A couple of years ago I decided that I wanted to re-read Huckleberry fin, so I went to the Library to look for it. I looked under Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens and couldn't find it. Eventually I asked and they pointed me to the Children's fiction section.

Now this book may have been interpreted by some as children's fiction but with how Children pick up things and repeat them with out understanding the implications, I don't think it is wise to present this book as written as children's fiction. Perhaps the edited version would be more appropriate.

However they should make sure that they keep the unedited version among the adult literature.

@Draug - I'm pretty sure I remember the days when maple used to contribute some quite interesting opinions, and I'd like to hear them.

@Putin,

Yes the fact that people actionally *want* this is quite a bit more terrifying than the mere fact that New SouthBooks is publishing it. PC is going to destroy us unless we buckledown and have the balls to admit that America wasn't always perfect--and still isn't! But just because something is wrong doesn't mean you can just erase it from history. Ugh. This is so annoying. What will we do next? Change the ending of Romeo & Juliet because it encourages teen suicide?

Once again, nothing about this change sanitizes or whitewashes history, or makes America look 'perfect'. None of the events of the book are different. It's not as if the change writes out slavery from the book. I don't understand the hysterical reaction.

PC is not going to destroy anything, because the dominate meme is that the PC police is out to get us and any effort to counter racist language is stifling 'free speech'. So everybody runs around acting macho and talking about how it takes 'balls' to not care about language or the history of words.

Right, ignoring the troll in the room (but acknowledging the mispellings he pointed out, fair enough...)

@Invictus:

Actually, I recall reading in a critical essay that "Nigger Jim" isn't ever said; Jim's reffered to as a "nigger" by others, but that particular phrase, I think, is the equivalent of "elementary, my dear Watson" and "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well," in that it never actually occurs but is still famous for...occuring? ;)

In any case, he IS referred to by the "n-word," as are others, so it DOES still lose a LOT cutting it.

And cutting the Duke?!

As a Shakespeare fiend I am APALLED! So much so I don't care if that's mispelled or not! (In a rush, school soon!) ;) They not only give a great picture of just the seedy udnerbelly of the nation, but a sense of literary decay...

Jumbling "Hamlet," "Macbeth," and "Romeo and Juliet" all together...screwing up all three plays...

Actually--I kind of like their version! XD

@Putin33:

Tell me--if I set a book in Nazi Germany and had the word "kike" in there frequently, and then years later we just decided to replace that word with "scum," has something been lost?

I would say yes. The words "kike" and the n-word mean MORE than just "a black slave" or "scum," they can't be substituted like that and keep their weight for the very reason the New Wouth people want to take out the n-word:

The word has a HISTORY...and it's a PAINFUL one.

I say "slave" or "scum" and it means something more general; something bad, yes, but something that everyone can get behind without fear of feeling discomfort.

But if my Jewish character is called a "kike" Jim is referred to by the n-word, THOSE words have all the pain of those above and MORE because of the history of the word then and now...no one has to feel pain at the word "slave" or "scum," but throw in "kike" and suddenly some people DO feel uncomfortable facing that old demon, and what's worse, throw in the n-word adn the unthinkable in American society has to happen.

For a MOMENT...people actually have to STOP and REFLECT...and perhaps even feel a sting from the past or a twinge of guilt because of it, knowing what happened, what great-great-grandfathers might have said and done.

And while that seems a bit harsh for kids, generally we're not going to have 5-year olds reading "Huck Finn," they're usually be at least 15, ready to face this sort of thing, and I'd like to think that America's children--that ANY nation's children--are strong enough and resolute enough to look at their own people's past and bear that twinge of guilt or pain adn not be afraid...

Because it's from THAT, the CHILDREN bearing that together, the Caucasians and African-Americans and Latinos and Jews and everyone...

THAT'S how you get strength from adversity, and how you learn, and by acknowledging the pain did occur, you prevent that pain from ever reoccuring again.

