Pajiba

Good point. Well made.

That is all.

so racist.

What is wrong with parents just teaching their kids before/while reading the story that the word is unacceptable outside classic literary works?

Why does someone always have to come along and "fix" things that don't need fixing just so the lazy, ignorant people don't have to deal with anything involving a thought process?

I do have a stupid question though. Is this "new edition" going to actually be what people are stuck with on a mass market scale when they go to purchase a copy at the local bookstore, or is this just some little maverick project?

Appalling, but it's been done before. Some asscheese named Bowdler, I recall, "edited" the shit out of Shakespeare (and gave a verb to the language).

There are limits to so-called correctness, and I agree that calling Jim "Nigger" was exactly as Twain wrote it. Sam Clemens would have a field day with the language nowadays.

Wasn't it Kant who wrote that intention was everything - that if your intentions were flawed, the final result would be even more flawed?

It's so easy to erase history and shame these days.

Tracer - Excellent piece with a clear explanation of why taking that word out changes the book, and ultimately does not help.

Also, thank you for this:

If you are white, you can use the word “nigger” only if you are a literary genius whose works will remain important a century after your death. Everybody else has to find another word.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I think the prolific use of the word in pop culture--for example, in so many hip hop songs, specifically of the gangster variety--has somehow confused folks, especially the young 'uns, into thinking that the word is more acceptable than it is. I'm all for reclaiming a word, but it is a very delicate balance. And for me, I will always, ALWAYS, feel uncomfortable when that word is used, regardless of who is saying it.

Plus, this dickwad at Auburn is missing the ENTIRE point of the use of the dialect, both racist and simply local, in Mark Twain's books.

Yes, it's a snapshot of the times. Yes, it's an illustration of the culture Twain was writing about. However, one of the major reasons that Twain was writing in this manner and about these subjects is that he was trying to show how absolutely wrong slavery was, how wrong it was to demean any person or treat them like chattel.

Wise, up, Alan Gribben, PhD!

Tyrone get off my lawn!

I remember skipping out on a second three hour seminar on Heart of Darkness because the professor refused to allow anything to go on but a discussion of how big a racist Joseph Conrad was. It couldn't possibly be that he was pointing out the folly of colonialism in some of the most beautiful, meandering, nightmarish prose every set on the page; no, he was a racist or your grade was going to suffer. The professor's intentions were right (we've had many wonderful discussions on similar subjects), but the execution was horrible, especially for a course on the style of Modernism.

My conviction:

Given that the word is a fucking awful piece of shit with a miserable history, I have never and will never use it as an insult, in conversation, or, given my appalling whiteness, as a term of endearment. Easy enough.

However, if I'm quoting a pre-existing work where the word comes up, I'm going to use it, because I'm quoting someone else's words. There's a massive difference between using the word and quoting a source that uses the word. If I pull text from Twain or Conrad, or even from an old newspaper larded with racist slang, to bowdlerize the quotation would be asinine. (Search the internet, and you can find a published version of Conrad's work that is, no shit, entitled The N-Word of the Narcissus. Holy fucking shit, people.)

To use a parallel, I would never say "your mother is a cheap whore" to someone, because it's fucking rude. On the other hand, if I'm writing about some dude, and I quote him as saying "your mother is a cheap whore," I'm not being rude. I'm relating an upsetting message, but it's not my fucking message. (If someone's using quotations deliberately to be offensive, that's a different matter. I'm talking about plain ol' quotation.)

This is my conviction.

It is written the way it is written by the author. It was not written during our 'politically correct' times. It should not be changed.

You don't take something old and wipe it clean to be "aesthetically pleasing". You DON'T. This is just some jackass, trying to get a headline with some stupid shit that has NO REASON to be brought up. Huck Finn is a historical work and yes, that word was used then. Whitewashing it out of a text set in a timeperiod in which that word was commonplace is just asinine.

I have to get a copy of that book before this bullshit happens.

Well done, sir.

And the effort to erase shameful periods (slavery, the Holocaust, etc) from history continues apace...

Nor should it be excused...because of color.

J - If you want to feel like clawing your eyes out, read the article on Salon.com where MEW asks what's wrong with sanitizing the story so it can be a tale of two friends having an adventure.

