News Should Classic Literature Be Altered for Modern Sensibilities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #91
xxChrisxx said:
I probably misunderstood the way you meant this,

Do you mean, remove the word to give it to younger children or give the book to older children to read?

My wife and I discussed this yesterday. My first thought was to save it for high school seniors - kids that are on their way to college and more apt to understand the intended message.

Now, I think it might (done properly) accomplish more at the high school freshman level - to prepare the kids for their high school experience. If they can see what racism has meant, and how things have changed, maybe they will appreciate each other more in 2011?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
turbo-1 said:
I first read Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, and Life on the Mississippi when my parents bought a house. A walk-in closet well-stocked with cheap editions of classic books became my bedroom, so I had a LOT of late nights. I was 10. The idea that I had not been exposed (repeatedly) to the word "cool person" by that age is laughable.
Merely being exposed to something is easy. OK, you were 10, and you heard the n-word. Did you have the social context at 10 to understand American history and oppression? Or did you understand that this was a label for Black people? It'd sure be a good one to use on the school playground if you wanted to get someone's goat.

Please substute 'any other child' for 'you' in the above.

turbo-1 said:
If children are old enough to read Clemens' books (understand the words and concepts) they are old enough to provide mental context and/or ask an adult "why" if they have a question.
Really? Do we just leave the child to his own recognizance to ask - if there's something they don't understand?

Would you apply the same tutelage principles to something like sex ed? "You kids go ahead, Let me know if you have any questions."

See the problem?

The point of education is to teach the child what they don't know; i.e. we lead the process; we don't follow.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this case. What I am saying is that it would be folly to dismiss it as simple.

turbo-1 said:
There is no need to eviscerate classics to satisfy some PC idiots.
Ad hominem. Address the argument. It is irrelevant who makes the argument.
 
  • #94
DaveC426913 said:
Ad hominem. Address the argument. It is irrelevant who makes the argument.

Oh Dave. I wish you wouldn't do this. It comes across as incredibly condescending.

It's strictly correct but... still.
 
  • #95
DaveC426913 said:
Merely being exposed to something is easy. OK, you were 10, and you heard the n-word. Did you have the social context at 10 to understand American history and oppression? Or did you understand that this was a label for Black people? It'd sure be a good one to use on the school playground if you wanted to get someone's goat.

Please substute 'any other child' for 'you' in the above.Really? Do we just leave the child to his own recognizance to ask - if there's something they don't understand?

Would you apply the same tutelage principles to something like sex ed? "You kids go ahead, Let me know if you have any questions."

See the problem?

The point of education is to teach the child what they don't know; i.e. we lead the process; we don't follow.I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this case. What I am saying is that it would be folly to dismiss it as simple.Ad hominem. Address the argument. It is irrelevant who makes the argument.
I knew exactly what "cool person" meant. As a child, my family and I were called "dumb frogs" too. I knew what pigeonholing and insults were intended to do.

I seriously doubt that there is a 10-year-old in the US that has not heard the word "cool person" over and over again in a variety of contexts. I don't think that it would be such a bad thing to read it in the words of an uneducated southern boy who is coming to realize that he is becoming friends with a black man. Clemens treated Jim with respect, and Jim's humanity would be diminished if the contrast between his friendship with Huck and his treatment by society at large was diminished.

Don't want your child to be exposed to "bad" words? It's your prerogative as a parent to protect them. Want to censor American classics so that other children can't be exposed? That's not so harmless, IMO.
 
  • #96
xxChrisxx said:
Oh Dave. I wish you wouldn't do this. It comes across as incredibly condescending.

It's strictly correct but... still.

How can it be condescending if it's correct? Turbo is attempting to make the argument appear wrong in part by trying to label the people he sees making the argument.
 
  • #97
turbo-1 said:
Don't want your child to be exposed to "bad" words? It's your prerogative as a parent to protect them.
Yes. And as participaters in the educational curriculum, they get to have a say in how it's done.

turbo-1 said:
Want to censor American classics so that other children can't be exposed? That's not so harmless, IMO.
Nobody said harmless.

