Censored edition of Huck Finn

metrovelvet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700

There is a new edition out of the classic where they took the N word out. I would have thought there are laws against re writing other people's books.

Eliot Rosewater

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see. Consider the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book - the author basically took Jane Austen's book and edited to their liking.


On the point of Huck Finn - I disagree with the edit. The inclusion of such words in a book like that is nearly central to its purpose. Huck Finn is described as one of the "Great American Novels": an accurate encapsulation of a specific time and place in American history. But if the N word is removed then it partly ceases to succeed in that regard as it no longer reflects accurately the society and culture in question. It was a bigoted society, and a book about it should illustrate that.

The Sound and the Fury is similar, even "worse". One of the main characters Jason consistently calls his (paid) servants "****" and abuses them verbally and mentally. But such abuse is central to the character of Jason, and its removal or its moderation would severely hamper the artistic intention of William Faulker.

Perhaps what we are seeing here is an inability to differentiate between the use of the N word in a book, as a literary device, and in normal conversation, where it is obvious a low insult.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think it's silly editing things like this. Slavery happened, racism and segregation happened. Taking the "n" word out of books that were written at a time when these things happened doesn't change anything.

I wonder who's idea it was? I mean was there a black activist group demanded it, or was it just some random PC crazy who thought it was a good idea?

And on a similar note, there are plenty of derogatory terms used nowadays quite freely and nobody seems to mind.

ArtSmart

the N word was used in a different context, far as i remember. (the bigotry was shown , but not using 'N*****' as a major vehicle for same, so it should not be changed)

now, as for Enid Blyton's use of such phraseology... different story. rightly changed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

If you start doing this though where do you stop?
Do you go back and edit every book in history that uses the N word? And how do you judge which words are as offensive as that word? Should all books with any sort of derogatory words or phrases be changed?

To Kill A Mockingbird uses the N word a few times if I remember it correctly, will it be changed too? I think the racism is central to that story though isn't it? Is it a case that it's not central to Huck Finn so it's OK to take it out?

Who makes these decisions?

ArtSmart

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Who makes these decisions?

me mostly.
(kiddin)
most should not be changed but some like blyton's use(in the secret seven series), have to be as it serves no function and has potential to create embarrassment etc.

Mellor

The use of N----r is a element of both the characters and the times.
Removing it is silly. it's not as if its an opinion piece or anything.

ArtSmart wrote: »

most should not be changed but some like blyton's use(in the secret seven series), have to be as it serves no function and has potential to create embarrassment etc.

Care to explain why you see a difference?
The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see. Consider the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book - the author basically took Jane Austen's book and edited to their liking.

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

I get the whole copywrite thing, but to change a text and then say someone wrote it, someone who DIDNT write it, seems highly unethical.

Mark Twain did not use the word 'slave' and the N word was in common currency at the time, seems totally wrong to project our fashions onto the habits of the past.

Given the historocity [real word?] of Huck Finn it does look to me like it's rewriting history.

Nody

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

His and Jane's.

ArtSmart

Mellor wrote: »

The use of N----r is a element of both the characters and the times.
Removing it is silly. it's not as if its an opinion piece or anything.



Care to explain why you see a difference?
The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

It's a function of 'what is art?'

for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art.(so the function of the images are not integral to the art of the work (as they are not art), in this case an advert - (adverts can be art, but these are not deemed such)

Blyton's work is also not deemed as art. (to my knowledge - yes i know subjective opinion etc, but there are parameters of definition of art)

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

of course, this is the quickie overview, but the essence of why there are differences is there. (IOW I wont be writing reams on this topic, in this arena, sorry. )

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not familiar with that book. Did they revise it and then stick Jane Austen's name on it?

They include the name of Austen and the other author, as Nody said. The ethics of it are certainly dodgy. You can't defend it on the basis that it gets people into "good" reading, because it doesn't. P&P&Z is just a zombie story carved out of an old book: the things of importance in the old book are presumably gone.

You can read the first page on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pride-Prejudice-Zombies-Romance-now-Ultraviolent/dp/1594743347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294681413&sr=8-1#_

It seems there's quite a few in the series.

Monty Burnz

Mellor wrote: »

The use here is exactly the same. Those books, (F.Five, S.Seven etc) are generally based in the working class, the rough society. At the time of writing, 1950s or so, the word would of been quite commonly used.
Civil rights movement wasn't all that long ago really.

