Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[HarryT]

I think that Elfwreck is saying that TODAY that's what it's regarded as, not in Twain's day.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have always thought that these non-economic rights was forever. At least the part of the name being associated with the work.

It's being labeled as the "NewSouth Edition" (that's the publisher), which is likely sufficient. Probably better if they added "edited by" but I don't think that's legally required.


As to the other part:

Originally Posted by tompe

By copyright law, the artist or originator has the right to be associated by name with the artistic work. Furthermore, the artist possesses "the right to respect for the work," which stipulates that the work cannot be changed or distributed to the public in a manner that is "damaging to the originator's literary or artistic reputation or distinctive character."

Once something is in public domain, I don't believe any such restrictions exist. Plagiarism is not illegal, nor is warping a PD text to your own ends. (It is socially disapproved, though, so if you tried to pass off a PD text as your own, you'd probably run into other types of trouble.)

There might be some protections listed in the US Copyright Code that I'm not familiar with, but so far it seems obvious to me that you can re-write PD material, including to the point where the author might regard the finished product as a mangling of their work. Again, see Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which is partly attributed to Jane Austen -- and, I suspect, of which she would not approve.

[MrsJoseph]

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 would say you are 99% right. "Injun" would be considered a dialect spelling, not so much an insult. The insult would be "redskin" or "red" in the south. I can assume that someone can and will be offended by "injun" if they happen to hear it, but if they hear it in the south, 9 times out of 10 the speaker was saying "Indian" (in their own way).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gastan

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

I'm not sure what you mean.

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?

[Garp]

The editor was on WPR yesterday discussing this. His main argument was that Twain is being taken out of the classroom solely to his usage of this one word. He contends that the novel is bigger and more important than the 219 uses of 'nigger'. It is mainly for schools that this edition has been published.

No one is suggesting that this book replace the original, as far as I'm aware. It's a way to give kids access to Twain at school. This still allows for discussion in class, if wanted - around the use of the original word, the changing nature of language over time, censorship - and, of course, does not restrict in any way the ability for a student to seek out the original at a later date. I don't see the problem, quite frankly.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Garp

The editor was on WPR yesterday discussing this. His main argument was that Twain is being taken out of the classroom solely to his usage of this one word. He contends that the novel is bigger and more important than the 219 uses of 'nigger'. It is mainly for schools that this edition has been published.

No one is suggesting that this book replace the original, as far as I'm aware. It's a way to give kids access to Twain at school. This still allows for discussion in class, if wanted - around the use of the original word, the changing nature of language over time, censorship - and, of course, does not restrict in any way the ability for a student to seek out the original at a later date. I don't see the problem, quite frankly.

The problem is that USA still has a racial problem and the word is still used in it's same form. So what are we teaching our kids? Its ok to call someone "nigger" as long as you don't read about it? Since when is being PC more important than learning the lessons of our past?

[Garp]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

The problem is that USA still has a racial problem and the word is still used in it's same form. So what are we teaching our kids? Its ok to call someone "nigger" as long as you don't read about it? Since when is being PC more important than learning the lessons of our past?

Those lessons are important - and, of course, there are other classes to teach them in. However, the issue is that the book is not being taught in schools. And it's due to those 219 words. To have the discussions you argue for, one of 2 things have to happen: have an edition that can be discussed in class, or demand that Twain is put back on the curriculum, warts and all. These are not mutually exclusive, of course. The publisher has just given schools another option.

[EowynCarter]

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?

But then, they soudn't sell it as "Marck Twain's Huckleberry Finn", but "NewSouth Books Huckleberry Finn"

[abookreader]

@Garp. And I agree those are all valid battles that teachers face. The Literature Instructor at the local High School can't include Huck Finn in the syllabus without bringing down the wrath of 23 different parents on her head. So she thinks that if she caves a little on this, she will at least be able to bring most of the book to her students. I understand why a Teacher would want to do that.

What burns me though is that more/most of our society is not willing to stand up to the 23 parents who insist that the book as it was written must be kept out of the hands of all kids to begin with.

This just gets to me. I grew up in an environment where we were taught that books were removed and censored and history was re-written in order to control the knowledge and thoughts of the populace. This just strikes me as wrong.wrong.wrong.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by abookreader

What burns me though is that more/most of our society is not willing to stand up to the 23 parents who insist that the book as it was written must be kept out of the hands of all kids to begin with.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by abookreader

@Garp. And I agree those are all valid battles that teachers face. The Literature Instructor at the local High School can't include Hick Finn in the syllabus without bringing down the wrath of 23 different parents on her head. So she thinks that if she caves a little on this, she will at least be able to bring most of the book to her students. I understand why a Teacher would want to do that.

What burns me though is that more/most of our society is not willing to stand up to the 23 parents who insist that the book as it was written must be kept out of the hands of all kids to begin with.

This just gets to me. I grew up in an environment where we were taught that books were removed and censored and history was re-written in order to control the knowledge and thoughts of the populace. This just strikes me as wrong.wrong.wrong.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by 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 ...

I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned already, in which case apologies if I've missed it, but according to the BBC report, "Mark Twain did not take kindly to editing". Somewhat ironic, in the circumstances.

BBC News 6 January 2011 - bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada "A new edition of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is causing controversy because of the removal of a racially offensive word."

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Garp

Those lessons are important - and, of course, there are other classes to teach them in. However, the issue is that the book is not being taught in schools. And it's due to those 219 words.

If schools can't discuss the book as written, it should find a different book for whatever lessons it needs. If the messages in the book are too complex and controversial for schoolchildren, it should be set aside until they're old enough to cope with it. It's not like Twain wrote for an intended audience of 13-year-olds.

The edited version brings up a number of questions--Is this still an important-and-relevant book if the way it deals with race is changed? *How* is it still important and relevant, and what different messages will kids learn from the bowdlerized versions? Will they have the same understandings about the book as those who studied the original, just without some of the distaste at the "bad words?"

This isn't the equivalent of beeping over a few swear words in a movie. This is a drastic change in the tone and message of the book, and in how the characters think and act.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.)

While I agree that the term "injun" is in today's context an insult, I have to ask you: preferred by whom? By the people they describe or by white people trying to distance themselves from the facts of history and (possibly) the deeds of their ancestors?

[Redcard]

I'd rather the book not be taught at all than changed and taught.