Kevin Marshall's America
A controversial edit of a cornerstone of American literature and culture could leave us stranded in a sea of context and misplaced intentions.
The hot pop culture topic du jour (though it might be more apt to preface that with “what should be”) this morning surrounds the decision by publisher New South Books to release a new version of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Normally a new print edition of Finn isn’t news, but this one in particular is different. This particular printing will omit the 219 instances of the n-word – a slur that I could argue the right to publish in full due to context but won’t in appreciation of racial sensitivity and common decency – and replace it with the word “Slave.”
So Jim, the character often referred to as [N-word] Jim in the text, will become Slave Jim.
Read the full story at Publishers’ Weekly’s website.
Twain scholar Alan Gribben leads the charge. Gribben, a professor of Literature and former head of the English Department at Auburn University at Montgomery, explains that his efforts aren’t intended to censor but rather open the book up to a younger generation of readers. The idea came to Gribben after he spent years making the edit himself when reading the book out loud to students.
For all the controversy, he has his defenders. Keith Staskiewicz with EW.com brings up a fair point:
On the other hand, if this puts the book into the hands of kids who would not otherwise be allowed to read it due to forces beyond their control (overprotective parents and the school boards they frighten), then maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge.
It’s unfortunate, but is it really any more catastrophic than a TBS-friendly re-edit of “The Godfather,” you down-and-dirty melon farmer?
The original product is changed for the benefit of those who, for one reason or another, are not mature enough to handle it, but as long as it doesn’t affect the original, is there a problem?
Food for thought. But the negative consequences of such an action on the whole of humanity’s culture and history far outweigh any positive outcomes that could come of this practice.
There is a time and a place, always, for healing wounds and racial divides. The n-word by its nature is so strong and deeply entrenched in race relations in the United States that one can’t help but feel an aversion to it no matter what the context.
I personally ran into this situation when organizing the Mockingbird Marathon event with All Over Albany’s Mary Darcy. In the second conversation we had about the event, we tackled the issue of the presence of the n-word in the Harper Lee’s text. The novel was to be read aloud in public, and we wondered if perhaps allowing the word to be read aloud uncensored or unfettered would reap negative consequences and work against our goals of promoting appreciation and raising awareness for the organization we were looking to benefit (Literacy NY of the Greater Capital Region).
Ultimately we decided it would be used unless a particular reader felt uncomfortable saying the word.
To my surprise, nobody opted to omit the word and no controversy arose due to its use. I attribute this to two very important points that need to be addressed in the conversation about this edit of Finn: context and cultural significance.
Although both novels are works of fiction, both work as documents of America’s history and culture. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, the word is not used haphazardly. It is specifically used to invoke questions about racism and justice, and the character of Atticus Finch specifically forbids his children from using the word and notes that even though those to whom it refers will sometime employ its use, it is not to be uttered by them and that it’s an ugly, hateful descriptor.
That other characters use it says something about the characters, and not the author. Reading it in that context, there is and can be no confusion.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn does not have the revelatory or teaching moment that To Kill a Mockingbird has regarding the n-word, but only because it was written in an earlier time when the word did not always carry or infer the same level of racial animosity. Note that I said “not always,” as there are clear points in the text where you can hear the word spoken by an unsavory character with the same level of disgust you’d come to expect from a modern bigot.
Is its use and presence wrong-headed? In the 21st Century, yes, but not in the 19th Century and not with malicious or provocative intent.
As much as we need to appreciate the maturity level of children being exposed to classics like Twain’s work, we also need to appreciate its cultural and historical significance. It is not merely a novel, but a document of American literature and the power and influence it had in helping shape our nation after a bitter and divisive Civil War at which race was a central component…in spite of revisionist rhetoric to the contrary.
To edit the text and remove this word is harmful to our continued growth, historical knowledge, and discourse. Removing instances of the n-word from the context of its time is, in its intent, an effort to open it up to a new generation with different and/or more sophisticated needs and cultural values. The unintended and larger consequence, however, is an erasure of a dangerous and embarrassing – but still important – time in our nation’s history. We cannot and should not allow for revisionism in a text so important and crucial to humanity as a whole, to say nothing of posthumous respect for artistic integrity and credibility.
As for small schoolchildren? If they’re not mature enough to read the word in its context, then it shouldn’t be read until they are. It really is as simple as that. In fact, I believe that the book is of far greater benefit to older readers who can only only see the word for its use in its context, but also fully appreciate the scope of the work and its impact on literature and society as a whole.
I express concern not to demonize Gibbens, who I think honestly entered into this endeavor with a good heart and the best intentions. However I am of the firm belief that the danger of propogating a malformed version of this text is culturally irresponsible, reckless, and serves no benefit other than to allow the misguided to sleep better at night.
Share it!