On the contrary, those were firmly middle-class families. If my distant memory serves me correctly, the in the case of the 'Adventurous Four' the father was a commander in the Navy.

Enid Blyton didn't write for or about the 'working class'.

SuperInfinity

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well its copyright has expired so it's in the public domain, which means it's a free-for-all, as far as I can see.

It's a free-for-all if they want to put their own names on it and all it something else. But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.

This is frankly a ludicrous and very stupid move, possibly a publicity stunt, and the person who is trying this should be ashamed. Too much weight is given to the opinion of these so-called "intellectuals" that are really pseudointellectuals, when any man in the street knows this is heresy?

Otherwise why not change all of Shakespeare's works to make them easier for modern students to use? I can think of few things that would be more ridiculous than this.

Eliot Rosewater

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's a free-for-all if they want to put their own names on it and all it something else. But they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HuckleBerry Finn by Mark Twain as this is not a book Mark Twain wrote if they edited it in any way.

I'm not sure. I think the issue is more one of ethics than law. Many poetry anthologies include modernised versions of poems, the making of which involves the same process as the one here - going through someone else's work and editing it as you see fit. However that editing is clearly ethical, whereas the Huck Finn editing is, it's generally thought, not. The problem is if you blanket ban editing of old material you prevent both bad and good uses.

I suppose what matters is that essence of the work and the intent of the original author are preserved. Modernising a poem doesn't infringe on either as it's just bringing the poem to a new generation, and the editing is presumably conducted with the utmost sensitivity. However the Huck Finn edit fails on both counts: the book is intended to be an exposition of a racist society, but the edit dulls this.

SuperInfinity

Eliot Rosewater, as soon as something is edited or translated, it ceases to be the original material. It is something else. Those aren't the original poems, they're different.

It doesn't matter if they were "well-meaning" in their changes.

It doesn't matter if they decided that the original intent of the author was there.

IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN CHANGED.

Selling this book as Huckleberry Finn could be argued under law as being false advertising since the original meanings have been edited. Many people even insist that clear spelling mistakes and other mistakes (eg. mathematical) in original texts are preserved and not corrected. You can't rely on people's "ethics" for these things.... people need to be protected against censorship. You can't rely on people's ethics for anything.

Monkeybonkers

If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves? Not trying to be controversial or anything but just wondering why everyone's using 'the n word'. If people who are against it being removed won't even use it when discussing its removal then surely this lends weight to the argument for it being removed so as not to offend anyone.


I see now that my post has been auto-edited. Apologies to all. I didn't realise that it would be auto-edited. Now I see why no one was using it.

I think personally that it shouldn't be removed. It's part of the language of the book and should be left in. That said nowadays lots of people find it very offensive (me included) when describing someone. Times change. There's also a film (can't think of the name of it at the moment) in which the dog is called 'Ni--er'!

SuperInfinity

It wouldn't make a difference if didn't use it ourselves anyway. Even if we NEVER used it, it wouldn't matter.

Just because we don't want it censored, doesn't mean we condone it in any way. Just like how it doesn't mean we condone pedophilia if we don't want Lolita to be censored.

Even if it were the most repulsive, vile, obscene thing in the world, it still shouldn't be changed or censored in any way. Pulling a book from the shelf altogether would be what they should do if it were that vile.

Or they should call it something like: "Huckleberry Finn: The Censored Edition". But they shouldn't be selling it as Huckelberry Finn by Mark Twain when it's not that book.

Texts that are translated are different, because it's obvious that they're translated and the title of them is in the language they're translated to. The fact that there are several translations of the bible and they convey very different messages should show you the perils of editing or changing the original work in any way.... translation is clearly marked as that. They're not trying to edit the officially accepted original Hebrew scripts.

Mellor

ArtSmart wrote: »

for instance we no longer see a gollywog on a jar or marmalade or Lyon's Tea promote the b&w minstrels as neither ads are deemed art

Well that's kind of obvious. There is no excuse for continuing to use them in current adverts

Blyton's work is also not deemed as art. (to my knowledge - yes i know subjective opinion etc, but there are parameters of definition of art)

ah, here lies the problem.
They are literature, therefor imo, by definition, art.
I'd be interested to see these parameters.

in short (very short really) if a word is integral to the art of the work, it stays. otherwise, if same word has connotations deemed offensive and is not integral to the work, it goes.

