Won't Somebody please think of the children! Censoring books for kids

Denerick

There has been a little controversy brewing in the US for some time over a new edition of Mark Twain's 'Huck Finn', which has around 200 references to 'n*ggers' removed. It is intended for schoolteachers and children. White teachers presumably feel embarassed saying the 'N' word in front of black children.

What do you think about this? Should we remain true to the text at all costs and open children's eyes for them? Or should we mollycuddle them and pretend that prejudice is an historical anomoly? I learnt quite a bit from the books I read as a kid (Including 'Huck Finn') and don't think children should be excluded from this educational process.

IvyTheTerrible

While generally I believe that books should be left as they are in the main, I think it depends on the book and the context in which the terms n*gger etc are used.

Huckleberry Finn should be left as it is, as the whole point of that book was to show the inherent racism in Mississippi at the time. Whereas in the case of, say, Enid Blyton, there is no need to leave in the racist/homophobic parts, seeing as there is no real justification for them being there.

shellib

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Whereas in the case of, say, Enid Blyton, there is no need to leave in the racist/homophobic parts, seeing as there is no real justification for them being there.

What are the these parts and in which books? I don't remember them at all, although I was very young when I read them and they would have gone over my head!

IvyTheTerrible

shellib wrote: »

What are the these parts and in which books? I don't remember them at all, although I was very young when I read them and they would have gone over my head!

The Gollywog characters, if I remember correctly, were always shady characters and involved in crimes.

Denerick

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

The Gollywog characters, if I remember correctly, were always shady characters and involved in crimes.

Yes, even so surely it is the parents responsibility to prevent a young child reading the book. I can't think of anything worse than a book deliberately being censored, and not even knowing that it has been.

shellib

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

The Gollywog characters, if I remember correctly, were always shady characters and involved in crimes.

Oh yes I remember them now! Although I didn't click with the racial references. I really loved those books and if they had have been censored it would have been an incredible shame, up the faraway tree and the magic chair collections were my favourite. I think that so long as the books are explained to the children, informing them of society and politics at that time there is no problem in having them on a class reading list. I think it would be a good way to teach children about the history of the world and engage them in a "do you think this was right"? argument, well imo any way.

IvyTheTerrible

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, even so surely it is the parents responsibility to prevent a young child reading the book. I can't think of anything worse than a book deliberately being censored, and not even knowing that it has been.

I agree (I also agree about the parental responsibility thing, but unfortunately a lot of parents don't care what their kids watch/read/eat) but I suppose what I was saying was that IF a book was going to be censored, there is more logic to censoring Enid Blyton than Huckleberry Finn. I'm not happy about it though.

IvyTheTerrible

shellib wrote: »

Oh yes I remember them now! Although I didn't click with the racial references. I really loved those books and if they had have been censored it would have been an incredible shame, up the faraway tree and the magic chair collections were my favourite. I think that so long as the books are explained to the children, informing them of society and politics at that time there is no problem in having them on a class reading list. I think it would be a good way to teach children about the history of the world and engage them in a "do you think this was right"? argument, well imo any way.

To be honest, it didn't click at the time either....(I have a confession...I actually had 3 gollywog dolls *shame*!. They got burned in a house fire though.)

Nhead

Denerick wrote: »

There has been a little controversy brewing in the US for some time over a new edition of Mark Twain's 'Huck Finn', which has around 200 references to 'n*ggers' removed. It is intended for schoolteachers and children. White teachers presumably feel embarassed saying the 'N' word in front of black children.

What do you think about this? Should we remain true to the text at all costs and open children's eyes for them? Or should we mollycuddle them and pretend that prejudice is an historical anomoly? I learnt quite a bit from the books I read as a kid (Including 'Huck Finn') and don't think children should be excluded from this educational process.

Love 'Huck Finn' and 'Tom Sawyer' but I have to admit that it is difficult to teach it as a text when you have two black kids in a class of thirty and you are using the 'N' word. Embarrassment isn't the only problem it is that kids sometimes use the logic that since the teacher said the word then why can't they? (Same problem with say The Commitments with swear words). In the case of Huck you can still get the theme of prejudice across with the slavery and what not. Don't get me wrong I really do get what you are saying it is a difficult one.

iguana

A brilliant story of censorship of a children's books is in William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride. In it he outlines how as a bit of an absentee father he sent his son a copy of the original book thinking he'd love it as much as he loved it when his father read it to him as a boy. His son hated it and gave it up as boring. Goldman was incredibly disappointed but when he read the book himself he realised that his father had read him a very different story. The original is a detailed political satire with a lot of prose outlining tedious events, which has a negative ending, his father's version is the one which Goldman eventually made a film of. He said it gave him an amazing insight into his father's outlook, especially because he ended the story happily.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

The Gollywog characters, if I remember correctly, were always shady characters and involved in crimes.