They're doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing. You have to counter that by showing it's the wrong thing, not by agreeing to what could be done "without affecting other people" (i.e. harmless).
 
  • #98
DaveC426913 said:
How can it be condescending if it's correct? Turbo is attempting to make the argument appear wrong in part by trying to label the people he sees making the argument.

Condescending means acting with manner of patronizing superiority. You can be correct and still condescending.
 
  • #99
DaveC426913 said:
Ad hominem. Address the argument. It is irrelevant who makes the argument.

Maybe irrelevant for you, but is very funny to put ppl in categories :P Yes, Turbo is right , in this case PC are patented idiots.
 
  • #100
xxChrisxx said:
Condescending means acting with manner of patronizing superiority. You can be correct and still condescending.

Personal style. Some ppl ride on high horses, others are jerks, you get the idea :P It has no importance in the greater scheme of things.
 
  • #101
DanP said:
Maybe irrelevant for you, but is very funny to put ppl in categories :P Yes, Turbo is right , in this case PC are patented idiots.

I agree, it's also far more convenient.

"I appreciate your views, but heartily disagree with your thought process on the matter."
or
"You're an idiot"

More crude, but certainly more snappy.

DanP said:
Personal style. Some ppl ride on high horses, others are jerks, you get the idea :P It has no importance in the greater scheme of things.

I'm fairly blunt, both on here and in person. So I'd have to box myself in with the jerks :D High horse people cause me to tilt.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
xxChrisxx said:
I agree, it's also far more convenient.

"I appreciate your views, but heartily disagree with your thought process on the matter."
or
"You're an idiot"

More crude, but certainly more snappy.

Have you been watching a "House" marathon? :smile:(sorry)
 
  • #103
xxChrisxx said:
I agree, it's also far more convenient.

"I appreciate your views, but heartily disagree with your thought process on the matter."
or
"You're an idiot"

More crude, but certainly more snappy.

Yes. You see, why would I be PC when what I attack are social engineering utopias pushed to an extreme by a group of extremists PC ? "You are an idiot" works better than "let's agree to disagree"
 
  • #104
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. And as participaters in the educational curriculum, they get to have a say in how it's done.


Nobody said harmless.

They're doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing. You have to counter that by showing it's the wrong thing, not by agreeing to what could be done "without affecting other people" (i.e. harmless).

Actually I think the primary reason this is being done is that the author is far too dead to complain...

Seriously, who thinks who is doing what right thing? The parents who fail to place the work in context, the teachers who do the same, the cowardly bureaucrats who don't want to face heat over the book, or the publisher who needs to sell more copies?
 
  • #105
DaveC426913 said:
Merely being exposed to something is easy. OK, you were 10, and you heard the n-word. Did you have the social context at 10 to understand American history and oppression? Or did you understand that this was a label for Black people? It'd sure be a good one to use on the school playground if you wanted to get someone's goat.

Please substute 'any other child' for 'you' in the above.


Really? Do we just leave the child to his own recognizance to ask - if there's something they don't understand?

Would you apply the same tutelage principles to something like sex ed? "You kids go ahead, Let me know if you have any questions."

See the problem?

The point of education is to teach the child what they don't know; i.e. we lead the process; we don't follow.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this case. What I am saying is that it would be folly to dismiss it as simple.


Ad hominem. Address the argument. It is irrelevant who makes the argument.

Re: bolded. Yeah... you do. It's not ALL that you do, but it had better be done before you leave them with those questions. I suspect that a teacher should be able to do the same for Twain.
 
  • #106
DaveC426913 said:
They're doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing. You have to counter that by showing it's the wrong thing, not by agreeing to what could be done "without affecting other people" (i.e. harmless).


It;s far more simple and effective to run them in the ground by manipulating ppl's feeling on the issue and forcing them to take attitude against PC Utopians and other creatures with social engineering pretensions similar to what has been done by Komrades, SS whateverfuhrers, and Maoists. (i.e literature censorship)
 
  • #107
turbo-1 said:
I knew exactly what "cool person" meant. As a child, my family and I were called "dumb frogs" too. I knew what pigeonholing and insults were intended to do.