@jman:

That's actually been tried before; occasionally in the 18th and 19th centuries, the endings of Shakespeare's tragedies would be "reinterpreted" so that Hamlet won out or Romeo and Juliet could be together...because tragedy wasn't popular, it was the Romantic and then Victorian era, and so everyone wanted the romantic, happy ending or, by the time of the Victorian era, such crashness and disturbing endings as, say, "Macbeth" or "Oedipus Rex" have would have seemed unseemly.

Didn't happen often, but happened occasionaly, because...

Some people cannot face tragedy.

And regardless if you agree with Nietzsche (Shakespeare was already mentioned as was Twain, you ahd to know he was on his way) that tragedy is the highest form of art (I, for the most part, do agree with that dentiment, with some exceptions) I think we can all agree with Friedrich that there is a weight and power to tragedy that DOES make it that much more powerful...

Which is actually part of the reason, ironically enough, the ENDING of "Huck Finn" has been attacked sometimes, since it takes a very comedic turn at the end, with Tom Sawyer's reappearing and Huck acting like a boy again for a time towards Jim rather than more adult as a response to his experiences.

People would like to have Twain's book flipped from the way he has it--instead of a serious, biting satire and scathing criticism of race and class relations in America that turns into a farce at the end, showing how little has really been changed or won after such a long journey and that much effort--fitting metaphor for race relations TODAY, really--people would like a nicer, friendlier body of the text, so it can remain a "boy's adventure," and then a more serious ending so that we can give the illusion that something was just learned in that diluted, watered-down mess.

And for what? Because we're more "evolved" today than back then, we don't need the reminder?

Take one look at the gang wars of Los Angeles or the bloodshed in the Middle East (doesn't matter WHERE, it's all bloody) or the ongoing atrocities in Africa, and the US and two of Prince Hamlet's most sarcastic words come to mind:

"Evolved indeed."

"And while that seems a bit harsh for kids, generally we're not going to have 5-year olds reading "Huck Finn," they're usually be at least 15, ready to face this sort of thing, and I'd like to think that America's children--that ANY nation's children--are strong enough and resolute enough to look at their own people's past and bear that twinge of guilt or pain adn not be afraid..."

As of right now, people aren't reading the book or teaching the book because people don't want to say nigger out loud 220 times in order to enjoy a classic. They'd rather read other classics that don't feel like uncomfortable torture to read. All this does is provide an option so more people read the book. It's easy for people to lecture others about how it'd build their character to sit through reading abhorrent language, especially lecturing African-Americans about how they need to 'deal with it'.

And @Putin:

If the events in "The Merchant of Venice" were the same, but I took out every deragatory slur against Shylock--will I have changed the book's events?

YES, because now Shylock doesn't appear to be three-dimensional, he ceases to be a tragic figure himself who's hurting people because he HIMSELF is being hurt by that society...

He just becomes a nice, simplistic villian.

Same with "Huck Finn"--take out the n-word and we just have masters and slaves...why, that could happen ANYWHERE in the world! And has!

But by denyting the slur that makes it, tragically, an AMERICAN wrong, you deny the wrong itself in an all-too-real way.

Calling someone a "slave" anyone can hate, and requires no reflection.

Calling someone a "nigger" means AMERICANS have to actually feel a bit of pain and remorse and actually reflect on their past, rather than just blindly go along with things.

To put it another way...

How much shock value does "slave" have? How much does it stay with you?
And how much does "nigger" have?

WHICH snatches up your attention more?

No one's cried out against "slave" being in the book...because they can IGNORE the term if they wish and not feel badly!

But you CAN'T ignore the n-word when its there, repeatedly...it FORCES you to pay attention and actually FEEL AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Great-great grasndfathers... Like hell... I visited my grandmother over the weekend, a southern born, raised, and, until recently, still lived in the south. And she referred to that really nice old "nigger" who used to live across the street from her when she and my grandpa first moved to Virginia from North Carolina. She's only in her late 80s folks. That phrase is still in use by people who learned it as an alternate term for negro. She considered that black man and his family to be a neighbor and had them over for dinner and picnics, but still uses the word to this day.

