Author Topic: Censoring Huck Finn (Read 15735 times)

7StringedBeast · « **on:** January 06, 2011, 10:42:34 AM »

Do you guys think its ok to censor the "N" word out of Huck Finn for the sake of political correctness? This is all over the news at the moment.

I personally think this is not right to do. This work should not be altered. This word was used often at the time the story is about. It portrays race the way it was. It's history and it should not be changed. Political Correctness is getting way too out of hand.

Cool Chris · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:03:12 AM »

I saw this, and disagree with it myself, for both legal and moral reasons. I don't know who owns the copyrights to Huck Finn, or how any of that legal stuff works (wherefore art thou, TempusVox??), but I would think and hope there would be some laws in place preventing someone from altering a piece of copyrighted work and then promoting it as sthe original.

Now, if they wanted to publish an altered version, and call it something like A Modified Version of Huck Finn, done without the consent of the original author, then I wouldn't mind as much, again however, being ignorant of literary copyright issues.

All works of art are a product of the times in which they were written/produced. They are almsot just as much a piece of history as they are a piece of art. You can change the art, but you can't change the history, and as such, if you tamper with the art, you are bastardizing both.

El Barto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:04:38 AM »

Two problems. Plenty of reasonable black folk prefer to leave history intact. I suspect that the impetus here is more from white people than black. Frankly, white-washing history is more offensive than remembering it.

One of the most insane political figures in Dallas over the last 30 years fought tooth and nail to keep two plaques over two water fountains in the county building designating them white and colored. I understood his position and thought that it was more reasonable than the politicians who wanted it removed.

My second problem is that Nigger Jim was named such in wonderful irony. As I understand it, he was the one decent person they encountered. Removing that aspect removes a crucial anti-racist element that Twain had intended. From WikiP:

Quote

"The people whom Huck and Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is 'Nigger Jim,' as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt."

As Carlin would point out, words are good or bad based on context, and silly people here would like to challenge this instance despite the wonderful context Twain created.

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:11:16 AM »

The part I don't like is that apparently they are doing this so they can give an acceptable version to school children to read. We should not be hiding the truth, otherwise what is the point of learning. It's ridiculous. Yes its a bad time in the history of America, no we should not forget about it or pretend it never happened.

bosk1 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:17:22 AM »

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the thread thus far. This area of the law is outside my expertise, but it seems very similar in many respects to the lawsuits in recent years about organizations being able to republish more "family-friendly" versions of movies, such as censored versions to show on airline flights. The artists won those lawsuits (i.e., the rulings were that they could not be censored). I'm not sure why this would be any different.

Oh, and I should also add (*putting on forum admin hat*): typically, there is a blanket ban against using obvious slurs like "nigger" in any context whatsoever on the forum. However, given the context of this thread, I think it is entirely appropriate. As El Barto pointed out, it was part of a main character's name. So don't worry about discussing it here (provided it is kept in the proper context).

Orbert · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:26:47 AM »

It was required reading in my junior high American Literature class. My teacher made it very clear that what we were reading was written during a different time, when people talked differently, but the speech was accurate and reflected its time. I imagine that some people were still offended by it, but the vast majority of us took it exactly as it was intended: as a learning opportunity. It was history, literature, and culture all rolled into one.

Wanting to censor the book or modify it in any way so that it is "more acceptable" is stupid. You're not protecting anyone; you're preventing people from learning.

El Barto · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:27:41 AM »

Aside from the law dealing with those asshats re-cutting films for family rental (which was bullshit, IMO), Huck Finn appears to be in the public domain now. If somebody wants to republish it, it's their business. That would leave the decision up to the schools as to which version to use. Frankly, I wouldn't send my kid to a school so childish and simpleminded, although I doubt I could ever find a school that I'd approve of anyway.

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:31:48 AM »

I think it is interesting that a lot of news these days is about censorship of something or banning something. Whether it be circumcision, marijuana, 4 Loko or Huck Finn, it seems like America is getting all hopped up on banning shit. What the hell is this? This is not what America is all about. We are supposed to be about freedoms, and everyday it seems like the country's attitude is changing to everything should be controlled. I don't like it.

Orbert · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:52:23 AM »

Absolutely. Even comparing how things are now to the way they were in the 70's (which wasn't that long ago) you can see enormous steps backwards being taken. The most obvious one I see everyday is how "free speech" has been all but replaced by "speak but do not offend anyone of any race, religion, sexual orientation, geography, height, weight, hair color..."

bosk1 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:54:27 AM »

...unless they are a male WASP, in which case all bets are off.

j · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2011, 12:26:26 PM »

Agree with most of the posts so far.

