What the Huck?

[jowcol]

New Mark Twain edition removes 'offensive' words

By PHILLIP RAWLS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 7:17 AM

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Mark Twain wrote that "the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter." A new edition of "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" will try to find out if that holds true by replacing the N-word with "slave" in an effort not to offend readers.

Twain scholar Alan Gribben, who is working with NewSouth Books in Alabama to publish a combined volume of the books, said the N-word appears 219 times in "Huck Finn" and four times in "Tom Sawyer." He said the word puts the books in danger of joining the list of literary classics that Twain once humorously defined as those "which people praise and don't read."

"It's such a shame that one word should be a barrier between a marvelous reading experience and a lot of readers," Gribben said.

Yet Twain was particular about his words. His letter in 1888 about the right word and the almost right one was "the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

The book isn't scheduled to be published until February, at a mere 7,500 copies, but Gribben has already received a flood of hateful e-mail accusing him of desecrating the novels. He said the e-mails prove the word makes people uncomfortable.

"Not one of them mentions the word. They dance around it," he said.

Another Twain scholar, professor Stephen Railton at the University of Virginia, said Gribben was well respected, but called the new version "a terrible idea."

The language depicts America's past, Railton said, and the revised book was not being true to the period in which Twain was writing. Railton has an unaltered version of "Huck Finn" coming out later this year that includes context for schools to explore racism and slavery in the book.

"If we can't do that in the classroom, we can't do that anywhere," he said.

He said Gribben was not the first to alter "Huck Finn." John Wallace, a teacher at the Mark Twain Intermediate School in northern Virginia, published a version of "Huck Finn" about 20 years ago that used "slave" rather than the N-word.

"His book had no traction," Railton said.

Gribben, a 69-year-old English professor at Auburn University Montgomery, said he would have opposed the change for much of his career, but he began using "slave" during public readings and found audiences more accepting.

He decided to pursue the revised edition after middle school and high school teachers lamented they could no longer assign the books.

Some parents and students have called for the removal of "Huck Finn" from reading lists for more than a half century. In 1957, the New York City Board of Education removed the book from the approved textbook lists of elementary and junior high schools, but it could be taught in high school and bought for school libraries.

In 1998, parents in Tempe, Ariz., sued the local high school over the book's inclusion on a required reading list. The case went as far as a federal appeals court; the parents lost.

Published in the U.S. in 1885, "Huck Finn" is the fourth most banned book in schools, according to "Banned in the U.S.A." by Herbert N. Foerstal, a retired college librarian who has written several books on First Amendment issues.

Gribben conceded the edited text loses some of the caustic sting but said: "I want to provide an option for teachers and other people not comfortable with 219 instances of that word."

In addition to replacing the N-word, Gribben changes the villain in "Tom Sawyer" from "Injun Joe" to "Indian Joe" and "half-breed" becomes "half-blood."

Gribben knows he won't change the minds of his critics, but he's eager to see how the book will be received by schools rather than university scholars.

"We'll just let the readers decide," he said.

What comes next?  Do we remove the Moorish comments in Othello?   A rewrite of Fagin in Oliver Twist? (Although, to present the full picture, Dickens actually regretted some of the ways he painted Fagin, and tried to address a far more balanced and positive view of a Jewish character in Our Mutual Friend...)

This is painfully wrong, and ironic as well given the main content and themes of Huck Finn,
which, although not an all time fave of mine, certainly deserves better.

[The new erato]

What comes next?  Do we remove the Moorish comments in Othello?   A rewrite of Fagin in Oliver Twist? (Although, to present the full picture, Dickens actually regretted some of the ways he painted Fagin, and tried to address a far more balanced and positive view of a Jewish character in Our Mutual Friend...)

This is painfully wrong, and ironic as well given the main content and themes of Huck Finn,
which, although not an all time fave of mine, certainly deserves better.

I wouldn't mind a rewrite of parts of the old Testament, though I suspect that that would leave very litle.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Though I'm opposed to this kind of bowdlerization on principle, there are times when, applied judiciously, it seems to have been justified.

Example: the original nickname for Dvorak's "American" Quartet (Op. 96) was - I kid you not - the "Nigger" Quartet. Here's an excerpt from Gramophone's review of an early recording (1925):

DVORAK'S NIGGER QUARTET VOCALION.—K.05132, 05133,05134 (12in., 13s. 6d.).—The Spencer Dyke String Quartet: Quartet in F major, op. 96 (Dvorak).
Although the score of this most genial of quartets makes no mention of the title "Nigger," describing the work simply as
"Quartet in F major, Op. 96," there can be no doubt of the suitability of the nick-name by which it is generally known.

I don't know who changed the title, but I'm glad someone did, because otherwise it would probably be impossible to perform this charming work without causing public turmoil.

