Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[Madam Broshkina]

PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot; persons attempting to change some of the words in order to be politically correct should really find something better to do.

[Susan Reader]

Twain didn't use the word because he couldn't think of anything else to call the persons of color, he used it deliberately to kick the reader a bit. It's an important part of the book.

Which of course won't stop anybody who wants to from creating a "nice" version. It'll be interesting to see who will pick it up and how they'll use it.

There's plenty of rewritten PD classics out there. I was given several of them as a child. So far as I can tell, they were rewritten to get rid of the "boring" bits and make the story more exciting/simpler.

And what about Thomas Bowdler? Way back in 1818 he rewrote Shakespeare's plays to get rid of all the offensive words and actions, making them safe for women and children to read... whence the term "bowdlerize," which is now what's being proposed for Twain...

[thrawn_aj]

People who are afraid of words deserve to live in a totalitarian state. More power to them for striving to make it so.

Since there is nothing sacred about even so-called sacred books (which have been routinely edited over the centuries), why are we even surprised about this?

Censorship (or revisionism) doesn't occur in a vacuum, any less than totalitarian states appear out of nowhere. Somewhere at the root of all this is the people's desire to self-censor and curb their own free will because it scares them. Reminds me of Reynolds' Voluntary Tyranny, which made perfect sense to me (for certain kinds of people - see esp. the 2nd paragraph on pg.108 of the linked book).

[bgalbrecht]

As we all know, there's a eponym for this: bowdler, from the editor of the "family" Shakespeare.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

I am looking forward to reading Moby Richard.

Leno just did a bit about this very topic and rewritten childrens' books.

"Moby Richard" was among them, along with "Bi-Curious George" and several others.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Susan Reader

Twain didn't use the word because he couldn't think of anything else to call the persons of color, he used it deliberately to kick the reader a bit. It's an important part of the book.

Which of course won't stop anybody who wants to from creating a "nice" version. It'll be interesting to see who will pick it up and how they'll use it.

This is what I was taught. Twain specifcally uses nigger extensively to show a growth over the length of the story, to where it's incongruous with the frienship shared, and the respect Huck shows Jim. By editting it out, a MAJOR portion of educational value is lost. I would be surprised if many schools use a sanitized version.

[HarryT]

There's a BBC News article on the matter here:

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

[MrsJoseph]

It's just silly and stupid to replace the word "nigger" in this book to "make people more comfortable." In reality, this word is still used on a daily basis and for the same reason with the same effect. Almost every black person living in America has been called "nigger" in their lifetime. The reasons Twain wrote this book the way he did are still relevant.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Further, this is not always such a straight-forward issue. Some people hate the idea of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Some think it's hilarious. Who's right?

But it's CALLED "... and Zombies". I'm ok with a rewrite that is named differently. In fact, I appreciate "clean" alternatives. As in clean versions of popular music without the vulgar words.

So a story called "Huck Finn cleaned up" is coming out would get an entirely different reaction than "Huck Finn to be rewritten" as if one were going to try to REPLACE the original Huck Finn.

Lee

[HarryT]

What on Earth, though, is the reason for changing "injun" to "indian"? Is "injun" considered to be insulting? It would never have occurred to me that it was!

[luqmaninbmore]

How does one square the supposed anti-racism of Huck Finn with the rather egregious racism of Puddin' Head Wilson? The guy who is "1/32 black" but raised white is the villain while the "white" baby raised as a black slave is an epitome of virtue. There is also a lot of unreflecting racism against American Indians found in the collection "Letters from Earth."

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What on Earth, though, is the reason for changing "injun" to "indian"? Is "injun" considered to be insulting? It would never have occurred to me that it was!

That seemed odd to me as well. I don't think "injun" is meant as a separate slur apart from Indian, at least in Twain's time. I think it's just a dialectical pronunciation.

[Elfwreck]

There's a roundup of links with quotes at Racialicious: Voices: The Huckleberry Finn Controversy.

One of the linked articles mentions,

The tragedy, as Melissa Harris-Perry articulates on the “Countdown” clip below, is not that the word “nigger” appears in the text, but that we think it’s not appropriate to discuss our nation’s racism honestly until college.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

That seemed odd to me as well. I don't think "injun" is meant as a separate slur apart from Indian, at least in Twain's time. I think it's just a dialectical pronunciation.

Also, isn't "Native American" the PC version of "Indian?" Shouldn't the re-writer (because I can't call him the author) replace "injun" with "Native American" instead?

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What on Earth, though, is the reason for changing "injun" to "indian"? Is "injun" considered to be insulting? It would never have occurred to me that it was!

"Injun" would be about like saying "Paki".