sydian, considering I am an Afro-American I find that a bit offensive but I see your point, we say it because well...we have issues.

And people are saying that the Holocaust never happened, right?

 

[Purple Materia]

And people are saying that the Holocaust never happened, right?

Yeah. People are trying to basically say that the people involved were lying.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I read this in my local newspaper...ironically around the same time my class was reading the non censored version...
I think it's not a good idea to change a authors original intent plus it's just one word...and even the people it offends use it a lot among each other...

 

[Sydian]

Sydian, considering I am an Afro-American I find that a bit offensive but I see your point, we say it because well...we have issues.

And people are saying that the Holocaust never happened, right?

I dunno why African-Americans wanna call themselves that. But then again, everyone likes to call each other derogatory terms these days. Girls call each other *****es and all. You get the idea, but that's beside the point.

People are really saying that? Sorry. It happened. But you know what? We learned from it (or, at least, most of the world learned from it). We can't grow, as a society or by any standards, if we don't make mistakes along the road. And we should be reminded of these mistakes so that they don't get repeated and so that people of future generations know where we came from. No, it's not pretty at all. In fact, I'm pretty much ashamed that when people think of lynchings and racism, they immediately think of the state of Alabama. I hate that there are buildings in different universities named after George Wallace of all people. Even Jim Crowe. But it happened and there is nothing we can do to erase it. Grow stronger from it and look past it. It's over and done with.

I read this in my local newspaper...ironically around the same time my class was reading the non censored version...
I think it's not a good idea to change a authors original intent plus it's just one word...and even the people it offends use it a lot among each other...

Just a side note, but when I read this in school, and we'd take turns and read aloud, no one was offended when the word came up. If you were Caucasian and read it, then okay, you're quoting the book. If you were African-American and read it, then okay, you're quoting the book. Lebanese, Chinese, whatevernese, you read it, you're reading what the book says. No one was offended when it was read, and if you felt uncomfortable to say the word, you didn't have to. But most people read it word for word out loud. Nothing happened.

Maybe it's cause I live in the south and the word is tossed around like no one's business, but...just felt I should mention it.

 

[Kura]

This reminds me of George Orwell's "1984."

 

[Impo]

...well, tales like that are always censored down over time.

The original Sleepy Beauty was kissed by Prince Charming. Then Raped.
How charming.

 

[twocows]

They can do whatever they want with it, the book's public domain now. Its copyright expired some time ago. You can get it uncensored from Project Gutenberg. That said, I hope the publishers go out of business for this crap. This kind of stunt is annoying at best and offensive at worst. I hope school libraries don't pick up this crap; children of all people need to read things uncensored so they can learn the context and history behind these things.

 

[groteske]

Nobody has the right to change and publish another's work without their consent. I'd say the same as quickly for Homer or a 13-year-old's haiku. I'm more upset at the entitlement than the actual omission.

We are naturally curious about forbidden things, especially around the age group that is typically assigned the book. Instead of continuing the current path of overusing and devaluing the word to the point of extinction, this will place the word back at its original intention for another generation.

 

[twocows]

Nobody has the right to change and publish another's work without their consent. I'd say the same as quickly for Homer or a 13-year-old's haiku. I'm more upset at the entitlement than the actual omission.

Sure they do. The copyright on Huck Finn expired some time ago, it's public domain. Same with Homer. Mark Twain and Homer are both dead and their works are free for anyone to edit, modify, read, or use however they wish. And that's the way it should be.

Now whether these people should be trying to make a profit off of issues of race is another story. It's outright offensive that they'd do this.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Those who wish to remove the word from the text clearly don't understand the text. They're being politically correct and reactionary - when there is no fuss being made by anyone rational over the word in this text in this context.

Now, I haven't read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The novel and Twain aren't standard fare here in Canada as it is in the States. That said though, in high school I did read Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. The word in question occurs often. Not nearly as often as in Huck Finn, from what I understand, but still a lot. Maybe close to 100 times or so? I wasn't counting.

Yes, it is a horrible word. This book was written (and takes place) later than Finn, but the word was still there. And the word provided context. This was, unfortunately, how people spoke then. How they thought. And, the fictional characters would use the word in their speech to convey what they thought. Not what Faulkner thought. He used the characters and the word in a sort of reversal. Because, by the end of the book, you come to realize of how strong the character of Dilsey (one of the "servants" in the book) and how ignorant those that used the word were.

That's how you learn that the word is wrong. By understanding the past and the context and the history. And why it is wrong. Not to fear it without reason.

Don't change history. It's as bad as not learning from it. Because if you revise it, you pretend that there is nothing to learn from it.

 

[Zet]

I don't see the point in censoring it; we might as well replace the word 'cracker' with 'white person' in books since it's apparently a racial slur against white people.

And I really don't want to see classical stuff everyone loves being turned into a pile of crap, I know the copyright has expired but there's no reason to be a superior dick to everyone about it.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Is "slave" that much of a step up in terminology anyway?

 

[ShiftElement]

that makes sense. hmm i ve also seen that words like kill were replced by kidnapped. Slave and the n-word are making at least some sense...its going to be redicoulus if even the sense is taken by censorship.

 

[Eucliffe]

Didn't Mark Twain use that word to make his story more or less fit in with the time period he chose to write it in or something like that?

Anyways, I'll just parrot people by saying that is pretty damn ridiculous because we need to be educated on how those times were. Even if you're a third grader reading this book, I think you should be exposed to how people spoke in a certain time period, not given a revised version where there was no chance that people spoke that way way back when. It's like making Tom Robinson from To Kill a Mockingbird Caucasian and being looked down upon not because of his color but because of his wealth. It ruins classic literature, and I think that's just place terrible.

Anyways, that's just my two cents.