Huck Finn
The classic book, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, is no stranger to controversy. The latest incident involves an edition that replaces the “n-word” with “slave”, presumably to sanitize the book.
While it might seem intuitively wrong to make such a change, there are some reasons that can be used to justify this change.
First, the n-word is regarded by many as offensive to a degree that warrants its removal from art. Of course, it might be argued that the n-word is still dropped with great regularity. However, it could be replied that since Twain was a white man, he should not have used this word (or should not use it were he writing today) and hence the search and replace is correct. It could also be argued that no one should use the word and hence it is acceptable to remove it from works, regardless of the skin color of the person using it.
Second, this book is one of the most banned books in America, presumably because of the n-word. The book is, however, an important work of literature. By replacing the offending word, this sanitized version of the book should be somewhat more appealing to squeamish school boards. As such, this could provide a compromise situation. Students would be able to read a book very much like the one Twain wrote. Those concerned with protecting the youth from the word could be satisfied with this alteration.
However, there are some very good reasons as to why the book should not be changed.
First, there is the obvious matter of freedom of expression. Changing the word is, in effect, a form of censorship. If artists have a right to this freedom of expression, then this sort of censorship would seem to be unacceptable.
Naturally, it can be argued that the right of the artist is outweighed by the offensive nature of the word. There are, of course, always good reasons to restrict freedom of expression so as to protect people from harm (the yelling of “fire” being the stock example). The question is, of course, whether the alleged harms of leaving the word in the book exceed the right of the artist (even though he is dead).
It could be pointed out that the modified edition is but one edition, thus allowing readers to chose which version they read. As such, the artist’s freedom of expression remains intact and the freedom of choice for the readers is expanded. This seems to be a point worth considering.
Second, there is the concern that such a change violates the artistic integrity of the work. It could be seen as being on par with someone putting shorts on David because the nakedness of the statue offends him. The word that is being replaced could be regarded as a integral part of the work and the change could thus be seen as damaging the artistic integrity of the book.
Tied into this is also the matter of historical integrity. Modifying past works, be they artistic or otherwise, because people find some of the content offensive, seems to be rather problematic. One of the main problems is that this sort of approach seems to embrace what might be regarded as a type of dishonesty-a willingness to change things so as to avoid what offends.
Third, the publishers of the modified version are, of course, selling the book as being by Mark Twain. However, this modification means that the product is not truly just Twain’s work anymore. As such, it would be incorrect to present it as being the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Rather, it should be the Modified Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, based on the Original Version by Mark Twain.
This does seem to be a reasonable matter of concern.
Overall, it seems that the work should not be altered in this manner.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Philistines.
Perhaps we should do a voice-over fix of the Scarecrow’s erroneous recitation of the Pythagorean Theorem, also. After all, Greedo shot first, right?
Go with the “historical integrity” thing. Huck Finn is a work of literature and (debatably to some) an historical record. Changing or omitting the “n” word would be like reprinting our Constitution and omitting the 3/5th compromise or Article I, Sec. 9.
Poor analogy. Bowdlerizing a piece of fiction is a qualitatively different intellectual sin than rewriting history.
One omits or changes an element of the novel (arguably ‘historical’ fiction) and creates an ‘altered’ sense of the reality of the times and the author’s intentions. One omits or changes an element of the Constitution and creates a different sense of the reality of those times.
Put another way.
Change “nigger” to “black” and the vileness that was racism in Clemens’ time is covered over. To use another analogy: It’s like taking a photo of your (or ‘my’, so no offense is given) Ugly Aunt Linda and photoshopping it to make her look like Keira Knightley.
Omit the 3/5th compromise or Article I, sec. 9 from the Constitution and the place of slavery in our history is conveniently misplaced.
In both cases, make the change or omission and we lose an opportunity to see how far we’ve come and to witness two steps along the continuum from a society (cl)aiming to be free to a society that is free. Note, I didn’t say “free of racism”.
My impression, though it may not be accurate, is that during Clemens’ time, the “N” word was not considered derogatory.