And I'd rather they not read "Huck Finn' at all, as much as that pains me to say, than read a watered down version.

The plot is NOT the most important aspect of "Huck Finn."

The PEOPLE are.

And so making the people and their word more "kid-friendly" so they can enjoy the "plot," so they can NOT think about the race and class issues and just have FUN with Huck and Jim, two buddies jsut hanging out on a raft...nothing's wrong!

Why, nothing's BAD in that story! It's a fun little tale! It's jsut a runawaty boy and his friend!

Throw the n-word in there, and SUDDENLY it's not such a fun little raft ride...

It's something MORE.

I agree with Draugnar, but unfortunately have a more recent example.

I grew up in upstate New York in the 80's. We had neighbors that moved to Virginia when the kids were 6 and 8. We went to visit them 8 years later, and they were using the word "nigger"...and not as just an alternate term, as the case with Draugnar's grandmother. It was definitely derogatory. It was definitely an eye-opening experience for me.

Hey mapleleaf, if you're going to rip on other guys online, please don't shame me by using a Canadian national symbol as your name. It's embarrassing to me that you might be accidentally associated with my country. You didn't express an opinion, you commented on some guy's spelling and questioned his education. That is not exactly a good debate tactic. You said all of nothing.

"but I took out every deragatory slur against Shylock--will I have changed the book's events?"

Except the derogatory-ness of the language isn't being 'taken out'. It's not as if people are replacing the n-word with "buddy" or "pal". Yes, it has less 'shock value', but the meaning/message is retained. It's not as if calling someone a slave is a term of endearment. Frequently using this word diminishes its shock value anyway. You have white people claiming that the n-word is ok because black rappers use it all the time. This is more often the effect.

Just because you take bitter medicine with a spoon full of sugar, doesn't mean you'll come to believe that the medicine tastes good. It's better than not taking the medicine at all.

"Why, nothing's BAD in that story! It's a fun little tale! It's jsut a runawaty boy and his friend!"

Because slavery isn't bad...and they otherwise treat Jim so good, language aside...

Maybe it's just a marketing strategy to get people all excited so that they go out and buy the original version in protest. I imagine, judging by this thread, that when word gets out on FOX news and so on that sales of this book will rise to levels it hasn't seen in years or ever for that matter. I always look at financial motivations first. History rewriting second.

I'd argue that with "slave" the meaning isn't reatained because, again, we can brush off "slave" and say "Well, kids, every society's had slaves, everyone makes mistakes, after all..."

And so kids don't take in the message.

With the n-word, it forces you to take in the message whether you like it or not.

Softening the language is just as bad as calling Jim "buddy" instead of the n-word.

I just opened to a random page of "Huck Finn":

Three uses of the word.

On one page.

Each time it was "runaway n*****."

And I have to tell you that "runaway" didn't catch my eye...and I don't recall seeing slave...

But the n-word sure caught my attention, it sticks out.

And everything they do to Jim traces BACK TO that word, is done not merely because he's a slave, there were some Native American slaves as well...

It's because he's a n*****, not merely because he's a slave, but because that term makes him even lower than that in their eyes.

Ironically enough, to call Jim a "slave" here is to ELEVATE him--and even more ironically, the worst thing to do to "Huck Finn" is to elevate Jim, to raise him up in the wording, because the less-deeply and cruelly he seems treated--and that INCLUDES that word--the less children may unconsciously sympathize with him, as we have a tendency to sympathize more and more with those who are lower and lower, we HATE to see people treated so poorly, adn the poorer they're treated, the MORE we want to see that rectified.

Take away the word and you take away part of his pain--and thus do Jim a disservice, as well as all the people he represents...

OK, fine 'squidge.

Censorship is evil.

Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, together, said it all.

The mechanical hound is doubleplusungood.