I seriously doubt that there is a 10-year-old in the US that has not heard the word "cool person" over and over again in a variety of contexts. I don't think that it would be such a bad thing to read it in the words of an uneducated southern boy who is coming to realize that he is becoming friends with a black man. Clemens treated Jim with respect, and Jim's humanity would be diminished if the contrast between his friendship with Huck and his treatment by society at large was diminished.

Don't want your child to be exposed to "bad" words? It's your prerogative as a parent to protect them. Want to censor American classics so that other children can't be exposed? That's not so harmless, IMO.

I agree completely.
 
  • #108
How much is there to age appropriateness anyway? Which part are we waiting for them to become mature enough to understand?

Regardless of the slur or insult, I think a 10-year-old that's spent anytime on a playground will understand what it means to be called names or to call someone names for no good reason. The essential truth of what's going on is there, even if the historical context isn't.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why slaves were referred to in insulting terms (with the slave part being an important part of the sentence - not just a PC term)? Depreciating the human value of blacks made it feel more acceptable to use them as slaves.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why blacks actually are less human and should be referred to in degrading terms?

I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
 
  • #109
BobG said:
How much is there to age appropriateness anyway? Which part are we waiting for them to become mature enough to understand?

Regardless of the slur or insult, I think a 10-year-old that's spent anytime on a playground will understand what it means to be called names or to call someone names for no good reason. The essential truth of what's going on is there, even if the historical context isn't.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why slaves were referred to in insulting terms (with the slave part being an important part of the sentence - not just a PC term)? Depreciating the human value of blacks made it feel more acceptable to use them as slaves.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why blacks actually are less human and should be referred to in degrading terms?

I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.

I think a younger child is going to have a more difficult time explaining their subject matter at home.
 
  • #110
BobG said:
I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.

It took me a couple of years to plow through the books stored in my (walk-in closet) bedroom. Verne, Twain, Austen, Dickens, Hawthorne, etc, etc. I had my own private library! It was great. Never had to check out a book or return it or renew. I had a huge collection of books and they were all classics. The widower that sold my parents that house left some "fancy" furniture and china in there, but the greatest treasure was the library.
 
  • #111
Are Uncle Remus stories allowed back in schools? Twain was supposedly a great fan of the stories.
 
  • #112
the intellectual average of the classroom is one consideration.

another consideration is the maturity average.

maybe it's not appropriate for some high school classrooms, either. add in the social strife of any local geography, and i think you're left with a decision that has to be made at a local level.
 
  • #113
I just need to ask... what's the supposed trauma 10 year olds are supposed to experience as a result of this? I read Moby Dick when I was 7... I wasn't traumatized... just really bored and confused. Later readings erased the confusion, but the boredom remains.

Videogames are the devil, words are evil, blah blah... meanwhile a statistically significant portion of any given group of 10 year olds will already have been molested by someone they know! That same group will have a statistically significant number of people with a range of mental illness ranging from 'dysphoria' (oh DSM... you prick) to 1% roughly being schizophrenic, and a lower percentage being psychopaths.

So... clearly the first issue to tackle are the evils of unredacted literature.
 
  • #114
Proton Soup said:
the intellectual average of the classroom is one consideration.

another consideration is the maturity average.

maybe it's not appropriate for some high school classrooms, either. add in the social strife of any local geography, and i think you're left with a decision that has to be made at a local level.

Heh, yeah, and then we have kids in Kansas thinking that The Flintstones was a documentary. I'm willing to risk the minds of those too pathetically unfit that they can't read a book without lasting damage. Oh, and that last sentence... yes, it's hyperbole.
 
  • #115
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

Ivan, I agree with you 100%. What is, is.
 
  • #116
turbo-1 said:
I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.
As I pointed out earlier, replace 'you' with 'any other child'. Your personal experience is not a compelling argument.
 
  • #117
Emotions have been running too high. Thread closed.