23 Responses to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and his friend, S-word Jim
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
I agree with you. Twain was usuing the vernacular of the time, and that’s how people spoke, particularly country folk. To change the book is to re-write history itself and diminish the impact of the word and how it came into usage in the first place, particularly the transition from 19th century ignorant/common language into a terribly disparaging term and, even more currently, a quasi-acceptable greeting among our younger generation and its music.
Laura Ingalls Wilder, in the ‘Little House in the Prairie’ series of books, relates a story about her father dressing up in blackface to perform in a town minstrel show. Should we change this too, and furthermore search all of 19th century literature to mitigate any potentially offensive language?
This feels a lot like book burning to me.
When Twain wrote the book, the n-word did not have as hateful a meaning as it does now, or even anywhere near the same meaning that it has now. Sure, people need to realize the word was used in the 19th century and how it was used, but is Huck Finn the place they need to learn this? I do not think that replacing the N-word with the S-word significantly alters the meaning of the text, so, do it. It is a novel, not a history book or a religious text. I’m sure Twain would have no problem with it.
I just finished reading a revelatory discussion about Quentin Tarantino’s copious use of the N-word in his films, by characters good and bad. Given Tarantino’s c;ose friendship with Samuel L. Jackson and his affinity for the black community and black culture since childhood, he surely was not being a racist by employing the word. From the 19th Century through the 20th, it was a vile, hateful and pejorative term. In the past 15 years or so, it has become quite more nuanced, especially through its widespread adoption by hip-hop and rap vocalists and its casual usage within the black community, from the ghetto to integrated groups of youths. Back in the 1960’s. Lenny Bruce, during a notorious nightclub appearance, adopted a recitation of the word 40 times as a slam, in-your-face method of attempting to diminish, as he put it “its power to make children cry”. Richard Pryor did the same thing for quite some time. For my part, I nevber use the word, agreeing with Eminem that “it’s not mine to use”, despite the latter’s close connection with the musical genre that spawned its frequent and casual usage. When I read Huckleberry Finn as a pre-adolescent, I was disturbed by the use of the word but certainly had the wherewithal to realize that Twain was speaking in the language of the time he lived in. I guess I’m inclinbed to agree with you, Kevin, that its expurgation and replacement with the word “slave” is a context killer. Of course, I agree that removing the coarse language from “The Godfather” does the same thing. funny how there is no consideration of toning down the graphic violence in any of these movies to appease the sensibilities of the young or easily offended. Shoot, cut, spill blood, behead and mutilate, but don’t say any naughty words! Ridiculous.
Of course the removal of the “n-word” from Twain’s novel is ludicrous and is completely and totally censorship.
Oddly I’m more indignant about the comparison to of a literary classic like ‘Huckleberry Finn’ to a MOVIE like ‘The Godfather’
“It’s unfortunate, but is it really any more catastrophic than a TBS-friendly re-edit of “The Godfather,” you down-and-dirty melon farmer?”
Perhaps ‘catastrophic’ is a little over the top but I guess I think it is.
#2 Dan With all due respect, how can you be sure Twain would have no problem with it? I’ve never heard of a serious writer who would willingly let an “outsider” fundamentally change the text of his work. Changing or rewritting our history (yes, I know it’s not a text book, but it is Americanna) to placate some people’s sensitivity is a very slippery slope. Where does it end? The use of the word has context, and to change it changes a message he was consciously trying to express. It should be used as a teaching tool, and not changed because it makes for a difficult/painfull lesson to explain.
Dan - If Twain were alive and wrote Finn today, then no, he probably wouldn’t use that word or use it more selectively. I’m with Flurries here, though. It’s a big leap to suggest that Twain would have no problem with it after the fact.
peterb - I’d argue that film in itself is not inherently less valuable an artform than literature, but that’s another looooooong and different discussion.
I see the comparison he was trying to make, but the analogy fails in two areas:
1. An airing on TBS is not going to perpetuate, circulate, possibly set a standard or over time supplement the original cut. It might be apt if we were talking about a READING of Finn, or a new DVD version of “The Godfather” that was heavily edited and modified, but neither is the case.
2. If anything his analogy works against his point, because those cable/broadcast edits DO actually dramatically alter the source material (i.e. “The Godfather” among others), changing many scenes as well as the overall pace, flow, and storyline.
Another big difference. TBS doesn’t want to alter the words or content, they are bound by FCC regulations. There is no “FCC” type regulations on books (there are some legal no-no’s to be mindful of).
If schools think that there is too much graphic language for their curriculum, they can always select another book.
Whatever we as a society allow is in direct relation to what will be continued to be taken away.
EZ – Agree with your point, but a minor correction: as a cable entity, TBS is actually beholden to sponsors, not the FCC. In terms of TV the FCC can only regulate over-the-air broadcast channels like NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox etc. and its affiliates.
Then I demand every instance of the word Nazi out of the Diary of Anne Frank. That word portrays all Germans as evil Jew haters.
What is the country coming to? Read the book, if you can read. It’s used in context. And what is S-word? Now slave is a racial slur too? Give me a break. Let’s just get rid of the freedom of speech, then we won’t have to worry about offending anyone.
