New Huck Finn books are missing a certain something....

Status
Not open for further replies.
PatrThom

PatrThom

Hey, modernization worked so well for The Bible, right?

On a similar note, I'd love to see a sanitized version of The Sound of Music with all the Nazi references taken out. I'm sure it would be awesome.

--Patrick
 
Tress

Tress

This is a fucking travesty. No sane person likes those terms, but they are a big part of the novel. It takes away from the immersion and history behind those classics.

EDIT: Though, on second thought, it's not like you can't buy copies with the original text. I'm just bothered anyone out there feels they need this to make it more PC. It misses the whole point when you do that.
 
B

Biannoshufu

I'm just pleased we can say nigger now. I have no real reason to use the word, but purely as a word, I think it needs to stretch its legs, maybe find a new meaning in life. Maybe we can redefine it to mean those assholes who leave church pamphlets at my doorstep telling me to repent.
 
phil

phil

I heard this one comic say she wants to make it a brand of chips. That way the only time anyone gets mad about the word is when you run out.


Cause it ain't a party without some N-words.
 
strawman

strawman

I would be perfectly fine with it as long as they explained the changes, their reasoning for them, and provided information on how to obtain the original in the front matter just prior to the start of the text.

Language changes over time, and there's room for both people who want to study the original texts, and those that want texts that have been brought closer to modern language for ease of understanding.

While one might be able to help students dissociate the word gay from modern usage in one passage in one book, I honestly don't think many students today could truly read huck finn without our modern usage, no matter how much time is spent explaining proper historical context.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
While one might be able to help students dissociate the word gay from modern usage in one passage in one book, I honestly don't think many students today could truly read huck finn without our modern usage, no matter how much time is spent explaining proper historical context.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I am very much against censoring unpleasantness, especially within artwork. Are there offensive words in Huck Finn? Are there offensive, racist characters in Huck Finn? Yes to both. But it is a product of its time, where racist people both real and fictional existed, and trying to pretend they didn't does more harm than good.

Also, please note, this is different from a prominent racist display. If a city had a racist motto, for example, I would not be in favor of keeping it for the sake of historical purity. The difference would be something on prominent display, versus a work of art that one has to choose to read.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Kati made a good point, in that Tom Sawyer is brought in at the end of the book, and the dialogue between them is such that you can tell how much Huck has grown/matured over the course of the novel since his use of the term has declined by its conclusion.

Now that'll be gone, and I'm sure that was one of Twain's important plot points (if subtle).

--Patrick
(Disclaimer: I'm one of those people who gets stoked into a seething white-hot rage about the fact that Disney will probably never allow an uncensored version of Song of the South to see the light of day, no matter how much demand there might be)
 
strawman

strawman

Ravenpoe said:
I disagree. it is a product of its time, where racist people both real and fictional existed, and trying to pretend they didn't does more harm than good..
Click to expand...
But the word has a different meaning and connotation today than it did then. Strongly so, and significantly different.

My expectation is that if a person reads the book as-is, they get a different message out of it due to our current language use than intended, or if you like, than readers of that time would and did.

Art is open for interpretation, sure.

But the language change has been quite drastic in this particular case, and it really changes the book and characters.

I'm not saying all new copies should have this change - I'm saying that it's ok to print one edition with the changes, specify the changes in the front matter so readers are aware of it (though chances are good they ordered it this way on purpose) and let the people choose.

Are you insisting that people should not be allowed to print it with changes, and thus readers should not be permitted to read altered versions, even though they do so at their own choice?

Would you rather a child not read the book at all than read the altered book, if that's the only choice their parents or their school gave them?

Do you therefore disagree with changing a movie so it can be shown on TV during prime time, because the director's artistic vision is compromised?

What about re-writings, such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Is this artist sullying the sacred art of Jane Austin?

I'm not trying to argue that this is a good move, or the right move, I'm arguing that it's a valid choice for some people who may be unable to read the book without coloring it with their own definition of the given words.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
When we get to a point where current social mores can define what should and shouldn't be in a book we are in trouble. There is a potentially slippery slope here, but using this exact same reasoning its easy to argue that the word should be removed from To Kill A Mockingbird as well. We should probably remove some of the words from Boys in the Hood while we're at it, heck why not even sanitize American History X. Why not remove some of the more lascivious and mysogonystic text from Cantebury Tales, or clean up some of Elliot's more anti-semetic poems. Clearly the anti-muslim sentiments present in the Chronicles of Narnia have no place in modern society as well, what with the current political climate. The entire book "Invisible Man" should probably be taken off the shelves. No good can come from being exposed to such hatred. Same goes for the film "Birth of a Nation". Who cares if Spike Lee even considers it an incredibly important piece of film history.

An artists work should never be changed by its inheritors. We have absolutely zero right to pass judgement on the writings of an author. The writer himself doesn't even really have that right, as when it is published it becomes a piece of the american cultural tapestry, and must be preserved. History should never be re-written in a way to overcome our own uncomfortableness with the issues of that period of time.

It does a disservice to our historical understanding of the time. When you teach a class talking about the horrors of the racism present in slave days, then read this book and see that the boy was using 'PC' terms, that will do no service to making people understand how pervasive the problems were, or how far we have come. We need to meet the 'heathen chinee' and all the other problems of our past that we have worked to remove from our culture. But we can't forget them. To forget them would be a disservice to those that helped remove them, and to those it hurt.