Not that it matters, but there's actually a strong underlying *critique* of racism in Huck Finn, he sort of makes a mockery of it throughout.

-J

The Texas Pirate! · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2011, 12:52:56 PM »

censorship is bad! there is no way that no one will be offended by someones writings. I beleive it was Ben Franklin that said, "If I were to worry about offending someone with what I print, nothing would get printed."

If I offend anyone with what I say or do, Oh well, deal with it. I'm a Texan and I have that right. LOL!

Volk9 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2011, 12:59:22 PM »

Guess I'll chime in.

The "N" word doesnt bother me in any context whatsoever (unless its actually used in a hateful way towards me). I dont agree with them altering the work in any way, as that was obviously not intended by the original author. However, some may be offended by the word, and so I really dont see the big deal if they do make a "censored" version, though I would still prefer the original, as I'm sure many would.

Basically, I dont see the big deal if they make a censored version, but they should also leave the original alone since I'm 100% sure most people will prefer reading the original in the way it was intended to be read.

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2011, 01:05:33 PM »

Quote from: Volk9 on January 06, 2011, 12:59:22 PM

Guess I'll chime in.

The "N" word doesnt bother me in any context whatsoever (unless its actually used in a hateful way towards me). I dont agree with them altering the work in any way, as that was obviously not intended by the original author. However, some may be offended by the word, and so I really dont see the big deal if they do make a "censored" version, though I would still prefer the original, as I'm sure many would.

Basically, I dont see the big deal if they make a censored version, but they should also leave the original alone since I'm 100% sure most people will prefer reading the original in the way it was intended to be read.

I don't have a problem with a censored version. If its legal to do so, and they think it will sell, so be it. What I don't like is that the motivation for censoring it is so that it becomes the version that gets handed out to schools to have their students read. That's where I think it goes wrong.

rumborak · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2011, 01:58:01 PM »

What worries me about the censorship is that it paints history in a light that is simply not true. Yes, it *was* acceptable and common in those days to call a black man a nigger. If you have kids reading a censored version of the book you will have them get a distorted view of history.

rumborak

icysk8r · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2011, 02:16:00 PM »

I doubt anyone in my school would be offended, we hear it about 500x a day.

PlaysLikeMyung · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2011, 04:09:23 PM »

I saw this on the Colbert Report. This is the dumbest idea... Huck Finn is a classic and shouldn't be changed. And I agree that the political correctness is getting out of control.

There was controversy over To Kill A Mockingbird too.. Also a classic. Everyone should read it. And also as pointed out, it's all about context.

What's next? Uncle Tom's Cabin? This is ridiculous

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2011, 04:22:04 PM »

We are on our way to book banning/burning just to keep the bad stuff out of kids heads. Our nation is losing its identity.

pogoowner · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2011, 04:48:24 PM »

It's pretty absurd to censor it. The reasons why have already been stated.

Chino · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2011, 05:22:17 PM »

I think it is completely ridiculous. I read an article not to long ago about schools no longer showing Schindler's List because a bunch of parents got up in arms about it.

El Barto · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2011, 05:28:52 PM »

Quote from: Chino on January 06, 2011, 05:22:17 PM

I think it is completely ridiculous. I read an article not to long ago about schools no longer showing Schindler's List because a bunch of parents got up in arms about it.

Only because of the nudity, I imagine.

XJDenton · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2011, 06:03:46 PM »

I don't have a problem so long as there are notes in the text itself as to why it was changed.

jsem · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2011, 06:06:38 PM »

If it's OK for MLK to say it over and over in his speech, it shouldn't be removed from a book written 130 years ago. Plus, it's part of the american cultural heritage, just stupid to try to cover it up, no matter if it's wrong or right.

sonatafanica · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2011, 07:52:03 PM »

I find that usually the people who are concerned about censoring art have no understanding of what art is to begin with.

TempusVox · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2011, 10:23:59 PM »

Farenheit 451, anyone?

I think this is absolute bullshit. Censorship is wrong. If you don't like, or are offended by the work, then don't read it. The only time I see words as being bad, are when they are being used to teach people how to be cruel to other people. At the same time this is marketing genius for the person who plans to release this book.

