Huckleberry Finn Revised Edition - Say It Ain't So (2 Viewers)

[Scott]

The original story posted is a publisher trying to make Twain's works (in public domain) more available by removing the "words." The publisher (see my link above to their side of the story) may not wish to offend part of a reading public that has more political and economic power today than in the 1800s. I don't agree. I don't believe Huck Finn was meant as a childrens' story in the first place. High Schoolers should be able to handle it. I didn't read it until I was in my 40s and love it!

Maybe readers will still get the story that Huck is defying the whole society he lives in (and risks Hell) by freeing Jim w/o the N words in the text. A smart reader will get the point that almost everyone in the story wants to use or exploit Jim including Tom Sawyer and Huck is the outsider who actually helping Jim.

As far as offending people, the Founders were mostly "gentlemen." They didn't see the need to put the obvious points of good manners on paper.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's because, as Americans, we have a Constitutional right not to be offended, we all do. That trumps everything else.

Look in the penumbra, right next to the Right to Privacy, I think that's where Madison put it.

Wasn't it John Adams who said. "We're at war...we're going to have to offend someone!"? I guess he had that luxury, as the Constitution hadn't been written yet. Or maybe the Constitution has a provision that permits us to offend foreign nationals.

 

[jazzeum]

Here's an editorial from yesterday's New York Times about the issue.

Here's a further article from one of the Times' art critics.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I don't see why Injun need to be changed is that just phonetics? An why to Indian and not Native American.

Give me a break !

 

[trooper]

I have the distinct impression that this "nannying" phenomenom is assuming world wide proportions almost akin to a new religion. I can well imagine hoards of be-sandled weirdos frantically searching through records, libraries, school curriculems and even toy soldier forums looking for some scrap they can turn into an issue and then meeting in secret places to pay homage to "The Great Nanny". Maybe we could appease them by making models of Mary Poppins.

 

[Sans Culotte]

The notion of protecting us from ourselves is hardly new. Humans have been banning/burning/censoring probably since the dawn of time. Students of Trafalgar know that when Victorian writers couldn't bear the idea of Nelson asking Hardy for a kiss, that his request was changed in the books to a statement about fate..... kismet. The so-called Christian school, Bob Jones University, in SC routinely censors, from changing Lady Macbeth's "**** spot" to "DARN spot," putting fig leaves on humans in anatomy books, banning interracial mixing, and so on. A 19th century historian felt that the Puritans banned bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the crowd. And so it goes. As the cartoon character Pogo once said, "we have met the enemy and he is us."

 

[Scott]

It looks more like the "respectable" folks are the ones doing the censoring rather than "be-sandled weirdos". The publishing company is doing the changes to make more money.

I like this example of "changes" to a text...

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bibles/the_bible_is_too_liberal.html