It's probably too late though to do anything about Joseph Conrad's novel, The Nigger of the Narcissus. I doubt that one gets assigned much in English classes nowadays.

[Lethevich]

I think they just completely renamed that Conrad novel - I guess some titles can't be cutesied-up...

[Daverz]

Though I'm opposed to this kind of bowdlerization on principle, there are times when, applied judiciously, it seems to have been justified.

Example: the original nickname for Dvorak's "American" Quartet (Op. 96) was - I kid you not - the "Nigger" Quartet. Here's an excerpt from Gramophone's review of an early recording (1925):

DVORAK'S NIGGER QUARTET VOCALION.—K.05132, 05133,05134 (12in., 13s. 6d.).—The Spencer Dyke String Quartet: Quartet in F major, op. 96 (Dvorak).
Although the score of this most genial of quartets makes no mention of the title "Nigger," describing the work simply as
"Quartet in F major, Op. 96," there can be no doubt of the suitability of the nick-name by which it is generally known.

AFAIK this wasn't Dvorak's nickname.  I'm guessing it was not a nickname used in North America, either.

If Huck Finn can't be taught without bowdlerization, I'd rather it not be taught at all, rather than risk the bowdlerized version becoming some kind of standard.

In the case of Dickens, I think this was unconscious antisemitism on the part of the author, which he was horrified by when it was brought to his attention.  He removed most of the references to "the Jew" in a later edition of Oliver Twist.

Interestingly, in the Polanski adaptation, the only Jewish elements of Fagin that I could discern were a wide brimmed hat and the Klezmer leitmotif used for his character in Rachel Portman's score.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If Huck Finn can't be taught without bowdlerization, I'd rather it not be taught at all, rather than risk the bowdlerized version becoming some kind of standard.

I agree. In the Dvorak and Conrad cases, changing the title didn't affect the integrity of the work. In Huckleberry Finn, the language used is an important part of the book. Changing it would be a form of vandalism.

[karlhenning]

. . . It's probably too late though to do anything about Joseph Conrad's novel, The Nigger of the Narcissus. I doubt that one gets assigned much in English classes nowadays.

I think they just completely renamed that Conrad novel - I guess some titles can't be cutesied-up...

The Conrad doesn't occupy a place in English letters anything like Huck Finn does in US literature.

. . . Gribben changes the villain in "Tom Sawyer" from "Injun Joe" to "Indian Joe" . . . .

I'm sorry, but can anyone tell me just what the point of this would be?  Or does Gribben also correct the spelling of all of Twain's painstakingly managed varieties of dialect?

[karlhenning]

I agree. In the Dvorak and Conrad cases, changing the title didn't affect the integrity of the work. In Huckleberry Finn, the language used is an important part of the book. Changing it would be a form of vandalism.

Yes, though it is the sort of vandalism one finds in half the texts of a Unitarian hymnal, e.g.

[jowcol]

I agree. In the Dvorak and Conrad cases, changing the title didn't affect the integrity of the work. In Huckleberry Finn, the language used is an important part of the book. Changing it would be a form of vandalism.

Agreed.   

It would also totally destroy Faulkner's harrowing account of the mob mentality in "Dry September", and O'Connor's  "The Artificial Nigger", where two totally worthless pieces of white trash have a moment of redemptive grace and reconciliation when they see a lawn jockey.  Their use of the term is essential to the irony.

I guess I'd be more comfortable changing the title of a work than the contents-- that happens all the time anyway-- often for commercial reasons.

It makes more sense to provide an introduction which addresses the use of the term, as well as how the book tried to address slavery and racism in its time.


And, a bit more on the Dickens from Wikipedia:

Jews in the time of Dickens and Our Mutual Friend

The way Dickens challenged the stereotypical portrayal of Jews in Our Mutual Friend was revolutionary for its time.

"[Dickens's] works of the 1850's and early 1860's continue to display occasional antagonism, but there are no full-scale Fagin-like portraits and there are fewer slurring references.[45] Jews still appear as repellent moneylenders, old-clothes dealers, and peddlers, but such appearances are fleeting and tangential." Before Our Mutual Friend, Jews were generally portrayed as thieves and cheats, as in Dickens's novel Oliver Twist. Early Victorian plays generally depicted Jews as either clothing dealers, staggering under huge bags or rags, or as moneylenders, who wore large cloaks and broad-rimmed hats. Jews' facial features were stereotypically long, hooked noses, red hair, and red whiskers.[46]

The hostility towards Jews was caused by their jobs. In London, most Jews were not allowed to open shops or attend college. This forced them to become money lenders and clothes dealers. Church laws prevented Christians from lending money at interest, but these laws did not apply to Jews. The phobia surrounding Jews led to public opinion that every Jew was scary, mean, money hungry, and would not hesitate to cheat a Christian. Jews were also separated as a result of their religion. They were treated as foreigners and persecuted because they held fast to their religion and traditions by refusing to become Christians during a time when Christianity was the dominant religion.[47]