I don't remember the Gollys being any more naughty than the other toys? I thought it was just their existence that people call racist. Blyton gets a lot of stick for being racist but I doubt she was any more so than anyone else in her time. In fact she gave the heroes of her St Clare's series Irish names, the O'Sullivan twins, to counter anti-Irish sentiment which had grown since the 1939 Coventry bicycle bombing two years beforehand, so in some ways she could have been more tolerant. The only real prejudice I see in Blyton's books was her clear contempt for girly girls.

Toby Take a Bow

iguana wrote: »

Goldman was incredibly disappointed but when he read the book himself he realised that his father had read him a very different story.

But didn't Goldman write the book in the first place? Are you talking about the original Morgenstern book?

Re the OP, there's no way that Huckleberry Finn should be censored. The whole point of the book is negated by its censorship, and I would say that this applies to all books. The original censoring of it was done by a company who knew that this story would get in the papers and that it would sell correspondingly due to the publicity. If a teacher can't teach the book in class without being able to get the students to think critically about the text then maybe either the students are too young, or the teacher shouldn't be teaching it in the first place.

metrovelvet

Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" was originally titled "Ten Little N******" and then called "Ten Little Indians."

The changing of this word does not change something integral in the transmission of meaning in the story.

With "Huck Finn", though, it does seem revisionist bull**** and changes the whole naturalist dimension of the form of the novel.

Toby Take a Bow

metrovelvet wrote: »

The changing of this word does not change something integral in the transmission of meaning in the story.

Good point. I would probably be a bit nervous taking out a book on the bus titled Ten Little ****.

funkt

I dont think any book should be censored,an artists work should never be tamperd with no matter how big or small the changes are.Its a bit of a slipery slope what will people find offensive next?
Will the character "piggy" from The lord of the files get a name change so as not to cause offence to overweight kids?
or the voilence toned down in shakspeare play's?


It might be a better idea to take a look at the books kids read in school,it wasent until i was out of school and a friend introduced me to books from the beat generation i relized how exciting books are and enjoyable reading is.

Meirleach

iguana wrote: »

A brilliant story of censorship of a children's books is in William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride.

I'm surprised no ones pointed this out already but....

I'm afraid you've been caught out by a fun writers hoax Iguana, there is only William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride, also he has no sons, but two daughters.

The existence of an older boring, detailed political satire version of the book is a complete fabrication.

Toby Take a Bow

Meirleach wrote: »

I'm surprised no ones pointed this out already but....

I'm afraid you've been caught out by a fun writers hoax Iguana, there is only William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride, also he has no sons, but two daughters.

I was referring to this above, but thought the poster may have been taking the piss.

Einhard

It's funny that such a storm will (rightly) be kicked up over the censorship of Huck Finn, tthe media outlets which served as foci for objections have no problem with censoring their publications for the adult reader. I find it far more strange that the New York Times would censor "f**k", than that a publisher would excise the "N" word from a novel. At least the latter has some rational basis. The censorship of expletives has absolutely none. It presumes that an adult literate enough to read a broadsheet, will not have the requistive skills to supply in their minds the "u" and the "c" needed to complete the "f**k". As with the censorship of Huck Finn, it's idiotic, and worse, it has no redeeming inherent logic.

That's an aside though. The main target of my ire are those who seek to read racism into the likes of Enid Blyton, and fascism into the works of other much beloved authors. When I first started English Lit in college, I used to make the joke that we would be asked one day what the author really meant by a sentence such as "He ate his sandwich". The point of the joke was that, sometimes (often), there's nothing to be read into a sentence or literary action. Sometimes he really is just eating a sandwich. Yet, often, that's not enough for those who seek to parse everything. The sandwich must be a metaphor! It's his previous existence, which he's digesting and excreting, before moving onto the muffins the next phase of his being!

