"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." — Mark Twain
"There's nobody for me to attack in this matter even with soft and gentle ridicule--and I shouldn't ever think of using a grown up weapon in this kind of a nursery. Above all, I couldn't venture to attack the clergymen whom you mention, for I have their habits and live in the same glass house which they are occupying. I am always reading immoral books on the sly, and then selfishly trying to prevent other people from having the same wicked good time." - Mark Twain's Letter to Denver Post dated Aug. 14, 1902; also published in NY Tribune Aug. 22, 1902 (regarding banning of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the Denver Library.)
It's a sad day in the publishing world because 135 years after The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and 126 years after The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) were published, the new edition of each of these books will be censored based on one word that appears throughout both these novels.
From Publishers Weekly:
"Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic by most any measure—T.S. Eliot called it a masterpiece, and Ernest Hemingway pronounced it the source of "all modern American literature." Yet, for decades, it has been disappearing from grade school curricula across the country, relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright, appearing again and again on lists of the nation's most challenged books, and all for its repeated use of a single, singularly offensive word: "nigger."
"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind," said Gribben, speaking from his office at Auburn University at Montgomery, where he's spent most of the past 20 years heading the English department. "Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.
"Including the table of contents, the slur appears 219 times in Finn."
Also the word "injun" has been replaced with "Indian."
I think people forget that, "Twain wrote a novel that embodies the search for freedom. He wrote during the post-Civil War period when there was an intense white reaction against blacks. According to some critics,Twain took aim squarely against racial prejudice, increasing segregation, lynchings, and the generally accepted belief that blacks were sub-human. He "made it clear that Jim was good, deeply loving, human, and anxious for freedom" (from Wikipedia)
Is To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, and a classic of modern American literature next? The same slur found in Mark Twain's books appears 48 times in To Kill a Mockingbird.
What about Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe written in 1852? "Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century, and the second best-selling book of that century, following the Bible. It is credited with helping fuel the abolitionist cause in the 1850s." (from Wikipedia)
How about Native Son by Richard White, a novel that's a powerful statement about racial inequality and social injustices?
Or how about his book by Randall Kennedy?
Or this book by Dick Gregory?
"Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always will be the last resort of the boob and the bigot." — Eugene O'Neill











10 comments:
One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes is "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." I *strongly* feel that this alteration of this book is removing an integral part of its message. The proper response to words like that used correctly *for the book's time period* from a perspective like today is for the teacher to ask the student, "Why do you think the author chose to use these words? Do you think the impact of the book would be the same if a different word were used?"
Who would have ever thought Mark Twain would be white washed. Kind of pathetic, really.
Ridiculous. Honestly, I would prefer schools not carry Twain's novels, rather than purchase the censored versions. There's no way for our country to grow and learn from our past if we're busy white washing our history.
I think this is more of the politically correct, its-not-happening-now-so-it-never-happened BS. All children should learn about US history, even the not so pretty portions. Nothing depicts this more accurately then fiction because it has been proven that history books skate around the issue, labeling slaves as 'workers' and plantation owners as 'employers'. (yes, this is actually in my son's third grade history book). It falls to us parents to teach the kids what they need to know. Guess I'll start collecting these books now before they become extinct.
(As an aside, after reading this passage in my son's history book, we all sat down and watched Roots. Best thing I ever did :)
I've done my share of squirming when it came time to read Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird (which is my favorite) when I was back in school. I've been called that name more times than I care to remember. I don't advocate any type of racial slur but to remove them from classic literature is like a slap in the face. Being politically correct should not include re-writing classic literature. History is not pretty and should not be ignored. I got over myself and I'm quite sure others will too.
As for those two gentlemen, they have written books based on their own experiences and what exactly that word means to not only themselves but the masses. Personally, I could think of a dozen other titles to use but that's their work, not mine. Unfortunately, a lot of people still tend to use that particular word as an endearment, but no thanks. I'll take being called "Sugarlips" any day.
When we won't acknowledge out past how can we better our future? I can remember reading almost all the books previously listed and now as an adult I realize that they made a profound affect on my thoughts and actions today.
Would I be as tolerant and opened minded today if I hadn't read those books as a child? Even though my parents had some prejudices they were wise enough to realize they had them and not influence their children as they had when they were children in the 1930's. We get enlightenment thru reading as well as compassion for situations we may have never faced.
Changing wording or slang in books doesn't make the reader a better person or more understanding. Being exposed to other views and acknowledging the wrongs of the world is what makes the world a better place not censorship.
It makes me sick to think that someone can just come in and change a person's work, just like that.
Of course, this will open the door to other changes as well, I'm sure.
I think this is ridiculous and it's tampering with the author's vision. If a teacher is going to be teaching Huck Finn, all she has to do is just discuss the historical background and why Twain uses the words that he does.
Censorship of Mark Twain is so wrong. It's an astounding premise that it is acceptible to revisit classics and modernize them to reflect "political correctness" in speech. It is an intolerable abuse.
George Santayana said: 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'
I think Ren said it best:
Being politically correct should not include re-writing classic literature. History is not pretty and should not be ignored.
Post a Comment