News Should Classic Literature Be Altered for Modern Sensibilities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
NewSouth Books plans to release a revised edition of Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," replacing the N-word with "slave" and removing the term "Injun." This decision aims to make the book more accessible to children, as it has faced bans in many school districts due to its language. However, there is significant opposition to this revisionist approach, with arguments emphasizing the importance of preserving the original text as a crucial part of American literature and history. Critics argue that altering the language diminishes the book's historical context and the author's intent, potentially leading to a diluted understanding of its themes. Some suggest that while younger children may not be ready for the original text, they should not read a modified version that misrepresents the work. The discussion raises broader questions about censorship, the role of education in confronting difficult historical truths, and the implications of altering classic literature for modern audiences.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,528
...According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave.

The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html

The argument is that this will allow far more children to read the book, which has been banned by many school districts because of the use of these words.

I am always opposed to revisionist history. I don't care why they are doing it. Huck Finn is an American classic that is above tampering by bureaucrats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm opposed to revising classics - and banning books! Part of the point of school is learning sometimes the things you learn aren't so nice. Should we pull the Holocaust from the textbooks because original source material contains racial slurs?
 
Sadly I agree that some versions should be revised. When the kids are older they can read the orginal. It could make big broblems in the schools where kids kill one another now. People are too touchy for it not to be revised.
 
As long as the young children that have been taught this is inappropriate are told that this was considered acceptable at the time so they understand. It was not all roses and lollipops back then. The past should not be covered up and hidden from them, they just need to be told how it was.
 
Kids are mean sometimes and I can not see this being a shared reading without someone making a comment or name calling. These name callings turn into shooting thise days.
 
Lacy33 said:
Kids are mean sometimes and I can not see this being a shared reading without someone making a comment or name calling. These name callings turn into shooting thise days.
Lying to them and refusing to acknowledge the abuse black people suffered is wrong.

Should we erase any mention of WWII and the holocaust so that children aren't subjected to the horrors the jews went through?

It needs to be taught with the correct guidance.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html

The argument is that this will allow far more children to read the book, which has been banned by many school districts because of the use of these words.

I am always opposed to revisionist history. I don't care why they are doing it. Huck Finn is an American classic that is above tampering by bureaucrats.
I agree with you. It seems a rather pointless thing to do anyway, assuming that wrt the public schools (that most kids attend) and the pop music (that most kids listen to) the term, 'cool person', is pretty commonly used (and apparently quite frequently by African American kids while referring to each other) as well as the term, 'cracker'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Twain used the word deliberately - he used the word "negro" in the introduction. So there's really only two options - New South thinks that they can write better than Twain and should change his words, or that they want to change his meaning. By changing the words that society uses, you place Huck in a different environment and make his actions less heroic.
 
I don't think we should use our present preconceptions to start ripping up Clemons's works. He was making a point. Should our PC idiots ruin that?
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
Twain used the word deliberately - he used the word "negro" in the introduction. So there's really only two options - New South thinks that they can write better than Twain and should change his words, or that they want to change his meaning. By changing the words that society uses, you place Huck in a different environment and make his actions less heroic.

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Mark Twain
 
  • #11
Evo said:
Lying to them and refusing to acknowledge the abuse black people suffered is wrong.

Should we erase any mention of WWII and the holocaust so that children aren't subjected to the horrors the jews went through?

It needs to be taught with the correct guidance.

Or should we erase any mention of how slavery was handled by the original constitution?

Oh, wait. We did that during Congress's reading of the Constitution, yesterday.

It is interesting that the US Constitution is amended, not revised (as opposed to many state constitutions, whose amendments actually delete or reword portions of their consitution).
 
  • #12
N- should not be treated very different from F-, S-, or what not. TV shows targeted for children do not use adult slur words in Canada but I am not sure about the books.

There is an appropriate age for learning holocausts or slavery.
 
  • #13
Now that's a coincidence!

I'm watching State Fair, and someone just used the rare and archaic word n*gardly.
 
  • #14
Editing literature so it is suitable for a younger audience is common practice - my daughter's elementary school had a set of classics that were re-written for kids. I can't find the name of the series, but my daughter brought home the "Portrait of Dorian Gray" book in kindergarten. (Yeah...an odd child.)

I can see using an edited version for elementary age kids.
 
  • #15
lisab said:
Editing literature so it is suitable for a younger audience is common practice - my daughter's elementary school had a set of classics that were re-written for kids. I can't find the name of the series, but my daughter brought home the "Portrait of Dorian Gray" book in kindergarten. (Yeah...an odd child.)

I can see using an edited version for elementary age kids.

I prefer that. Most of the material targeted for children should be (and I believe is) about being respectful, open minded, honest etc. There is whole life to learn about the dark history and the world.
 
