From my edition's of Twain (Dorset Press, published 1988)(all emphases are mine):
Preface to
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
"Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will
not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in.
The Author
Hartford, 1876
Explanatory note at the beginning of
The Adventures of Hucleberry Finn
"In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri Negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; the four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
The Author
Twain obviously took great care choosing the words he used and he used these words for a clear purpose. In his own words he is telling us that he was capturing a period in history; a slice of American life as it was;
a reminder to ourselves of what we had been and how we had acted and how we talked. Don't like the picture? Tough, most of us don't. I don't think Twain himself cared for some of it. But that won't change it and neither will altering the recorded history of it. Altering our history will only ensure that we don't understand who we are, where we came from, or how we got here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
What do you think the 19th century reason would be for using the word "injun" in print, instead of "Indian?" What would the author be conveying about the character, other than either lack of formal language skills or some level of bigotry?
|
I presume that he was presenting as accurate an account as he could of the people, times, and language in the book he was populating. But then I don't usually try to second guess an author's motives or actively look for insults around every corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
If it was an adult novel, I'd agree with you, but it isn't - it's primarily a children's book, and the simple fact is that it's not a book that's suitable for today's children to read. So that leaves you with the question as to whether it's better to make minor changes to it so that it becomes OK for children again (and make it clear that it is an edited version, obviously), or deprive children of a jolly good book altogether. I have no problem with such edits - it's a common practice with children's books. Times and cultural attitudes do change, and the books we give children to read have to adjust accordingly.
|
Hogwash. Sanitizing history only ensures that it has an increased potential of being repeated. You believe that the book is a "jolly good book altogether" but is objectionable because of one word? Believe me, your little darling won't become a raging racist by reading this book or being exposed to the word "nigger". That's like saying a one or two hour conversation with a lesbian will turn your little debutante into one. What reading the original words may do is help your little tyke internalize, on a visceral, gut level,
why the word is so offensive. It may help them understand their culture and society better.