General_Norris wrote:Let's miss the point completely!
Also the word slave makes absolutedly no sense since it's set in the reconstruction era and slavery already abolished.
That statement proves that foreigners know more about American History/Literature than, you know, Americans.
Actually, it doesn't. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was written during Reconstruction, but it takes place decades earlier. Jim in the book is indeed a slave.
Looking it up on Wikipedia, you're right. HuckFinn (1840 estimate) takes place about ~25 years prior to the 13th Amendment (1865).
...Not sure what this does to my statement, though.
Now that I think about it, this controversy might end up being a good thing even if the book gets censored. I'm thinking of getting this book now.
I agree that, overall, the change is a really terrible idea. Is this really only just now making national news?
It's been aroud for a little bit. Ebert made the tweet comparing ni**er to slave at the beginning of this month.
Despite what rappers would have you believe, that is a pretty atrocious word. Huckleberry Finn, while a classic, is first and foremost a book intended for children. Time's have changed and kids do not have the sensibilities to reconcile the word they read with its current status in our language.
I can see how, on at least that one limited level, this might be a decent idea.
I always had the impression that it was intended more for childish adults. Much of the humor would only really have any impact for an adult who retained a certain impishness from their childhood (much like Twain himself seemed to do).
I'm not surprised. Huckleberry Finn has had a reputation for years in schools and libraries for attracting trouble due to its language. This particular movement doesn't seem much different, except they're advocating a strict change versus a ban of the book outright, which is sometimes how this book is approached.
I disagree with changing the book. First, I feel that it accurately represents the time period it recreates. Second, the book does not sanitize the issue of slavery, which is something the change would do. Third, children have a right to know the good and the bad pieces of American history and culture and indeed should be educated in them for better or worse. The decades leading up to the end of slavery are a vital piece of American history; to go back and retroactively sanitize it "for the sake of the children" or otherwise would only manage to further hurt this country and its people's perception of its history as well as its perceptions of the Civil Rights era and what it was for.
Wops, my mistake. I confused the two dates. It still sounds dumb and ruins the meaning completely.
As Ack says, it's not surprising. Any well-known book will be attacked sooner or later. Bonus points for treating sex, race or politics and double bonus for being written in an ironic tone or having a morally ambiguous protagonist.
@Limewater
The use of "nigger" is a vital part of the book, suitable for kids or not, as it was the term used in that very racist time. You can't criticize something without telling the reader what it is and ripping it apart in your very eyes.
If you can't tell children about what racism is like then this is not a book for children.
Looking for a cool game? Find it in my blog! Latest post: Often, games must be difficult http://eriktwice.com/
Ack wrote:I'm not surprised. Huckleberry Finn has had a reputation for years in schools and libraries for attracting trouble due to its language. This particular movement doesn't seem much different, except they're advocating a strict change versus a ban of the book outright, which is sometimes how this book is approached.
I disagree with changing the book. First, I feel that it accurately represents the time period it recreates. Second, the book does not sanitize the issue of slavery, which is something the change would do. Third, children have a right to know the good and the bad pieces of American history and culture and indeed should be educated in them for better or worse. The decades leading up to the end of slavery are a vital piece of American history; to go back and retroactively sanitize it "for the sake of the children" or otherwise would only manage to further hurt this country and its people's perception of its history as well as its perceptions of the Civil Rights era and what it was for.
When i was in junior high we read a censored version of the book, but i had already read it and it was awful. Though my school also gave one of my teacher's hell for letting our AP class read Why the Caged Bird Sings.
Come to think of it when i was in elementary school we read a book, can't remember what, but our teacher wanted us to write a letter to the author saying the language was not appropriate enough for children.
You can't, for lack of a better term, whitewash history. You can't just ignore the reality in which the book was produced, and frankly that book is intended to show the stupidity of racism. Jim is probably the most sincere character in the book.
Furthermore, when you teach any book in school its the responsibility of the educator to talk about the fact that books are not written in vacuums. They are represent the times in which they were produced.
Lastly, as a Mestizo this angers me even more because it represents to me the backwards kind of logic that helps ensure that racial issues never get settled. You can't ignore the issues and hope they go away.,
I going to release my own version of Huckleberry Finn where I change every word to "nigger", even the title.
But seriously, this sanitation of a classic is appalling. I wont repeat all the arguments already stated by other members, but if teachers in the classroom feels that their students cannot handle the word nigger, or if the teacher is unable to adequately explain its context to the classroom, then we should step back and realize we have a serious problem in our educational system (which we do, I didn't need this ludicrous controversy to know this).
This kind of crap disgusts me but it doesn't surprise me. There is already a growing list of classic thought provoking books that are being removed from schools; such as 1984 and Brave New World.
Yeah it is a dirty word I will not argue that. But it is history and you don't go back and erase history to paint a "more perfect picture" of our culture.
An English professor who is favor of censorship of classic literature? Thats a new one to me. Whats next, advertisements added to the stories? "Huck fills his pipe with Lucky Strike Tobacco, remember Lucky Strike means fine tobacco"