It's this type of overly pedantic parsing of words which have led, I think, to the situation where the likes of Enid Blyton are condemned as borderline fascists and the like. I read practically all of her books when I was younger, and I never picked up on a racist vibe or theme. When I heard that her works were full of them, i was pretty shocked, and accepted it. I reasoned that, as a child when I read them, I wouldn;t have picked up on the underlying themses, would I? Then however, I read a few of the offending pieces once more(in the original!), and I failed yet again to find the nefarious messages. The Gollywogs can be mischevious, but so can many of the other characters. Even if the Gollywogs are more mischevious, more often, than "Caucasian£ characters, it is far from a racial slur on non-whites. It's not at all noticeable. Having read Blyton as a child and an adult, I still can't conclude that she was a racist. The only evidence I have to that effect is the shrill cries of those who insist that she is! The evidence is scarcely to be found in her actual work.

IMO therefore, the charges against Blyton, and other besides, are borne from an adult readership, includng academia, who both read too much int words, and who wish to find that which is contraversial, often for self-serving ends. We end up as a result with a consensus that what is not actually offensive should be censored, and it is but a small step before crucial aspects of literature are dispensed with because they offend those who seek offence.

Einhard

Meirleach wrote: »

I'm surprised no ones pointed this out already but....

I'm afraid you've been caught out by a fun writers hoax Iguana, there is only William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride, also he has no sons, but two daughters.

The existence of an older boring, detailed political satire version of the book is a complete fabrication.

Ruin the great story why don'tcha?!!;)

Chuck Stone

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

While generally I believe that books should be left as they are in the main, I think it depends on the book and the context in which the terms n*gger etc are used.

Huckleberry Finn should be left as it is, as the whole point of that book was to show the inherent racism in Mississippi at the time. Whereas in the case of, say, Enid Blyton, there is no need to leave in the racist/homophobic parts, seeing as there is no real justification for them being there.

God no.

What makes the prejudice in Huck Finn any better or worse than that in Enid Blyton books?

Totally hypocritical to suggest that one should be pulled and the other left.

Toby Take a Bow

Einhard wrote: »

IMO therefore, the charges against Blyton, and other besides, are borne from an adult readership, includng academia, who both read too much int words, and who wish to find that which is contraversial, often for self-serving ends. We end up as a result with a consensus that what is not actually offensive should be censored, and it is but a small step before crucial aspects of literature are dispensed with because they offend those who seek offence.

I used to love the Enid Blyton books when I was younger, but I was also terrified of golliwogs. Maybe there's a link there, or maybe not.

I don't think you have to go to academia to find a group who are working towards a secret mission to find racism in books that aren't there. There's a reason why Blyton's books are labelled with this tag, and that's because she has a group of characters called golliwogs (which have often been associated with racism) that are engaged in nefarious and underhanded dealings.

Blyton's use of golliwogs and Twain's use of the word '******' are very different. Blyton is either simply drawing on her background of casual racism or is purposely using the term golliwog. Twain is arguing the very opposite.

Having said that, banning Blyton is something I wouldn't be in favour of. If a book is seen to be completely and obnoxiously offensive, it will fall from popularity. And as Einhard says, the vast majority of kids (and some adults too, it would seem) miss the racism in the books completely.

Toby Take a Bow

Off-topic, Why is N*gger censored in Boards, but **** isn't?

bigsmokewriting

The trouble is, where do you stop? Blyton's work has been 'tidied up' an awful lot for modern readers (see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/23/enid-blyton-famous-five-makeover), but all books are of their time, and at what stage does an editor need to step back and appreciate that the changes they're making are altering the world of the story? If language matters, as the argument seems to go, then the words and phrases were selected for a reason and help create the story - we shouldn't be surprised that some words might have different connotations now. There are ways of conveying this without altering the text - glossaries, editor's notes, prefaces, and other supplementary material.

metrovelvet

Einhard wrote: »

It's funny that such a storm will (rightly) be kicked up over the censorship of Huck Finn, tthe media outlets which served as foci for objections have no problem with censoring their publications for the adult reader. I find it far more strange that the New York Times would censor "f**k", than that a publisher would excise the "N" word from a novel. At least the latter has some rational basis. The censorship of expletives has absolutely none. It presumes that an adult literate enough to read a broadsheet, will not have the requistive skills to supply in their minds the "u" and the "c" needed to complete the "f**k". As with the censorship of Huck Finn, it's idiotic, and worse, it has no redeeming inherent logic.

