fiction files redux discussion

Here's an article about the recent decision to take out all the 'n' words in a new edition of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

What do people think of tinkering with texts and this particular subject matter?

Censored Mark Twain

. . . lame!

Absurd, bizarre, chickenshit and ridiculous.

In a nutshell.

I think that's just as bad as burning a book. Novels like those of Mark Twain's are a reflection of the times they're written in. If you censor that, you're missing an entire point of that culture and the history of the United States. Reading a book with the "n" word doesn't make the reader become racist; it makes the reader less naïve.

No tinkering with texts. Providing editorial context via footnotes or forwards, sure--that's what makes new editions interesting. But editing because of sensitivity over language? Why not get rid of all anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice? Or all racism in Heart of Darkness? Jane Eyre is full of prejudice against non-British people--"oh, Adele, she's so vain and shallow, but you know, she's French," or the horror of the madwoman in the attic, who is not only animalistic but from Jamaica and (shudder) of mixed race. Should we edit that out, too?

My authority on this may be lessened by the fact that I am a white Southern man, but I think editing out the word "nigger" from Huck Finn does not do a thing to lessen racism, and in fact could inadvertently strengthen it, if only by instilling ignorance in readers. If we delete the term "Nazi" from history books, will we delete facism?

We're a highly imperfect species. We perpetuate horrible acts upon one another. And yet we're also capable of great goodness. We learn from our mistakes. Hiding evidence of those mistakes is not the way we progress. And literature is not a sterilized presentation of who we are.

awesome post Chris!

Dan wrote: "awesome post Chris!"

Thanks, Dan. :)

I second Dan's comment.

Well, first the jokes...
I am sure we are going to be more polite if she call Jay Z and Beyonce My slaves, because after all slaves is so nice. I am very curious how they will replace the word Nigger when the black perso was never a slave. Imagine when they discover white fat albino girls are being called Moby...

Anyways, it is irrelevant if they change Twain or not. No work is untouchable. They are not written on stone. Sorry, but I never read the word nigger in Twain and got quite well the development of Jim and Huck relationship. The problem is another, not Twain but what those minds who decide what goes to school are thinking. Either they think the students are too dumb and have no support of other disciplines to understand a simple context, or the teachers are complete morons. If this is the case, they should be fixing the educational problem, not edit books. And if there is no problem, they should ask why people read books in school, which function and why those books are picked.

anyways...Last year, Brazil. Monteiro Lobato, the undeniable father of brazilian children literature and father of one of the most beloved creations of brazilian literature (named Sitio do PicaPau Amarelo) was the center of a similar dispute. A relatory of a governament specialist detected the use of racist language in one his stories. Mainly be cause one of the main characters was a black woman worker (the story is in a small farm) and one of the characters (a doll that talks plus the jaguars who want to eat them) called her black, with big lips and also that she could climb like a monkey (albeit a brazilian monkey which fur is white). Have in mind that the end of slavery here did not occured but in 1888. So, Lobato was born in a coutry with slavery. Fact, the character was based on his own "nanny", of course, a house-work slave woman who helped to raise kids. The thing, the character, Tia Anastasia is the black character more famous of brazil thanks to Lobato and his work did no less than make people love her as part of the "Sitio" crew (2 kids, a talking corn, a talking doll, the grandmother of the kids and herself).

Lobato is much more controversial than Twain, having objectivelly defended at some point eugeny (this is a more complicated sittuation in Brazil) and even writting a work (The Black President) when he tried to gain american market about the first black president where he is outsmarted by the white minorities. But he is also responsable for defending a brazilian myth (Saci) for his symbolic mix of brazil "races" (Portuguese european, african former slaves, and native indians) which would add the uniqueness and strength to brazilian culture. But even so, the mobilization was imense and the Education Minister hold the case. It will go under the carpet because the accusation of racism is ridiculous.