Sir Robert Peel, an avid anti-Semitic and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, articulated the period's feelings towards Jews: "The Jew is not a degraded subject of the state; he is rather regarded in the light of an alien- he is excluded because he will not amalgamate with us in any of his usages or habits." [48]

The attitude of early to mid-nineteenth century Victorians from the 1830s to the 1850s caused a dramatic change in the social opinions of Jews. With the growing literary trend of a sympathetic treatment of Jews, many individuals modified their traditional views. These changing social patterns and Dickens's communication with Mrs. Davis, a Jewish woman, directly influenced Our Mutual Friend. Mrs. Davis wrote to Dickens in June 1863 stating, "that Charles Dickens the large hearted, whose works please so eloquently and so nobly for the oppressed of his country . . . has encouraged a vile prejudice against the despised Hebrew." Dickens responded by stating that he had always spoken well of Jews and held no prejudice against them. Fagin, in Oliver Twist, was a Jew "because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers that class of criminal almost invariably was Jewish." Mrs. Davis replied by beseeching Dickens to "examine more closely into the manners and character of the British Jews and to represent them as they really are."[49]

In his article, "Dickens and the Jews," Harry Stone claims that this "incident apparently brought home to Dickens the irrationality of some of his feelings about Jews; at any rate, it helped, along with the changing times, to move him more swiftly in the direction of active sympathy for them."[50]

While in Oliver Twist, Dickens portrayed his main Jewish character Fagin as money hungry and ruthless, Dickens showed his changed attitude towards Jews with his creation of the character Riah in Our Mutual Friend. Riah's occupation as a moneylender could be construed as an early Victorian stereotype; however, as Harry Stone argues, "Riah's stereotype was not a stereotype, but a means of reversing it."

I also hit upon another source in the Jewish Encyclopedia that dumped on the portrayal of Riah as too good.   Maybe the literary world needed to wait for Leopold Bloom for a more fully three dimensional character.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

I'd bet my ass that in german Tom Sawyer editions the language already has bean cleaned up.

[karlhenning]

Well, that's a distinct issue.  Huck Finn would be a challenge to translate out of American English.

[jowcol]

Well, that's a distinct issue.  Huck Finn would be a challenge to translate out of American English.

You do have the Bostonian translation, don't you?

[karlhenning]

Why, the very thought of young Huckleberry speaking in Brahmin tones . . . .

[jowcol]

Why, the very thought of young Huckleberry speaking in Brahmin tones . . . .

I was thinking of him saying "wicked pissah" 218 times in the course of the novel.

[Cato]

Freedom of Speech in Philadelphia:

http://www.huliq.com/10178/fired-anchor-heads-court-over-use-n-word

[Mirror Image]

I heard about this today and this whole thing is so frustratingly distasteful. One thing you don't do is mess with people's art. Put cream in their coffee, give them some extra salt on their french fries, but don't mess with their life's work.

[karlhenning]

I was thinking of him saying "wicked pissah" 218 times in the course of the novel.

Well, Yankees suck, certainly . . . .

[Daverz]

Freedom of Speech in Philadelphia:

http://www.huliq.com/10178/fired-anchor-heads-court-over-use-n-word

Who knows what really got this guy fired.  There's certainly not enough information in that story, but this kind of stood out: "Burlington asked that the station not be allowed to share with the jury other incidences where Burlington used the "n" word in conversations with his African American co-workers."

[david johnson]

revisionist crap.  off with his diploma!

[Satzaroo]

Foiling a Huckster for Censorship

Repeatedly substituting the word "slave" for "nigger" in a new edition of "Huckleberry Finn" has created quite a brouhaha between  literary traditionalists and supporters of political correctness. This controversy reminds me of an incident that occurred during my early tenure as chairperson of the humanities department at a Southern community college. One of my part timers required his American literature class to read and discuss Faulkner's short story "A Rose for Emily," a work that twice contains the word "nigger." One of the students was so incensed by this epithet that he contacted my Dean. Right away, the Dean summoned me to his office. Outraged, he reared back his head, shook his  jowls, and said that he had the power to fire me if I did not ban the Faulkner short story—or any other text with the objectionable n-word—from any English course. I just as adamantly told the Dean that neither I nor anyone else in my department would agree to this assault on academic freedom. I let him know that I myself had taught this short story many times, making sure that my students understood the historical underpinnings of the n-word usage. In fact, I told the Dean that I would mandate—in writing--that instructors in all of the humanities courses explain the context of any inflammatory racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or gender references. My compromise placated the Dean and safeguarded the integrity of our textbook choices. I, at least for that moment, neutralized the WASP's  stinger.

By the way, the AARP website won't allow me to post my comments because I used the word "nigger." How about that for censorship?