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a nonm offensive synonym most likely exists.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the contrary, those were firmly middle-class families. If my distant memory serves me correctly, the in the case of the 'Adventurous Four' the father was a commander in the Navy.

Enid Blyton didn't write for or about the 'working class'.

Ok, maybe no every series. But come on, the secret seven where a much of riff-raff
wikipedia agrees by the way

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

If everybody is so against the word '******' being taken out of the book then why aren't you using it yourselves?

I know you edited this, but I thought the above was great

herbieflowers

Interesting. Editing it depends on a lot of things, but I would agree with an earlier poster who argued for two versions, one original, one uncensored.

If one is looking to remove any offence caused by the word, that's fair enough. I'm not sure how I'd feel as a black student reading it with such a loaded term being used so freely. Then again, it's been in its original format all these years, has it always caued such offence? And if it has, why has it been a staple of most degree / high school syllabi for the last how many years?

At the same time, if you remove the word it removes the book's social and historical context. A work of fiction becomes ahistorical to an extent, which I don't think is a good thing.

SuperInfinity

Mellor wrote: »

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a nonm offensive synonym most likely exists

This is just not true. A synonym does not have the exact same meaning as the original word, and even if it did (an impossible scenario), it would still sound differently.

No two words have the exact same meaning. When I was 13/14 I understood in my Shakespeare class why it wasn't a good idea to change Shakespeare's work after my English teacher gave us a very brief explanation and said "Shakespeare is turning in his grave".

Mellor

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This is just not true. A synonym does not have the exact same meaning as the original word, and even if it did (an impossible scenario), it would still sound differently.

some synonyms have the same meaning. some are simply similar.
I don't see how how it sounds is relevant to my point, as I excluded puns, play of words and rhyming

No two words have the exact same meaning.

Don't be silly, plent of words have the same meaning.

draylander

It's good to see that The Ministry of truth is hard at work.
I cant wait to sit down and watch Blazing saddles once they are done replacing the word N1gger with slave
"The Sherif's a slave!"

SuperInfinity

You are incorrect Mellor, on both points (which are ironically about the same thing).

the west wing

Even though I am completely against the book being censored and I think it leads to a dangerous precedent, I read an article about this issue (I think it was Huffington Post) and someone said that if the book wasn't censored, it would not go on the school curriculum. In this case I would prefer that students get a chance to read even the censored version, then to be denied the chance to read it at all, as most kids may not be even aware of the book.

Mellor

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You are incorrect Mellor, on both points

First of all,

Collins English Dictionary wrote:

synonym (ˈsɪnənɪm)

— n
1. a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word, such as bucket and pail
2. a word or phrase used as another name for something, such as Hellene for a Greek
3. biology a taxonomic name that has been superseded or rejected

I should probably give an example, so;
Attic, Loft* and Garret all have the same meaning

*(loft has a few meanings, i'm refering to he noun, not the verb and not in real estate terms just in case you take a silly angle)

(which are ironically about the same thing).

Even if I was wrong. It's in no way ironic. They are quite obviously about the same thing.
Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine, but irony is one of the most mis-used word/concept in english (along with literally).



You ignored the other part of my post.
How is the sound of the word relevant? The other postered mentioned that an offensive word it should be changed if it wasn't integral to the work. Most single words aren't integral imo (refering to Blyton, not Huck Finn).

StupidLikeAFox

As far as i know they are only using the edited version in some schools in Americs. They reckon it was unfair and could draw attention to black students and single them out for bullying. There will be a note included to say that its edited and why

Theyre not going to be rewriting history or anything, they wont be rounding up and burning the originals or that

Mellor

ColHol wrote: »

As far as i know they are only using the edited version in some schools in Americs. They reckon it was unfair and could draw attention to black students and single them out for bullying. There will be a note included to say that its edited and why

Theyre not going to be rewriting history or anything, they wont be rounding up and burning the originals or that

ArtSmart

Mellor wrote: »

Well that's kind of obvious. There is no excuse for continuing to use them in current adverts

moving from general example to specific. hence mention of adverts.


ah, here lies the problem.
They are literature, therefor imo, by definition, art.
I'd be interested to see these parameters.

assuming the term literature = written art, Blyton's book dont qualify.

however, even if it did, use of N there is not integral to the work (elab below)

the def.s / parameters are in various literary critiques from a variety of commentators. fortunately there isn't a book of 'this is art, this isn't'.

but no word would be intergral in a novel (where a pun, play or rhyming scheme is not in effect) as a non offensive synonym most likely exists.

em, N word in Huck depicts use of language as culturally specific context (the southern states)= relevant as a framing device, also as depiction of social structure = central to one of the novel's main themes. (though not really as indication of racism, but that's open to debate)

as i said if the word is deemed as carrying connotations deemed offensive, it can only be left if it is integral to the art, in this case (Huck) it is (thematically and structurally)

anyhow, this is an eternal debate, so last post on this.