As for copyrights, any works prior to 1978, still in their original or renewal term of copyright, the copyright was extended to 95 years from the date that the copyright was originally secured. Since the original copyright on Huckleberry Finn was 1884, and it's author has now long been deceased, the copyright on the text has expired, and the book can be found just about anywhere on the net, and the original text now has passed into public domain. There can be special circumstances of course where the content may be an individual edition that is still be protected. For example- prefaces, forwards, afterwords,footnotes, annotations, and sometimes even cover art.

I should publish a version called Fuck Hinn, and see if anyone is offended by that.

Orbert · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2011, 10:38:43 PM »

I agree with all that, but I think the issue is when school districts don't allow the teaching of a book which was recognized a long time ago as a masterpiece of American literature, because its language is now offensive to some people. When someone starts publishing a modified version, with the N-words blanked out or however they end up doing it, some school districts will sanction it. The beauty of the work is how perfectly it captures a period in our history, including the way people spoke. There's no point in teaching a "cleaned-up" version of the book.

ResultsMayVary · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2011, 10:43:37 PM »

It's a classic novel and portrays the time frame in one of the most accurate ways possible. Don't change the language of the novel to benefit correctness. It's a load of bullshit.

ack44 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:55:55 AM »

Quote from: 7StringedBeast on January 06, 2011, 10:42:34 AM

Do you guys think its ok to censor the "N" word out of Huck Finn for the sake of political correctness? This is all over the news at the moment.

How is the U.S. media handling this btw?

ack44 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2011, 01:10:55 AM »

This mini "outrage" in this thread is hilarious. Why aren't you guys mad about laws forcing people to be clothed in public places? It's essentially censorship of nudity. This "censorship is wrong" mindset sheds no light on the real issues. Fahrenheit 451 is about the censorship of ideas, something that the U.S. media itself is brilliant at.

Chino · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2011, 07:19:44 AM »

Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the word in? That way we can teach children about how far we've come in terms of race. I see the word in there actually being a positive thing.

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #30 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:22:24 AM »

Quote from: ack44 on January 07, 2011, 12:55:55 AM

Quote from: 7StringedBeast on January 06, 2011, 10:42:34 AM
Do you guys think its ok to censor the "N" word out of Huck Finn for the sake of political correctness? This is all over the news at the moment.

How is the U.S. media handling this btw?

They are saying, things like, "should the "N" word be taken out of Huck Finn". No news organization is going to risk saying it on air.

Nudity in public is not the same thing as censoring freedom of speech. You can't really oppress people by telling them no shoes no shirts no service. Not to mention, kids in school might be reading altered versions of the book which I think is wrong.

It's really altering American history to make it more politically correct which is outrageous.

ack44 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:16:38 AM »

Quote from: 7StringedBeast on January 07, 2011, 08:22:24 AM

Nudity in public is not the same thing as censoring freedom of speech.

Glad to see you renouncing your "censorship is wrong" position.

Quote

It's really altering American history to make it more politically correct which is outrageous.

It's not outrageous that a publisher is publishing an altered version of a classic. As far as I can tell there are no legal implications. I think it's more outrageous that a DTF user got IP banned for making a thread titled "What would you do if Mike Portnoy showed up on your porch?" (now we're finally getting closer to censorship of ideas, not just words or snippets of flesh). And speaking of outrageous, there's a huge campaign of government censorship that has been going on for months now in the name of "saving lives" or whatever will dull the public's mind from realizing that huge amounts of information is being suppressed.

7StringedBeast · « **Reply #32 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:40:51 AM »

dude wtf are you talking about? Did you even read my earlier posts? I don't mind that they are doing it on just that basis. Whatever free market, if its legal they can do it. But its not right that its being done so that it can be the version kids read in school. It's a part of American History.

ehra · « **Reply #33 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:52:49 AM »

Quote from: ack44 on January 07, 2011, 01:10:55 AM

This mini "outrage" in this thread is hilarious. Why aren't you guys mad about laws forcing people to be clothed in public places? It's essentially censorship of nudity.

I'd like to think that a reasonable person would differentiate between "censoring nudity" in public places and censorship of art and history.

ack44 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:57:43 AM »

Oops, I guess it was someone else who said "censorship is bad."

But in the OP you're upset that they're changing it for political correctness' sake, not because it will be used in school (if that's even the case).

News: Paralyzed official video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7m7l8iqGAk

Author Topic: Censoring Huck Finn (Read 15735 times)