  • #16
lisab said:
Editing literature so it is suitable for a younger audience is common practice - my daughter's elementary school had a set of classics that were re-written for kids. I can't find the name of the series, but my daughter brought home the "Portrait of Dorian Gray" book in kindergarten. (Yeah...an odd child.)

I can see using an edited version for elementary age kids.
I would much prefer they have kids read books appropriate for their age and comprehension level so they can properly process them rather than water them down so that they are consumable by younger kids. Consumable or not, a younger kid isn't going to get all there is to get out of the book if some of it is missing! And what are we to do - have them read it once in elementary school to get the superficial parts of the story then again in high school to get more out of it? Seems like a waste of time to me.
rootx said:
There is an appropriate age for learning holocausts or slavery.
Sure, but IMO that doesn't mean that Huck Finn should be re-written to portray a modern interracial pair of friends on a little adventure, it means younger kids shouldn't read it!
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Sure, but IMO that doesn't mean that Huck Finn should be re-written to portray a modern interracial pair of friends on a little adventure, it means younger kids shouldn't read it!

At the least, they have no business calling such a book Huck Finn. If they want to rename it Huck's Adventure, for example, and make clear that this is based loosely on the original, that might be acceptable.
 
  • #18
This makes me wonder out loud: just how stupid and afraid are most people?
 
  • #19
nismaratwork said:
This makes me wonder out loud: just how stupid and afraid are most people?

School politics are just nutty. My oldest friend [now deceased] taught for over thirty years [I think it was almost forty years], and then went into local politics. He was constantly complaining about the wanna-be-politicians using the school system as a stepping stone to higher office. Then you have the parents...
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
School politics are just nutty. My oldest friend [now deceased] taught for over thirty years [I think it was almost forty years], and then went into local politics. He was constantly complaining about the wanna-be-politicians using the school system as a stepping stone to higher office. Then you have the parents...

True, it's an insane state of mind that seems to prevail, but THIS... ugh. This makes me think of people who eat a whole pint of low-fat ice cream, instead of a serving of the good stuff. It's not inherently good or bad, it's in the responsibility in the application. Still, since we're dealing with the parents of their precious brood, no doubt that's not really a factor in their thinking.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html

The argument is that this will allow far more children to read the book, which has been banned by many school districts because of the use of these words.

I am always opposed to revisionist history. I don't care why they are doing it. Huck Finn is an American classic that is above tampering by bureaucrats.

Nazis. Another N word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
DanP said:
Nazis. Another N word.

You know, people throw "Nazi" around a lot, but editing books for 'purity' really is getting on the creepy end of spectrum. Then again, the Nazis were pretty effective when it came to purging literature... if I were a kid in school now, I'd simply buy a REAL copy and read it in school.

What gets me, is that it isn't some crusading librarian or PTA that redacted this... a publisher has been so successful pressured by idiots that they did this ON THEIR OWN.
 
  • #23
What I can't get over is that I agree wholeheartedly with both Ivan Seeking and turbo-1 in this thread

I have heard some schools have considered removing the teaching of the history of things like slavery from the curricula as well, because it is "too offensive" or something like that.
 
  • #24
lisab said:
I can see using an edited version for elementary age kids.

I disagree. If the book is considered inappropriate, don't give it to kids to read.

Can you imagine "kindergartened" version of Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or Fanny Hill?
 
  • #25
Huck Finn isn't an appropriate book for young children, even without the n-word. If Mark Twain were alive today, I doubt he'd be happy with the people changing his book.
 
  • #26
Jack21222 said:
Huck Finn isn't an appropriate book for young children, even without the n-word. If Mark Twain were alive today, I doubt he'd be happy with the people changing his book.
What? I read the book when I was 10. My parents bought a house that had a large collection of cheap book-club "classics" stacked in the closet that was to become my bedroom. I loved that book.

What is the fascination with erasing non-PC words from popular literature? Clemens was making some points with his use of language. His writing was always spare and to-the-point. If you haven't read "Innocents Abroad", please read it now! The man was a genius.
 
  • #27
Let us at least agree that the primary problem is the banning of the book (or any decent book) from schools. As a response to the initial problem, the "cleaned" version of the book is the lesser evil when compared to students NOT being able to read Huck Finn. The book is one of the most important lessons of American social history, and students should be exposed to it at least by 5th grade.

The delicate treatment of the language is and important responsibility of the teacher, but that is something we cannot rely on (I speak as a teacher).

Contrary to Russ, I think that this book should be introduced in elementary school AND again re-read in High School, in depth with historical context. The correct, intended lesson of Huck Finn on the raft, to "humble myself to a cool person," cannot be missed nor glossed over.
 