EDIT; slightly more awake.

you're not seriously suggesting one word can be replaced by another similar word, without altering the integrity of a piece of literature. Are you?

bigbadbear

Oh dear god. They might as well have taken ole Jim out too. The racism is probably the strongest theme of the whole story. :rolleyes:
P.C. brigade 1, society 0

crummymummy

Why did they bother changing ''Injun'' to ''Indian''? Firstly if N***** is offensive then surely ''Indian'' is too as the pc term is Native American. (Wouldn't bother me but why 'protect' one race and not another?). Secondly ''Injun'' is just showing the character's accents and dialect. Seems ridiculous

SuperInfinity

Mellor wrote: »

First of all,

Originally Posted by Collins English Dictionary
synonym (ˈsɪnənɪm)

— n
1. a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word,

That doesn't mean they mean the exact same thing in all ways, the dictionary just says the same because they think nobody would be stupid enough to think that you could just exchange one word for another word like that and it wouldn't make any difference at all. No word means the exact same as another word, that is obvious. If negro meant the exact same as black man then there would be no reason to change it as people would see the exact same thing.

Mellor wrote: »

I should probably give an example, so;
Attic, Loft* and Garret all have the same meaning

*(loft has a few meanings, i'm refering to he noun, not the verb and not in real estate terms just in case you take a silly angle)

They mean different things to different people. They conjure up different images. Loft sounds a bit more posh. You've just given an excellent example of how words that are technically referring to the same thing are different.

Mellor wrote: »

Even if I was wrong. It's in no way ironic. They are quite obviously about the same thing.

It is ironic. The irony lies in that I was dismissing your second point based on how it was the same point as the first while I was arguing that all words are different and have different raisons d'etre. It's rare that something like that happens, it was ironic that it happened in this instance (and the reason it's rare that it happens is because normally people tend to have different points for different paragraphs of their posts, not just saying the exact same thing again). The fact that they were "obviously about the same thing" just makes it more have the ability to be ironic. If they weren't the same thing, then it wouln't be ironic.

Can you understand how that makes it ironic? The fact that you were trying to say that two words were the same and I was saying everything is different but at the same time dismissing your second point based on the fact that it was the same point and meant the same thing? If not I feel sorry for you.

Mellor wrote: »

Sorry, if I sound pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine, but irony is one of the most mis-used word/concept in english (along with literally).

Oh ho ho... Haaaaahahahaha....

No worries about sounding pedantic at all.

It's actually a pet hate of mine as well how people mis-use the word "irony". But at least I know what "irony" is myself. Look I'm getting sick of this nonsense.

In fairness to you, maybe after looking back at what I was saying you will see that it indeed was ironic or at least could reasonably been viewed as ironic even if you didn't find it very ironic yourself.

The fact that they were "obviously" the same has NOTHING to do with it, apart from it being necessary for them to be the same to allow it to be ironic. That just sounds like something you just threw in there that sounded about right. There is no logic behind that. I don't even want to hear your theories on how people are supposedly using the word "literal" wrong, nobody uses it wrongly.

Mellor wrote: »

You ignored the other part of my post.
How is the sound of the word relevant? The other postered mentioned that an offensive word it should be changed if it wasn't integral to the work. Most single words aren't integral imo (refering to Blyton, not Huck Finn).

How the hell is it NOT? Ever hear of alliteration, onomatopoeia, sound symbolism, rhyming, consonance, assonance??? Ever heard of any of those things?

Ever hear of atmosphere? Ever heard of language useage? Every single word is purposefully chosen by the author and is important in every way.... even down to how the word looks on paper.

You ever heard of ideas like subtext? Have you ever been in an English class? Not in a good one if you didn't learn that the words of a book matter and can't just be exchanged for ones that the dictionary says have the same meaning, that's for sure.