I didn’t say it was considered derogatory during Clemens’ time. I wrote “Change “nigger” to “black” and the vileness that was racism in Clemens’ time is covered over.” As a term that specifically referred to the slave trade (derived from the Latin for black and the Niger Delta where some slaves were traded), it was in common contemporary usage among many. It referred to blacks using a term that connected them to their (unwanted, I assume) role as slaves.
“In the 1800s, as nigger began to acquire the pejorative connotation it holds today, the term “Colored” gained popularity as a kinder alternative to negro and associated terms. For example, abolitionists in Boston, Massachusetts posted warnings to “Colored People of Boston and vicinity.” The name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People reflects the preference for this term at the time of the NAACP’s founding in 1909.”
http://www.the-savvy-sista.com/2008/02/history-of-word-nigger.html
I can’t attest to the quality of the above source. But the suggested time line seems accurate:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/lm/307/
Chattel slavery–subjugating another human being to one’s will, buying and selling them as animals, is more than demeaning. It’s inhuman. ‘Nigger’, because of its roots should remain unchanged in Huck Finn to remind us of where we were at one time as a country (and some of us still are as individuals.) Photoshop the word ‘nigger’ out of the picture, change it to ‘colored’ or ‘black’, and, whether it was considered derogatory at the time or not, the connection isn’t so successfully made.
Perhaps a compromise would be a reasonable solution.
A footnote could be added stating that the “n” word is no longer socially acceptable and stating exactly why.
Also, it should be noted that at least the author treated blacks as human at a time when many did not. He also showed that it was possible for blacks and whites to be friends and respect each other. The book is an important part of American history and should be respected as such.
I think a good approach is to ask why Twain chose a slur over a merely descriptive term, and then ask if that reason is relevant today.
Twain surely chose a slur for both for its overall dramatic impact and to help define the character of the speaker.
I think the dramatic importance of Twain’s diction is a given; what I’m unsure about is the utility of the distinction it makes about the speaker. What aspect of the character is lost when we have them say “slave” instead?
However unwholesome the institution of slavery is, the term “slave” is purely descriptive, and purely descriptive terms are necessarily neutral — if they included bias, like a slur does, then they could not be said to be descriptive.
Invoking a bit of psychology, neutral terms are unoffensive, and we find unoffensive those things we perceive to be similar to ourselves. Hence, by having him use descriptive terms, the villain is made to seem less a monstrosity and more like us.
Is that good?
I think Twain intended these villains to be monsters. I think he didn’t want them to seem simply misguided, but actually evil. If that’s true, then changing the occurrence of that one word in Huck Finn changes the nature of the story itself; it’s not an equivalent change that’s simply more palatable to modern sensibilities, it’s an actual butchery of the work.
If we harm teenage students by exposing them to reality in the constructive environment of a classroom (and I think the opposite is the case), then Huck Finn shouldn’t be modified, it should simply be dropped and something more PC found in its place.
It seems deceptive to modify something when alternatives that are acceptable unmodified exist; it implies that something is wrong with the original, while saying that it’s too valuable to do without. Well, which is it?
It’s been way too long since I read the book…the important use of “nigger” in Huck Finn is to show that Huck, even after having given up explicit bias against blacks, still employs implicit bias without even realizing what he’s doing. The message is that equitable intention is not sufficient to ensure equitable behavior — if you replace “nigger” with “slave”, this point disappears from the text.
1. Congress did read the amended version of the Constitution last Thursday, over the objections of Jesse Jackson, Jr. (I think that his primary objection is that no one was paying attention to him at the time.)
2. One of Twain’s themes is how a white boy and a runaway slave could become friends. If Huck didn’t start out sounding in sympathy with his community, the change in the character wouldn’t be as clear.
3. Another aspect of Twain’s writing is his careful attention to the variations in language found along the Mississippi. Cutting out or altering words that he chose diminishes his authority with language.
4. We have no right to hold writers of the past to our own standards. If we are better than they (and in many ways, I have my doubts), that is only the result of centuries of work. This is the equivalent of telling the Romantic poets that they had no business dying of tuberculosis now that modern medicine has achieved what it has.
Did Congress read the whole of the original Article I, section 2 or did they omit parts that have since been amended?
Did the document signed in 1789 contain the words “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” Was those words read in Congress?
Was they? 🙂