"I'd argue that with "slave" the meaning isn't reatained because, again, we can brush off "slave" and say "Well, kids, every society's had slaves, everyone makes mistakes, after all..."

To say this is to suggest that America believes slavery isn't/wasn't a big deal and isn't still haunted by it, and that when people think of slavery they think that the US race-based chattel version is the same as the ancient version where people could eventually become free.

Slavery is a big deal. The only people who make the argument you're making are Neo-Confederates who want to whitewash their history. That's not an acceptable argument in most places, and replacing the n-word won't make it more common.

@Putin - great point comparing 19th century slavery in America to the more ancient slavery. The only one comparable would be the Jews in Egypt during the time of Pharoah. Must other ancient civilizations had a means of working off the debt to obtain freedom as they became slaves because they were indebted to someone else, but the Jews of ancient Egypt and the Africans of the 19th Century share an inability to earn their freedom under the law of the time. they were truly someone else's property and treated worse than farm animals and pets.

Here's something that vaguely accompanies this subject. No direct correlation, but I think it all goes to the same point.

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/clint-eastwood-quotes-0109?click=main_sr

This is pretty pathetic, especially since Huck Finn is really the only *anti-slavery* novel to be written by a white person at that time. Racism is still a huge deal in America because slavery was such a short time ago. Sugar coating the issue isn't going to solve anything.

@Draug Slaves most certainly were not treated worse than farm animals. Slaves were usually the most valuable property someone owned. Now, before someone opens up a firestorm on me, they certainly weren't treated as any human should, but there's no reason to misrepresent the facts in either direction.

So this is like, my take.

Lol.

Here we go.

So if Mark Twain took pains to write out the dialects of the time phonetically, then that should make us stop and wonder why he did that.

This removing of the word nigger from the text would be equivalent to "fixing" the dialects and putting them in proper English.

Would the meaning be changed? You bet your ass.

I read this book for American Literature in 11th grade. I can only hope English teachers are wise enough to continue to assign and read the *real* book. I have faith in them. Most English teachers are up to it. In fact when I learned in that class that the book was censored in the 70s I was shocked. And so was she. And we all got along fine reading about niggers in Huck Finn.

Sure, if you read it to kids, don't say nigger. But then again what 19th "kids" book isn't filled with embarrassing anachronisms? I feel like most literature is anti-Semitic in one way or another lol.

So I would say if you are really THAT worried about your kiddoes reading it give them the illustrated classics version instead.

If the kid, however, is smart enough to be reading the real Huck Finn in the first place, then you'd think the kid would be smart enough to understand you when you say "now Timmy, this word here, nigger, is a very very awful word. If I ever catch you saying it I'll tan your hide. And if a black kid ever catches you saying it you might end up dead."

I mean... right?

I dunno. Fuck.

19th *century*, even.

"This is pretty pathetic, especially since Huck Finn is really the only *anti-slavery* novel to be written by a white person at that time."

Err..Uncle Tom's Cabin was written decades prior.
But the point is that the abrasive language has tended to overwhelm the anti-slavery message. And I don't see how the n-word is 'dialect' or phonetic.

@Putin

Yes, you're correct. I meant to say "one of the only," but the point still remains that it's in the vast minority.

The point is that by using "nigger," it's emerging you into the story. Nigger is probably the most powerful word in the American English language. When you say it, people pay attention. If you read any historical documents from the time, you'll realize that people talked exactly like they do in the book. To erase that from the novel is disingenuous to history and creates a less powerful message.

"I'd argue that with "slave" the meaning isn't reatained because, again, we can brush off "slave" and say "Well, kids, every society's had slaves, everyone makes mistakes, after all...""

I agree very much with this. Slavery in the US was a special kind of evil, separate from many other occurrences in history. When Europeans first colonized America, they had indentured servants of all races. Free Blacks were free to do as they please. It really wasn't a big deal.

Then, something happened and it's not entirely clear what. But, the end result was that Blacks didn't merely become slaves, but property. More than that, they became absolutely feared and hated. This is unique in History and something that needs to be remembered, in its entirety.

