This year, Mark Twain scholar Alan Gribben partnered with publisher New South books to release a new, sanitized version of Huckleberry Finn. In this whitewashed version he has remove the N-word and Injun. His rational is that the work becomes eminently more teachable and that these words are negatively charged.
Alan Gribben, in my opinion, has performed a form of literary vandalism. He is not alone: the article, “A “sanitized” Huck Finn” in the March 2011 issue of the Newsletter of Intellectual Freedom points out that Thomas Bowdler cleansed Shakespeare to create a family-friendly version. These types of alteration are tantamount to me standing before Michelangelo’s David with the chisel thinking, “You know, I think I can make this better”. The artist has the right to have their work left unaltered. Twain picked these words, and by this I mean each and every word, thoughtfully and carefully. As Twain states in the explanatory notes, Huck’s speech is modeled after the Missouri rural dialect of the time. Vulgar and distasteful words and thoughts are part of our vernacular; can you imagine a language where these have been expunged?
Does Alan Gribben and others like him have so little respect for his fellow Americans that he believes we cannot tolerate our past and acknowledge the fact that we were a country that thought nothing of using derogatory slang? This type of censorship attempts to diminish the past and in doing so I feel is diminishes us. Intellectual Freedom holds the belief that we do not need to be protected by others from thoughts and ideas. That political correctness in literature is a form of social conformity that has the effect of limiting expression and creativity. Freedom is dangerous, but the alternate is to imprison yourself in a cage where you are spoon fed the thoughts of others.
Cited Works
" PostPartisan - 'Huck Finn' sanitized for your protection ." Blogs & Columns, Blog Directory - The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May 2011.
"A "sanitized" Huck Finn." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 1 Mar. 2011: 45-46. Print.
I laughed my fool head off at your title. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAh political correctness how I hate thee.
I find it amusing that a book aimed at exposing racial attitudes and dedicating to eradicating them with a better vision of humanity like Huckleberry Finn is being challenged because of its racial language.
I can't even pretend to not think this is asinine. You absolutely can not ever be sanitized enough not to offend someone. Take a look at the message of the material first. Is its presentation enhanced by the language of the times or the way it is presented?
Good post. Oh, and I have seen the David sanitized in photos wearing shorts. REALLY?
Sean, I could not agree more. When I heard this story a few months ago, I was incredibly outraged. I don't understand a person could think to alter the words that were used during this time period. We need these words to be in place so we can learn from history and hopefully never repeat it. Our we going to say slavery never existed next because it's offensive?
ReplyDeleteSean, I really enjoyed reading your post, especially the chisel thinking part about Michelangelo’s David. I imagined Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People with the main figure digitally dressed-up. This would make the painting highly appropriate for classroom use. (Let’s say for a history lesson about French Revolution or an art lesson about the differences between the romantic approach and the neoclassical style).
ReplyDeleteEarlier this year, I have found online discussions on The New York Times’ The Opinion Pages web site, which came after announced “sanitized” NewSouth Books version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. According to these articles, the book also substitutes “slave” for “nigger”. There are suggestions to “to send Huck Finn to college” as the book “is not “an appropriate introduction to serious literature”.
Works Cited
Bosman, Julie. "Publisher tinkers With Twain."
Moore, Lorrie. "Send Huck Finn to College." .
I believe that words create worlds and these words are from another time. Removing them I feel takes the reader to a different place than the author intended.
ReplyDeleteSean
Great post Sean. One of our readings for this week discussed "Huck Finn" and cited some statistics in response to the Newsouth edition. When asked if they supported changing the word "nigger" to "slave", only 13% of Americans questioned in a Harris poll said yes while 77% said they oppose it. It is nice to see that a majority of those surveyed supported the original text and do not agree with the new changes.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I went to Amazon to see what the reviews said, and there is an interesting debate going on there as well. One contributor dubbed this new edition a "censorship-for-profit" scheme, while others are saying that Twain would agree that this small change (that now allows his work to be freely taught in schools) "is a trade-off worth the price of a racial epithet".
Sources:
"Most Americans Opposed to Banning Any Books"
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/754/Default.aspx
Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Mark-Twains-Adventures-Sawyer-Huckleberry/dp/1588382672/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306092341&sr=1-1