Nigga, please.

Just kidding, I agree with you on this. I'm proud of Pajiba for not getting into a "when is it appropriate to use the N word and why can you guys use it and not us" discussion. I hate those discussions. Let us decide amongst ourselves whether we can use the word or not. Whites have no say. None.

That being said, people be trippin with that word sometimes, ya hurrd?

I second or third the 'SLW is a genius' comment. True Dat.

I remember attempting to handle a heavily annotated copy of Midsummer's Night Dream when I was young and literally crying in frustration at how hard it was to understand the meaning of the lyric. I never felt more defeated in my life, but even then I'd have felt offended if someone had offered a Suessified version that was more intellectually palpable.

The shame of modern culture is that it doesn't trust in the intellectual hunger of it's brothers and sisters. Seriously - how is 'This word is of a certain time and place and it's use is germane to the story.' too much for anyone to handle?

'We kept your baby shoes to remind us of a time when you were far younger. They won't fit any more though.' Doye!

My 8th grade year, we started to read the book, but stopped, because a student complained to their parents about the "n" word. So we didn't read it. Of course the student's name was not released, but there were various grumblings and I made it a point to state very clearly, that the complainer would be found out.

We then instead red "To Kill a Mockingbird."

I read about this yesterday, and the point of this new version seems to be to avaid the sort of situation described by LordNinja. The idea is that if you edit out the offending words, more school children will be allowed to read it.

While that is a laudible goal, and I'm all for getting school children to read Huck Finn, I would rather see them not read it at all than see them read a watered down version that dilutes the message Twain was trying to convey. What's the point in having them read it, if so much of the underlying meaning is lost?

As someone completely impartial (being European lends one such a clear perspective), wouldn't the entire point of the book be lost if they replaced the words?
Twain's message was that slavery was wrong, and it was made at a point in history when such a message had a lot of weight. Removing offending words from the book would negate the history of the United States itself. There was a point in time when the use of these words were normal. And then people evolved enough (or were made to evolve) to realize the error of their ways. By replacing the offending words the progress and the history of this progress would be lost as well. History is not a slate to be wiped clean once we decide to do so.

I hope this brave gentlemen has a lot of free time on his hands because racially inflammatory language is LEGION in the history of the written word. One down, 8 million works of literature to go, eh Gibben?

And listen closely, Doctor. Come over here close so you don't miss one little syllable that tumbles from my mouth. Yep, right here beside me. You ready?

YOU'RE WHITE!!!!!! Who the fuck are you to slather your White Man's Guilt all over a classic piece of slave-era literature? I'd understand if a black or American Indian person decided to hack it up. They might want to make a bold statement about race relations/perceptions/misunderstandings/etc., but to my knowledge not ONE SINGLE PERSON has done this. Do you know why, you bumbling honky? Because the only purpose it serves is a selfish one: You want attention.

You want to make a REAL statement about race relations or hate speech? Try immersing yourself in current, real-time causes, not some passive-aggressive alteration of a 130-year-old book, you goddamned coward.

I GUA-RAWN-TEEEE this racist asshole will spit some of the words he claims to hate when one too many people confront him on his stupidity. And I'll be over here, waiting to relish it.

Both of my grandmothers used the term negro or nigger interchangeably when I was growing up. Even as a young girl in the 70s I found it quite strange and shocking, but as my mother explained to me, both were born in the early 1900s and had been raised to use those words and of course what a person of color might feel by being called that was never even considered.

This is exactly why keeping Huck Finn as written is so important. Using an offensive or derogatory term to describe someone was (and still is) just another way to demean and diminish the "other." I don't think that today's students can understand that if those words are whitewashed from literature. The words should be shocking to read, but they must be read if only to acknowledge that using offensive language is wrong and hurtful in any age.

Think about the c-word. I know it is thrown about quite easily in the UK, but here in the US, it is reserved for the worst of the worst and most hesitate to say or write it. African-Americans today claim to use "niggah" to strip it of its derogatory connotations through overuse and I think to some degree it has been successful although if you still have to say that it's ok for blacks (or non-whites), but not ok for whites it seems clear that the word still has sting.