@Thucy:

Another excellent post, +1, and I think you make a great point about Twain's going through all the trouble to write the book phoenetically and in different dialects, and that word WAS a HUGE part of the vocabulary--the vernacular--back then, and arguably even today, so to take it out IS a form of censure, as we're censuring and changing the way that people spoke in the past, and how we speak often being a reflection of how we think...

@Putin:

I'm not saying "slave" or the concept of slavery isn't strong or wrong, but merely that its more generalized, and so LESS painful than usuing the n-word, as THAT particularizes it, makes it explicit and clear WHO were the victims and who were the persecutors in that time.

Again, its far easier to brush off an idea when its made generally than particularly, hence the connotation of "don't take this personally," as to take it personally is to particularize whatever's being said, to particularize that pain, and that hurts more because its not just a wide field, then, being hurt, its a specific group or person hurting another specific group or person.

Don't quote me on this, but I think I remember that Shylock is actually referred to as "Jew" more often than he is by his own name in "The Merchant of Venice," as if he doesn't have or doesn't need a name--he's a Jew, and for the Venetians, that's all he is, and all the excuse they need to persecute him to the point he wants his pound-of-flesh revenge (I actually worked this into a paper once, and have argued for it, a bit off-topic, but just for those who might care or be interested, I would ask if you would possibly consider "The Merchant of Venice," usually grouped with Shakespeare's Comedies, albeit loosely, as actually beiong a revengist tragedy? Shylock DOES seek revenge, and if we DO didneify with him as a character more than the Venetians, as is increasingly the case...and so DO feel for him when he's ultimately humiliated and falls...might that qualify as a revengist tragedy with some dark humor, rather than a comedy with some serious overtones? Might Shylock be the PROtagonist and not the ANTagonist? Just a thought...curious what others might think.)

In that same vein, then, calling Jim a "nigger" makes it PERSONAL, FAR more personal than the more generic, broad-sounding "slave."

And when its personal--it hurts more...which, of course, is Twain's point...

(Incidentally, I used this news story jsut today for a presentation in Communications, and it REALLY shook up the class, everyone was repulsed by that idea...I guess if anything positive has come from this it's the revelation that so many people really DO care about literature to some extent and DO feel outrage when history and the classics and pasti issues are rewritten or whited out...)

As you mentioned earlier, you opened a random page and found the word 3 times. It pervades the entire book. I don't think you need to bombard people with this kind of language to drive the point home, and I think that the broader point is lost because the focus becomes the language and not the story - which is about the humanity of a man who was enslaved.

But I mean, we're just repeating ourselves at this point. Although I will insist upon saying that this is not 'rewriting history'. It's not a historical imperative to write the word nigger once per every 2 pages. Besides, people don't care about the actual rewriting of history, they're more outraged about some stealth "PC" campaign that might infringe on their ability to be offensive jerks.

When it comes to actual rewriting of history, nobody protests. Who protested when American filmmakers made U-571, which gave credit for the capture of Enigma to the Americans instead of the British? This was one of the biggest events of the war, and US filmmakers just rewrote history in order to make money. Who protested when Mel Gibson made his gleefully Anglophobic and anti-historical Braveheart, Patriot, and Gallipoli movies?

These are just examples of film, but historical writing is fraught with this sort of thing.

It isn't changing dates and stuff, but changing the word most definitely *does* rewrite a part of our cultural history which is just as disgusting. And just as a note, I do find Braveheart to be ridiculous. haven't seen Patriot or Gallipoli or U571 though/

@Putin

I really think you like playing devil's advocate.

Of all people, how can you be in favor of rewriting a book so that it more favorably (and inaccurately) portrays American history?

As to the movies you mentioned: yes that a shame, but isn't that even more reason to keep the few accurate works we have intact?

Honestly, this position you have goes completely against everything else you've ever written in this forum. It's very confusing.