That's an aside though. The main target of my ire are those who seek to read racism into the likes of Enid Blyton, and fascism into the works of other much beloved authors. When I first started English Lit in college, I used to make the joke that we would be asked one day what the author really meant by a sentence such as "He ate his sandwich". The point of the joke was that, sometimes (often), there's nothing to be read into a sentence or literary action. Sometimes he really is just eating a sandwich. Yet, often, that's not enough for those who seek to parse everything. The sandwich must be a metaphor! It's his previous existence, which he's digesting and excreting, before moving onto the muffins the next phase of his being!

It's this type of overly pedantic parsing of words which have led, I think, to the situation where the likes of Enid Blyton are condemned as borderline fascists and the like. I read practically all of her books when I was younger, and I never picked up on a racist vibe or theme. When I heard that her works were full of them, i was pretty shocked, and accepted it. I reasoned that, as a child when I read them, I wouldn;t have picked up on the underlying themses, would I? Then however, I read a few of the offending pieces once more(in the original!), and I failed yet again to find the nefarious messages. The Gollywogs can be mischevious, but so can many of the other characters. Even if the Gollywogs are more mischevious, more often, than "Caucasian£ characters, it is far from a racial slur on non-whites. It's not at all noticeable. Having read Blyton as a child and an adult, I still can't conclude that she was a racist. The only evidence I have to that effect is the shrill cries of those who insist that she is! The evidence is scarcely to be found in her actual work.

IMO therefore, the charges against Blyton, and other besides, are borne from an adult readership, includng academia, who both read too much int words, and who wish to find that which is contraversial, often for self-serving ends. We end up as a result with a consensus that what is not actually offensive should be censored, and it is but a small step before crucial aspects of literature are dispensed with because they offend those who seek offence.

Lol. Your post reminded me of high school english teacher we had when we had to read "The Great Gatsby." She asked the students to go through the various blatant symbols in the novel. We raked it through and through, some of the most ridiculous things were put up on the board. And then someone raised their hand and said 'the massive green lawn- capitalism." She sighed and said 'Sometimes a green lawn is just a green lawn" and I was struck by the lack of significance she ascribed to the green lawn.

My point is consensus. There would be many who would be shocked by the lack of significance you give to gollywogs. Honestly, I dont even know what they are. I never read Enid Blighton. But it's not a fair parallel to posit Blyton next to 'Huck Finn.' The novels have different statures in the canon and they also have different historical contexts in nations that have different racial sensitivities.

"Huck Finn" is read in universities and colleges. Is Enid Blyton? Did they tidy up Blyton for the children's market? Would the publishing companies lose sales if they hadn't cleaned it up?

Eradicating the word ****** from Huck Finn smacks of some white weird liberal guilt that can't face history. Yes people called them ****. Its not nice, but that is what happenned.

foxinsox

Interesting thread..

I think that an authors' work should be left as it was written..

Books are a reflection of society at the time of their writing, if society wants to be so pc we'd be left with the most boring books in the world.

Obivously if a book is condoning horrific acts of racism or violence I'd be against that being published in the first place..

I read a lot as a kid and still read a lot, about 2 or 3 books a week. I read every single Enid Blyton book years ago and don't remember thinking anything wierd about any of them.

As mentioned in other posts, I've now heard (internet mainly) about the racism (Golliwogs) and the "alleged" homosexual relationship - Noddy and Big Ears.. All a bit over the top in my opinion..


I work in a charity shop and we have a huge amount of books, kids ones included.

I do notice quite a difference in the writing of the older kids books, the old Ladybirds are great, the baddies get eaten, locked away forever or burnt.. no faffing around in them

I've been meaning to read some of Enid Blyton's books again just to see what I think of them, reading them as an adult.

I think the full range of her books are in the shop, so this thread has reminded me, so I will let you all know what I think if I get through any of them.

iguana

Meirleach wrote: »

I'm surprised no ones pointed this out already but....

I'm afraid you've been caught out by a fun writers hoax Iguana, there is only William Goldman's version of The Princess Bride, also he has no sons, but two daughters.

The existence of an older boring, detailed political satire version of the book is a complete fabrication.

I liked that story.:(

But I guess now I can rest easy that Wesley, Buttercup, Inigo Montoya and Fezzik really did escape.:)