It will be like watching ‘Blazing Saddles’ in edited-for-television mode.
I agree Kevin that film can be art but to compare a (at the time) culture-rocking work like HF to The Godfather indicates a lack of perespective on Keith Staskiewicz’s part. It is almost as if he never read HF or studied the life and times of Mark Twain.
peterb - Fair enough.
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
— George Orwell
You can’t change who we were, as unsavory as it may be. We should never presume to acknowledge only the things that we condone. Rewriting Huckleberry Finn is everything George Orwell and Ray Bradbury warned us about in 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
Maybe the people who rewrote Huck Finn should have read those other books first.
Yes, “modernize” a classic so that people whose upward reach does not exceed the level of their own mouths–and who would, in any case, not care to consider anything beyond mind-numbing, language-bastardizing Twitter–will not “get the wrong idea.” “Tweak” a literary masterpiece to better “play in Peoria”; set the audience dial on “Lowest Common Denominator.”
Those who most need our help have become the standard of our nonexcellence. The clueless dictate.
If you rewrite it then not only do you rewrite our history but you also wipe out how far we have come as a society in trying to establish equality.
A mere 219 times? I live in downtown Albany and hear the N-word with great regularity. It it’s so offensive, why is it in such common use in the black community?
Re: Dan’s “When Twain wrote the book, the n-word did not have as hateful a meaning as it does now, or even anywhere near the same meaning that it has now. Sure, people need to realize the word was used in the 19th century and how it was used, but is Huck Finn the place they need to learn this?”
Where BETTER place to learn this than Huck Finn? Have you guys even read the book? Jim is one of the few good and honorable people in the book, and the constant dehumanizing of him through the epithet is part of what gives the book its sting.
Also, you are wrong (both Dan, and, I’m sorry to say, Kevin): the word had the same hateful meaning then as it does now; I would argue worse, as its meaning was accepted by a mass portion of the population, not to mention the law. When writing in his own voice, Twain used the then non-pejorative “negro.” He understood what he was doing. Look at writings such as this one for proof: http://thunderbird.k12.ar.us/The%20Classics%20Library/American%20Literature/T/twain/Only%20a%20Nigger.htm
Huckleberry Finn is an immensely important book that as many people as possible should read, and I can understand the editor’s reasons for the omission. The shame of it is that those in his target market lack the courage to have the conversation to supply the “context and cultural significance” that is necessary to get the full effect.
I’ve always taken the writings of Ralph Ellison (who feels that there’s too much minstrel-ism in Jim, especially at first, but still finds the book morally valuable as Jim transcends that perception), and the comedian Dick Gregory (read this: http://goo.gl/yy1mb) as guiding words on the subject.
One more thing: Twain does not even once refer to Jim as “[N-word] Jim,” that was a later creation of culture, much like “Play it again, Sam,” never appears in Casablanca.
I agree with Amy. To go even further… there are current movies that use the “n” word, rap artists that use it and I’ve heard people on the street using it to one another… these young mind that are to immature to handle the “word” can listen to rap music about raping, killing cops, doing drugs, etc etc etc, and play video games that are totally violent but the “word” will be taken out?
More PC “political cowardice”… BS IMO
Come on people, you are over reacting. No one is “re-writing” Twain, or history for that matter. The guy is removing one word that is keeping thousands of school children from reading this book. Twain was a very commercial author. He was all about selling books (and himself). If he thought removing this word would sell more books, I am sure he would be Ok with it, just sayin’.
Not that I don’t enjoy hearing John McClane saying, “Yippee Ki Yay, Melon Farmer!” when ‘Die Hard’ is shown on tv…but, c’mon.
Mark Twain?
Slave, please.
Wow. I just want to applaud you Kevin for daring to touch on a very sensitive issue. Rather than handle it in an immature way as so many people seem to do these days. I feel as if you’ve expressed your thoughtful opinion quite effectively. :)
In my opinion, I say do away with the “N-word” in textbooks for children. Why can’t we have two versions of that book? One with the racially sensitive material. And the other without.
As someone who’s been on the receiving end of the “N-word”, I don’t think there’s anything “cool” about it. And quite frankly, I find it a damn shame that certain facets of society have accepted, and essentially “embraced” it’s use. Which is foolish. The “N-word” was used to refer to a specific group of people who were subject to inhumane treatment. This word was used to ridicule, belittle, discriminate, and strike fear into the heart of those on the receiving end. There is nothing “light-hearted” about the “N-word”.
*No hard feelings here Kevin. You’re still one of my favorite bloggers! ;)
Thanks, GR.
#19 (Dan): Sorry, your opinion is just plain wrong. Twain was destitute in his later years due to some poor business and investment decisions and had to go all over the country hyping himslef for money. And I despise the thought of “sanitizing” literary classics. Shall we remove anti-Semitic passages from “The Merchant of Venice” and obtusely ignore that Shakespeare was trying to make a point? Please re-read my comment #3.