Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[HarryT]

OK, thanks. I just assumed it was a "dialect" spelling of the word.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

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?

Of course, Native American is often not a self-description but a label invented by white people to integrate indigenous peoples into the grand narrative of Eagleland. I think its telling that movements that spring from the grass roots of Indian life name themselves things like "American Indian Movement" or refer to "Indian Country." Even in officialdom, the national museum dedicated to the indigenous peoples of the Americas is the "Museum of the American Indian."

[gastan]

As HarryT's above link to the BBC and this link ( http://www.katu.com/news/national/112939594.html ) from an Associated Press report posted on a Portland TV website says, "..."Huck Finn" is the fourth most banned book in schools, according to "Banned in the U.S.A." by Herbert N. Foerstal, a retired college librarian who has written several books on First Amendment issues." So Harry's option to remove the book from all school libraries is close to happening already, despite some posters disbelief that this could happen. It is a travesty that a man (Twain) that chose his words very deliberately and carefully, in this case to expose a societies shortcomings and to applaud a young boys enlightenment, will now be edited to conform to todays standards. I hope they sell zero books.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct now, it shows some manners.

There is everything wrong with being politically correct. The term itself implies a condition imposed by others against your better judgement. It shows a sheep mentality which "goes with the flow." It implies a weak willed wuss that doesn't have enough backbone to have any principles of their own, right or wrong as they may be. It leads to ridiculous and outrageous situations such as banning books.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, thanks. I just assumed it was a "dialect" spelling of the word.

At one time, yes, and it was illustrated on paper that way. If anyone were to use it casually today, it'd be boorish.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by silasgreenback

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

I think that is the case in current usage. Was it also the case in Twain's time or is it simply a dialectical spelling representing how the word was actually pronounced? I mean, I dislike the word "Mohammadan," but I don't expect people to retroactively edit works from the 19th and early 20th century to satisfy me. It was just the common usage of the time, coined on an analogy with the word "Christian" and similar to the word "Buddhist."

Luqman

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gastan

There is everything wrong with being politically correct. The term itself implies a condition imposed by others against your better judgement. It shows a sheep mentality which "goes with the flow." It implies a weak willed wuss that doesn't have enough backbone to have any principles of their own, right or wrong as they may be. It leads to ridiculous and outrageous situations such as banning books.

It depends why it's done, don't you think? Not using words that people genuinely find offensive is just common courtesy. What I do find crazy is when people IMAGINE offensive terms: eg, in British schools, blackboards are now called "chalk boards", which is just plain daft. Anyone who thinks that calling a board which is black a "blackboard" is going to offend someone really needs their head examining.

... especially when those same schools still happily use "whiteboards"

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It depends why it's done, don't you think? Not using words that people genuinely find offensive is just common courtesy. What I do find crazy is when people IMAGINE offensive terms: eg, in British schools, blackboards are now called "chalk boards", which is just plain daft. Anyone who thinks that calling a board which is black a "blackboard" is going to offend someone really needs their head examining.

Agreed, but I'm sitting in my classroom right now and the board-on-which-we-write-with-chalk is actually green, not black. Here, at least, "chalkboard" makes more sense. Are they actually black in the UK?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Agreed, but I'm sitting in my classroom right now and the board-on-which-we-write-with-chalk is actually green, not black. Here, at least, "chalkboard" makes more sense. Are they actually black in the UK?

Yes, they really are black .

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

This is ridiculous. Nobody should be able to re-write a book that they themselves didn't write in the first place, no matter what. If you don't like the book, don't read it!

well that's just as silly. There have been lots of "re-writes" of book sove rthe years. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer have already been re-written for different age groups removing all sorts of material.

I agree that what is proposed here is ridiculous but saying no book or story should EVER be changed by anyone except the original is just the pendulum swung the other way too far. What about Grimm's? Should those stories never been told unless its in the original Grimm Version?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

well that's just as silly. There have been lots of "re-writes" of book sove rthe years. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer have already been re-written for different age groups removing all sorts of material.

I agree that what is proposed here is ridiculous but saying no book or story should EVER be changed by anyone except the original is just the pendulum swung the other way too far. What about Grimm's? Should those stories never been told unless its in the original Grimm Version?

Of course, the Grimm versions are hardly the originals, making the idea even more absurd.

[Dulin's Books]

exactly^

is it simply a dialectical spelling representing how the word was actually pronounced?

yes it is. Much of his spelling is chosen by Twain for exactly that purpose. So you can "hear" the voice of the character speaking.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

yes it is. Much of his spelling is chosen by Twain for exactly that purpose. So you can "hear" the voice of the character speaking.

Dickens writes dialogue in just the same way. You can "hear" the accents of the speaker.

[abookreader]

Sigh.
Well, thank you to the MobileRead library and the version I downloaded this morning in it's original non-Politically correct the way Mark Twain intended the story to be read manner.

I feel inspired to read it now, even with all the bad words.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, thanks. I just assumed it was a "dialect" spelling of the word.

Bit of both. It's a dialect spelling, and use of that pronunciation showed either low-class/rural origins/poor education on the part of the speaker (or an attempt to emulate one of those), or a deliberate slur implying something like "those people aren't worth the effort of accurate speech" or "there are no decent, polite words to describe them."

Today, it's an insult, on par with "Paki;" the preferred terms include Native Americans, Native Peoples, or First Nations. (First Nations is common in Canada, less so in the US.)

[gastan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Bit of both. It's a dialect spelling, and use of that pronunciation showed either low-class/rural origins/poor education on the part of the speaker (or an attempt to emulate one of those), or a deliberate slur implying something like "those people aren't worth the effort of accurate speech" or "there are no decent, polite words to describe them."

Today, it's an insult, on par with "Paki;" the preferred terms include Native Americans, Native Peoples, or First Nations. (First Nations is common in Canada, less so in the US.)

I think you are trying to impose 21st century thinking, ideas, and mind set onto 19th century reality. Doesn't wash, in my opinion.