Should Classic Literature Be Altered for Modern Sensibilities?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the topic of whether classic literature, specifically Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," should be altered to align with modern sensibilities. Participants explore the implications of revising historical texts for educational purposes, considering both the potential benefits and drawbacks of such changes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue against revising classic literature, emphasizing the importance of preserving historical context and the original author's intent.
  • Others suggest that revisions could make literature more accessible to younger audiences, arguing that children should be shielded from potentially harmful language.
  • A few participants express concern that altering texts may dilute their meaning and significance, potentially misrepresenting the historical realities they depict.
  • There are discussions about the appropriateness of introducing sensitive topics like slavery and the Holocaust to children, with varying opinions on the right age for such discussions.
  • Some participants highlight the need for guidance when teaching difficult subjects, advocating for a balanced approach that acknowledges historical truths while considering the emotional impact on students.
  • Several comments reflect skepticism about the motivations behind revisions, questioning whether they stem from genuine concern for students or from political correctness.
  • Participants also discuss the practice of editing literature for younger audiences, with mixed feelings about its necessity and effectiveness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the appropriateness of altering classic literature. While some advocate for revisions to make texts more suitable for children, others firmly oppose any changes, arguing for the preservation of original works. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the impact of language on children and the role of education in addressing historical injustices. There are also references to broader societal issues related to censorship and the politicization of education.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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'.
 
  • #51
Ivan Seeking said:
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..



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.]

I agree the the *best* way to learn from literature is to be exposed to it when you're mature and open-minded enough to 'get' it.

But I don't think a person is necessarily ruined by early exposure. For example, I used to watch "Rocky & Bullwinkle" as a young kid, and I liked it on a little-kid level. I saw it again as an adult and got a lot more out of it...all the political nuance, the double entendres...great stuff!

Had I watched a cleaned-up version as a kid, it wouldn't have mattered at all. The more 'advanced' stuff went over my head anyway.

Yeah...I just kinda equated 'Huck Finn' with 'Rocky & Bullwinkle'...:biggrin:
 
  • #52
Jimmy Snyder said:
As I understand it, they just replaced each instance with the word 'slave'.

Wow... so... how long until "slave" becomes the next racial slur, or ironic meme? :rolleyes:

I feel badly for these kids, but it's amusing that this is a straight substitution cipher.
 
  • #53
lisab said:
I agree the the *best* way to learn from literature is to be exposed to it when you're mature and open-minded enough to 'get' it.

But I don't think a person is necessarily ruined by early exposure. For example, I used to watch "Rocky & Bullwinkle" as a young kid, and I liked it on a little-kid level. I saw it again as an adult and got a lot more out of it...all the political nuance, the double entendres...great stuff!

Had I watched a cleaned-up version as a kid, it wouldn't have mattered at all. The more 'advanced' stuff went over my head anyway.

Yeah...I just kinda equated 'Huck Finn' with 'Rocky & Bullwinkle'...:biggrin:

Bugs Bunny the tranny.

Need I say more? It's as though the concept of, "appeals on multiple levels" is utterly lost on people now.
 
  • #54
russ_watters said:
... it!

Ivan Seeking said:
...

Two objections raised so far are:

Ivan:
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.

Children can read the original when they understand the history and are mature enough to appreciate the great work. We are only talking about elementary school children.

Russ:
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?

That depends on the objectives of elementary and high school education. While you will be reading the same book, the purpose of reading the book will be different.

I don't care if elementary children come out without appreciating any great work. What important is they come out with good characters (this can be achieved without reading Huck Finn or reading modified version of Huck Finn). While for high school students, it is important that they understand history and appreciate great works.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
This is silly. Words have to be taken in context. Are they also going to start publishing edited English-Latin dictionaries with the n-word taken out? Replacing it with maybe a Latin equivalent of a "very dark shade of gray"?
 
  • #56
nismaratwork said:
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.

According to a comment column in today's (UK) Financial Times newspaper, the N word is replaced by "slave" throughout, and (curiouser and curiouser) "injun" is also replaced by "indian".