  • #28
Borek said:
I disagree. If the book is considered inappropriate, don't give it to kids to read.

Can you imagine "kindergartened" version of Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or Fanny Hill?

Like I said, it's already being done. The book my daughter had, Dorian Gray, is pretty dark. But I let her read whatever she wanted to.

I don't see what the fuss is about, this is already being done with classics...has been for at least 15 years.
 
  • #29
Except that when you change the words, you change the book. You're no longer teaching "Huckleberry Finn".

I believe this is the most important work of American literature, and the most important line is '"All right, then, I'll go to hell"--and tore it up.' This is the point where Huck has made up his mind to follow his own conscience, and not to follow society's convention on right and wrong.

This is actually a very subversive idea, when you come right down to it. And what this change does is dilute this message. By using a word that is a little less offensive, it makes society a little less wrong, and it makes Huck a little less virtuous for going against them. Twain used the words he did for a reason; these aren't errors to be corrected.
 
  • #30
I'm seriously considering writing a complaint letter to the publisher, informing them about boycotting them, and spreading the word.
 
  • #31
It's a stupid idea, but I wish I had thought of it. Now they can sell millions of copies of a public domain book. Perhaps I'll publish a copy of Mein Kampf without the J-word.
 
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
Except that when you change the words, you change the book. You're no longer teaching "Huckleberry Finn".

I believe this is the most important work of American literature, and the most important line is '"All right, then, I'll go to hell"--and tore it up.' This is the point where Huck has made up his mind to follow his own conscience, and not to follow society's convention on right and wrong.

This is actually a very subversive idea, when you come right down to it. And what this change does is dilute this message. By using a word that is a little less offensive, it makes society a little less wrong, and it makes Huck a little less virtuous for going against them. Twain used the words he did for a reason; these aren't errors to be corrected.

That's true, but a 7-year-old reading *any* literature is going to be hearing a different story than a 17-year-old reading the same book. The subversive message resonates with American ideals of rugged individualism; the 17-year-old is a ripe audience for that. But it would likely be lost on a 7-year-old...he just likes the story line.
 
  • #33
Chi Meson said:
Contrary to Russ, I think that this book should be introduced in elementary school AND again re-read in High School, in depth with historical context. The correct, intended lesson of Huck Finn on the raft, to "humble myself to a cool person," cannot be missed nor glossed over.
It's fine that you disagree, but could you explain why please. What benefit does teaching the watered-down version have and is it worth the risk of the students never getting their mis-learnings corrected?
 
  • #34
lisab said:
That's true, but a 7-year-old reading *any* literature is going to be hearing a different story than a 17-year-old reading the same book.

True, but I don't think we should revise literature intended for people older than 7 for the sake of 7 year olds. George Orwell's Animal Farm is not a story about animals, after all.
 
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
True, but I don't think we should revise literature intended for people older than 7 for the sake of 7 year olds. George Orwell's Animal Farm is not a story about animals, after all.

re bold: WHAT?! I thought it was a fanciful tale about a pig and his pals...

Vanadium50 said:
Except that when you change the words, you change the book. You're no longer teaching "Huckleberry Finn".

Agreed, and in addition a mockery is being made of great literature, a great author, and a damned important reminder and lens into history.

WHAT IS WRONG with this country, that people think IDEAS are the problem?
 
  • #36
Say, should we change the ending of books too, so that when kids are saddened by them we can avoid that terrible trauma? :rolleyes:

****... I say get copies of The Brothers Grimm IN THE ORIGINAL GERMAN and force it down kid's throats from birth. It's a tough world, and if parents can't help their child navigate the worlds of words, how will they help them navigate LIFE?!
 
  • #37
CAC1001 said:
What I can't get over is that I agree wholeheartedly with both Ivan Seeking and turbo-1 in this thread

See how great it is here. Already we're getting you straightened out. :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #38
lisab said:
That's true, but a 7-year-old reading *any* literature is going to be hearing a different story than a 17-year-old reading the same book. The subversive message resonates with American ideals of rugged individualism; the 17-year-old is a ripe audience for that. But it would likely be lost on a 7-year-old...he just likes the story line.

Do you agree that they have no business calling such a modified version, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
See how great it is here. Already we're getting you straightened out. :-p

"No more of that talk or I'll put the f****** leeches on you, understand?" You'll scare the boy!


:wink:
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
Do you agree that they have no business calling such a modified version, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

They should call it, 'A Profile In Cowardice: A Publishers Story', or, How Greed Ate This Book'
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
It's fine that you disagree, but could you explain why please. What benefit does teaching the watered-down version have and is it worth the risk of the students never getting their mis-learnings corrected?