Edit: Let me also add that I am entirely uncomfortable with the use of that word in this thread (outside of its direct contextual quotation ala Dave's post.) There is no reason to use it now. It is NOT something you can 'take back', and to be honest its increasing use in the white american 20 somethings and below population sincerely bothers me. The amount I hear it on gaming vent/TS channels is severely disturbing.
 
Espy

Espy

Necronic said:
Edit: Let me also add that I am entirely uncomfortable with the use of that word in this thread (outside of its direct contextual quotation ala Dave's post.) There is no reason to use it now. It is NOT something you can 'take back', and to be honest its increasing use in the white american 20 somethings and below population sincerely bothers me. The amount I hear it on gaming vent/TS channels is severely disturbing.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem Nec, for many, MANY under 30 somethings the word is merely something used in the music and culture they enjoy. This goes for people of all colors. It's part of their entertainment. It's in every rap, r&b and hiphop song they are sold. It's probably a great example of language changing over time. That doesn't make it "right" and it doesn't make it "okay" but the chances are, what it means to the a 14 year old asian/black/white kid who is gaming is probably totally different than what it means when you hear them using it. Thats the trouble with language, it's terribly malleable and there are those who can't accept the change of the meaning of a word away from what they are familiar with (and I'm not saying they should accept it, but accept it or not it doesn't stop it from changing).
 
Krisken

Krisken

Ok, I changed my mind. We should change every book written with words we might find distasteful because someone might misunderstand it. Writers should only use plain language and aim to upset the least amount of people.

Viva writing revolution!
 
Espy

Espy

I'm really tired of being upset by writers to be honest. The things they write are just so upsetting.
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
So what if word meanings change over time? Have we stopped making annotated books? If we don't at least try to get familiar with the history surrounding a book's setting, we might a well be looking at a half-finished Sesame Street coloring book anyway, for all we could gain from it. I'm not saying we need to know the old definition/connotation of every word we come across in order to benefit from a book, but isn't that part of why we read? To learn and get in touch with another place or time?
 
Espy

Espy

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for taking this word out of Huck Finn or changing ANYTHING. I was really just replying to Nec's edit on his post at the bottom there about people being upset by the words modern usage. I am never for censoring the arts. Unless they suck.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

"Nigger Jim" is not in the book. He was always called Jim. The idiots/racists called him Nigger. "Nigger Jim" came from a popular review of the work.

While I am against the move, but I can see that now days people are a little too sensitive to having that word used so often in a classroom.
 
Covar

Covar

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
But the word has a different meaning and connotation today than it did then. Strongly so, and significantly different.

My expectation is that if a person reads the book as-is, they get a different message out of it due to our current language use than intended, or if you like, than readers of that time would and did.
Click to expand...
You mean they won't see it as crude, vulgar, and offensive?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Espy said:
Here's the problem Nec, for many, MANY under 30 somethings the word is merely something used in the music and culture they enjoy. This goes for people of all colors. It's part of their entertainment. It's in every rap, r&b and hiphop song they are sold. It's probably a great example of language changing over time. That doesn't make it "right" and it doesn't make it "okay" but the chances are, what it means to the a 14 year old asian/black/white kid who is gaming is probably totally different than what it means when you hear them using it. Thats the trouble with language, it's terribly malleable and there are those who can't accept the change of the meaning of a word away from what they are familiar with (and I'm not saying they should accept it, but accept it or not it doesn't stop it from changing).
Click to expand...
Ah, ye old "the word doesn't mean the same thing anymore" defense. I find it interesting that all the people that would argue this would also never in a thousand years walk into a room filled with black people and use the word there. People intrinsically know the meaning of that word, and at such a deep level, that all the superficial dressing you can put on that word will never change its meaning. The meaning of the word hasn't changed in the slightest. The old usage is still just as nasty and recognizable as it always has been.

You could argue that there are 3 distinct uses of the word in contemporary culture-
White -> black : Traditional slur
black -> black : either a pronoun with positive or negative contextual meaning, or a slur
White -> white : same pronoun, more often with a negative connotation (see current use of word "faggot" or "gay")

The second usage, the one that is derived from hip hop and R&B is used as justification for the 3rd usage, which is ridiculous. Do white people walk around calling each other soul brother/sister? Do we call each other 'vato'? No. We can argue that it is from music, but frankly I think it's the alure of the taboo combined with a total lack of understanding of the cultural impact of the first usage, beyond a general fear of using it in the first use listed.

And fear itself represents the wrong attitude. It's not a word to be feared. It's a word to be respected. Fear makes us PC to the point of being stupid. Fear of the word ends up giving us ridiculous instances where politicians careers are destroyed for using an entirely unrelated term that simply sounds similar.

When you show the word the proper respect, however, you can easily see that the third usage has no place in the white colloquial vocabulary. There are too many other words that could be used that have the same meaning, and it is patently obvious that people that use it like that are not a hair's breadth above a 5 year old who shouts penis as loud as he can. In fact, people that use it in that sense are far lower as the child at least has the excuse of being a child, something a 14 year old will be quick to say he is not (and honestly, don't act like it's just 14 year olds using it. I have heard plenty of adults use it as well.)

Not that they won't learn the hard way. Either through loosing a job or having their teeth kicked in they will learn that you do not bandy that word about. In either case, its a lesson they could have learned earlier and easier if there wasn't this apologetic nonsense for the usage of the word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top