Looking from the this side of the pond, if those changes are a fair reflection of the attitudes of those involved, I may be (very slightly) depressed, but I can't honestly say I'm surprised.

No surprise that the FT column was totally against this sort of nonsense, as am I.

For what it's worth, I read the book when I was about 9 or 10. At that time in my life I had probably never even seen a black person except in a photograph, but the book's message was clear enough for this 9-year-old to understand it.
 
  • #57
AlephZero said:
According to a comment column in today's (UK) Financial Times newspaper, the N word is replaced by "slave" throughout, and (curiouser and curiouser) "injun" is also replaced by "indian".

Looking from the this side of the pond, if those changes are a fair reflection of the attitudes of those involved, I may be (very slightly) depressed, but I can't honestly say I'm surprised.

No surprise that the FT column was totally against this sort of nonsense, as am I.

For what it's worth, I read the book when I was about 9 or 10. At that time in my life I had probably never even seen a black person except in a photograph, but the book's message was clear enough for this 9-year-old to understand it.

I was around the same age, although I had a more mixed experience growing up I think, and I was able to get the point as well. I'm always dissapointed by the degree to which people underestimate the reasoning abilities of children, and overestimate their own teaching competence.
 
  • #58
I don't agree with changing the work of any writer for the sake of political correctness. Especially in it's native country. I am not blaming the publisher they agree to those changes,
they are most likely motivated by economical factors. They seen an opportunity and seized it.

I'm blaming the bureaucrats for this. In their stupid arrogance and self-righteous ways, they think they can butcher the work of a genius like Twain in the name of morale. They can't. What those bureaucrats deserve is what Twain said it himself:

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.


That being said, when I was a teenager I've read Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn books countless times. Some things where lost in translation. And not because a bad translation. For example we don't have a word in Romanian language to carry the offensive payload of the word cool person. But still , I enjoyed the plot as I think any youngster in this world did. It sparked my imagination.

It wasn't till my late 20s when I've read his work in English and I was more familiar with the problems of the American South, their culture of honor, slavery, American Civil War and so on that I could fully appreciate those books.

I don't believe 10 years old would loose too much by reading a revisionist book. But this is not the issue, of how much a kid would lose. The issue is that way to often ppl on high horses have the audacity to pretend they know better. That they have the right to butcher a work of art. Their blindness to their own history.
 
  • #59
DanP said:
I don't agree with changing the work of any writer for the sake of political correctness. Especially in it's native country. I am not blaming the publisher they agree to those changes,
they are most likely motivated by economical factors. They seen an opportunity and seized it.

I'm blaming the bureaucrats for this. In their stupid arrogance and self-righteous ways, they think they can butcher the work of a genius like Twain in the name of morale. They can't. What those bureaucrats deserve is what Twain said it himself:




That being said, when I was a teenager I've read Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn books countless times. Some things where lost in translation. And not because a bad translation. For example we don't have a word in Romanian language to carry the offensive payload of the word cool person. But still , I enjoyed the plot as I think any youngster in this world did. It sparked my imagination.

It wasn't till my late 20s when I've read his work in English and I was more familiar with the problems of the American South, their culture of honor, slavery, American Civil War and so on that I could fully appreciate those books.

I don't believe 10 years old would loose too much by reading a revisionist book. But this is not the issue, of how much a kid would lose. The issue is that way to often ppl on high horses have the audacity to pretend they know better. That they have the right to butcher a work of art. Their blindness to their own history.

I can't believe that I'm throwing you this bone, but for conservatives this is really some of the worst of the liberal (in the R dirty-word sense) legacy of the last few decades. A sensitivity so pointless, and a group of bureaucrats so whipped, that we, "butcher a work of art."
 
  • #60
DanP said:
I don't believe 10 years old would loose too much by reading a revisionist book. But this is not the issue, of how much a kid would lose. The issue is that way to often ppl on high horses have the audacity to pretend they know better. That they have the right to butcher a work of art. Their blindness to their own history.

I think that's an excellent point. It won't necessarily harm kids to read an edited version, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.