I believe that the word in question is not the lesson of the book. The moment that Huck went into the cabin of the raft to "humble himself" is one of the most important moments in American literature. I think that the lesson of that moment can and should be taught to 5th graders. The book can and should be returned to in high school when the maturity of the students, and hopefully the training of the teachers, can lead the discussion through the historical significance with its full impact.

Please believe me that I do think the book should not be altered, but if there is going to be a choice between teaching the book without the word, and ignoring the book completely, then ...

It's either that or show them the movie, which is far more watered down.
 
  • #42
Ivan Seeking said:
Do you agree that they have no business calling such a modified version, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

Absolutely, that's entirely appropriate.

How about, "Huck And His Friends Have Fun"? :-p :wink:
 
  • #43
lisab said:
Absolutely, that's entirely appropriate.

How about, "Huck And His Friends Have Fun"? :-p :wink:

I think we should refer to Jim as, "Jim The Barber", or "My friend Jim". Does the book just say, ****** Jim? Does it say "N Word Jim"? Either of those is just a cowardly version of saying the word, and if it's gone entirely I call even more foul... and this is foul.


Taught again in high-school... because kids need more added crap in their curriculum, solely because some parents have boo-boos on their feelings? No thanks.
 
  • #44
Chi Meson said:
I believe that the word in question is not the lesson of the book. The moment that Huck went into the cabin of the raft to "humble himself" is one of the most important moments in American literature. I think that the lesson of that moment can and should be taught to 5th graders. The book can and should be returned to in high school when the maturity of the students, and hopefully the training of the teachers, can lead the discussion through the historical significance with its full impact.

Please believe me that I do think the book should not be altered, but if there is going to be a choice between teaching the book without the word, and ignoring the book completely, then ...

It's either that or show them the movie, which is far more watered down.

Do you really believe that the same book would be taught twice? That seems highly unlikely to me. And by teaching the watered down version first, you probably all but guarantee that the original will never be read. It seems to me that the greatest value would be found in reading the original version once when it is age appropriate.

Why the big rush to water down classic works? What is so important about teaching this in the 5th grade?
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Ivan Seeking said:
Do you really believe that the same book would be taught twice. That seems highly unlikely to me. And by teaching the watered down version first, you probably all but guarantee that the original will never be read. It seems to me that the greatest value would be found in reading the original version once.

...And consider the pitch: "Oh yeah, you've read this book... um... the new one is the same, of course with a much greater and different impact, but to you as someone in school... the difference is a couple hundred uses of the word in question. So, you COULD just pretend to read it, and then imagine that every time we put a unicorn farting a smiley face, it's 'the n word'."

Wow, next I'll sell hair-suits and penis-eating eels... :rolleyes:
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
Do you really believe that the same book would be taught twice? That seems highly unlikely to me. And by teaching the watered down version first, you probably all but guarantee that the original will never be read. It seems to me that the greatest value would be found in reading the original version once when it is age appropriate.

Why the big rush to water down classic works? What is so important about teaching this in the 5th grade?

Having an edited version available in an elementary school library doesn't mean the original can't be read in high school.

What's the rush...well, maybe Reader's Digest Condensed Books is trying to indoctrinate new customers while they're still young :mad:.
 
  • #47
lisab said:
Having an edited version available in an elementary school library doesn't mean the original can't be read in high school.

No, I am just saying that the education system doesn't normally work that way. With all of the potential material to cover, no one teaches the same thing twice. The first thing that would happen is that board members would argue that Huck Finn was already taught in the 5th grade, so there is no need to teach it again..

What's the rush...well, maybe Reader's Digest Condensed Books is trying to indoctrinate new customers while they're still young :mad:.

Seriously, why modify great works just to teach them to an audience too young to fully appreciate them? This seems an artificial constraint and an unjustified goal, esp when considering the potential damage done - that no one reads the original.

I would add that once the door has been opened, there is nothing to stop the publisher from making additional modifications.

Why has no one answered my question? Should the modified version still be called by the original name? I say it's not the same book, so they have no business using the original title or citing Twain as the author. This is not what Twain had published.

[Sorry, lisab did.]
 
Last edited:
  • #48
I realize this is very 'un-PF'... but um... maybe people just don't like being reminded of racism, on all sides of the issue, and school boards are filled with idiots and moral cowards?

Just a thought.
 
  • #49
lisab said:
Absolutely, that's entirely appropriate.

How about, "Huck And His Friends Have Fun"? :-p :wink:

i think i like this idea best. derivative works that are age-appropriate would be fine in elementary school.

for high school students, i do find it highly offensive, tho. and representing a censored version as the original is also offensive, in any context.
 
  • #50
nismaratwork said:
Does the book just say, ****** Jim? Does it say "N Word Jim"?
As I understand it, they just replaced each instance with the word 'slave'.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top