Mostly, the bigger problem of historical revisionism is not giving proper vallue to those same words. Without their ties with history, they lose significance. And more, it was works like Twain and Lobato who actually created the link to bring those dicussions under a new light. White upper class would never know the N word correctly without Twain approaching it to the users with his books. (I copy and pasted from another place the last part... too long and I am too lazy)

Ran across this short blog entry by Michael Chabon about the n-word and reading Mark Twain aloud to his two young children. Great stuff:
http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/ar...

i've also read somewhere about christian groups (and others) sanitizing books of sex scenes, cursing, etc, and redistributing those censored versions so that these family-friendly versions are made available for all who want to read. that way, you can still read "lolita," though presumably the sanitized version is a ten page-pamphlet about an articulate dude named humbert who has a crush on some girl whose age is certainly never identified.

the idea there seems to be that by deleting references to something, you can pretend that it doesn't actually exist. (in the same way that conservative high schools refuse to teach sex education for fear that the exposure will merely encourage said behavior.) but the logical result, it seems to me, is instead something like our sanitized version of "lolita" -- an inoffensive piece of work, yes, but one gutted of all meaning.

Lolita without sex scenes would have 2 less lines :D

Anyways, this is not new. They keep removing motives and scenes from Faery tales to suit they purpose. Walt Disney did it (it is the same principle, why americans are surprised to be americans?) and in the end, he helped to keep many of those stories alive because their lack of original version is what is remembered...

Just saying...

http://www.purifiedpictures.com/

What I love is how you're looking at this family sitting on a couch on the right, and in the top left is an image of a Shutter Island DVD.

Wasn't Jim a runaway slave or a freed slave? So wouldn't calling him slave be less accurate to his situation?

I think they should have modernized it and Huck should call him "bro"

Shel wrote: "Just saying...

http://www.purifiedpictures.com/

What I love is how you're looking at this family sitting on a couch on the right, and in the top left is an image of a Shutter Island DVD."

shel, that is amazing!..."the hangover," purified!?!?!?! how do they do that? i almost want to watch it.

what's funniest is that i think many of these movies would take on a trippy aspect without the anchor of vice -- i mean, without the roofies in "the hangover," isn't it just a bunch of guys who slept in after a night out on the town?

Well, but then you can say I never read truthfully it either. Or anyone else who do not read in english.

And of course, the readers of the original Twain will never be able to say they read truthfully this version. Goes both ways.

There is no such thing as truthfully writing, that makes me think of Ezra Pound saying that the translations of Virgil saved him because he was not such good poet or Borges reminding us that the original is unfaithfull to the copy.

Dan wrote: "Wasn't Jim a runaway slave or a freed slave? So wouldn't calling him slave be less accurate to his situation?"

I listened to an interview with the fella who is putting out this edition. He didn't have any answers regarding this question. He didn't seem to have any convincing answers to any questions, whatsoever. Slavery was over when the book was published so calling him slave only confuses the reader, especially because the ol' word 'nigger' does not translate to slave. It translates to Icky-skinned.

All I know is if Huck's being censored I want 50 Cent and Nikki Turner's classic, "Death Before Dishonor" censored as well. This is the book kids are hiding inside their copy of Huck Finn and I don't think it's improving any moral standards. Read the first paragraph on Amazon, it only gets better from there, trust. I wonder what the 'N' word will mean to everyone a hundred years from now? I think it's meaning will change to 'owner of a white person.'

Which makes us say it is not a problem of solution. Literature is made of wrongfully readings. We do not read Homer for quite so long, greek reading was not usual during middle ages, it was either Latim or the sideways: Ovid and Virgil. Otherwise we would have Homer guiding Dante.

To arabian world 1001 Nights would be just one of many medieval collections of fables, yet, the story of translations in Western, who never read it, transfomed it.

And romantic poets did read Milton in the original, yet, they saw a hero in Satan. He is not, he is deceitful, not a heroic rebel. Yet, would we have Lord Byron without this reading?

That bring - voillá - borges back. Why was Dom Quixote less magical to him? He knew spanish. He never saw any translation. While the Comedy he could read several versions.

An american - because it is americans reading Twain, in the original who was offended by the N word - is reading in english, yet, he is not reading twain. Maybe some malasyan did better. Because Huck Finn is not the english original version, as no book is, but all effect it has. And the several versions are just part of it as the original (who may even be lost) is.

Mike wrote: "Jcamilo wrote: "Well, but then you can say I never read truthfully it either. Or anyone else who do not read in english.

And of course, the readers of the original Twain will never be able to s..."

The real question is that slave is more offensive than nigger. Depending who said it, nigger is not even offensive. But Slave will always means a sittuation of submission. Lets call the american president a slave. Very nice.