Over at Flypaper, Liam Julian rips me a new takes exception to my lack of horror at the bowdlerized Huck Finn. I prefer Twain’s original without question and prefer to see it read, assigned and appreciated as is. But my point was not about censorship but access. The question is this: If the choice is between a) students reading the edited Huck Finn or b) never reading it at all, which would you choose?
Yes, yes, I know. It’s a false choice. Except in those school districts that have already chosen b).
[...] Never the Twain Shall Meet « The Core Knowledge Blog. [...]
Pingback by Never the Twain Shall Meet « The Core Knowledge Blog « Parents 4 democratic Schools — January 10, 2011 @ 2:35 pm
It is only a false choice to those of us that are not currently public high school (or maybe middle school) ELA teachers. It is the reality for many of those teachers.
I teach science in a private school, but I know it would only take one parent or student to raise an issue to not make it worth my time or effort to teach the book. It is not a matter of being right or wrong in the abstract. It is a matter of how much time and effort a teacher is willing to put in when other books would not cause these problems. Stop backing down Robert, you are right on this.
Comment by Matt — January 10, 2011 @ 2:42 pm
Being a traditionalist liberal, I prepared to oppose the editting when I heard the story on npr. But the editor made a great case that this increased choises, and probably Twain would have approved.
How can we get upset over deleting the n word with all of are other problems.
Comment by john thompson — January 11, 2011 @ 1:35 pm
Instead of replacing the n-word with “slave,” which doesn’t work semantically, why not use “n***”, which, as with bleeps in audio, removes the offense while keeping the original intent clear. Might this, just possibly, be a way to satisfy most people and get the book back into classrooms?
Comment by Katharine Beals — January 11, 2011 @ 5:33 pm
Part of choosing a book is considering the language, theme, tone, etc. Is it appropriate to the age group, is it an important book that will enlighten, illuminate and add to the life of the reader?
We choose from many books; this is our choice. We don’t get to choose the words the author uses. He or she gets to choose those. Every time I read these comments I think of Ampleforth in 1984 who believes he is arrested because he left the word God in a poem because it was the only way to make the couplet work. I realize everyone has good intentions here, unlike the Ministry of Love in 1984; however, it is just wrong to take a story and change a word here or there that is deemed unacceptable.
Now, I don’t have a problem with comic books and the shortened classics which are often read by younger readers. These are clearly not meant to be seen as the author’s original work. And this is important. Literature is an art. Parody, summary or retelling the story for a different age group is one thing. Changing specific words chosen by the author, however, is like removing offensive images from a painting and leaving the artist’s name on it.
And I’m wondering how prevalent this is. I recently ordered The Magnificent Ambersons for my sister, and the first edition that popped up on Amazon was one in which “some anachronisms that may jar a modern ear” had been removed. (And this note was not readily visible.) I have no idea what these anachronisms are – I don’t remember my ear being jarred when I read the book for the first time last year. But I am jarred by the idea that publishers are changing words of books after authors can no longer protect their works.
Comment by kj — January 12, 2011 @ 3:19 am