I have already had discussions with my kids about the n-word because they do hear kids at school throw it around and were confused as to why it's *OK* for some to say, but not others. My son and his crowd have started throwing around "ghetto," but I think for them this actually refers more to hispanic or asian lower classes, so I was confused when I heard it coming from them. I also had to explain that, used in that context the term was just as unacceptable, even when used by the kids who consider themselves to be "ghetto."

Ahhh, language. Ever changing, ever expanding, ever confounding.

We need a 'like' button for 2HB's comment.

'We kept your baby shoes to remind us of a time when you were far younger. They won't fit any more though.' Doye! ~replica, this is genius.

When I was in college (at a Christian university) we had to attend chapel every day for 30 minutes. We sang the same rotation of songs, so the lyrics were second nature. One day there was a massive mush-mouth moment as some students sang lyrics projected on the screen, while the rest of us sang from memory. Some professor (who I respected a lot up until this moment) had CHANGED THE WORDS to an (I'm sure) copyrighted song because "she didn't like the image of Jesus being trampled on the ground."

...cue outrage...

I don't like the images of families being gassed in a chamber. But it still fucking happened, and it is important that we know that. Knowing where you've been is part of knowing where you're going.

At this same college, in theatre classes, we discussed what we would be willing to play on stage. You know, the character's action versus the actor's body. We talked about playing 'bad guys' or evil characters, and why it is important for us to do so, even/especially commiting actions/words on stage we would never in real life. The idea behind it was that in order to understand and appreciate the LIGHT, you need to understand the DARK.

We can't* erase the parts of history we deem "unseemly" and go on with our sugary sweetness. We will all end up with cavities.

*Obviosuly we can, it happens all the time. I suppose I really mean *shouldn't*

This is doubleplusgood, as we think must goodthinkwise of the children. The Ad of HF is oldthink. Blackwhite the answer is, remove words that are ungood. Joycamp!

Whoa! Calm down. The book isn't being burned in central square. There will still be editions around with the original language. This particular edition is designed so that the book can be taught without the confrontation that usually results from it being used in the classroom. If the change causes it to be taught more, so be it. However, I am not of the belief that the book is the end all and be all of American literature and couldn't easily be replaced in a curriculum by another author or by even another book by Twain.

What bothers me more than the editing is the reaction to it. "Oh, lawdy, lawd, lawd! Dey's taking away our right to read the word nigger! Dey's already banned us po white folks from saying it to black people. We sho miss the days when we could say it to their faces and dey couldn't say nuffin back." What the fuck is this desperate need to be able to use that word? Conversations are being impeded because white folks can't use it? Contracts aren't being negotiated due to the inablility to make it a binding term? What the fuck? But I digress. I know what the issue is. That word is said by white folks all the time. What the "Oh woe is me" crowd wants is the right to say it without consequence to black people. Not gonna happen. You can say whatever you want. You have that right. What you don't get is the right to control how anyone reacts to it.
And as for the ever popular "Get over it" group, black folks got together over the weekend and voted. We'll get over it right after the movement telling Jews to get over it is sucessful. Call us. We'll be waiting. (Forever.)
To sum up - Not a big fan of censorship. Not convinced that anyone's education will be ruined if this book isn't taught. And as the victim of a well intentioned, but insufficiently trained teacher who decided to teach that book and having lived through the experience of sitting in a classroom of 3o white kids who found it the height of joy to be able to refer to Nigger Jim for a class hour, without reprisal, I don't think the experience is worth the minimal education it provides. Perhaps when there is a word invented that makes white people feel that they are subject to being viewed in class as low, inferior subhumans as a part of an educational process by Blacks, Latinos and gays we can call it square. But since that word doesn't exist, how about we call the whole thing off?

BTW, if the concern is that literature about racism needs to be taught, how about we teach it from the side of the person experiencing it, rather than the side of the person who only watches other people suffer through it? Just a thought.

"Alan Gribben, PhD, professor of English and Philosophy at Auburn University—Montgomery and an expert in the work of Mark Twain, is working on a new edition of the classic Huckleberry Finn. He has decided to remove all 219 instances of the word “Nigger” in the this edition, as well as all uses of the word “Injun.” Instead, he will use the words “Slave” and “Indian.”"

Sounds like full employment for Dr. Gribben to me.

Again with the vowel prejudice.

I know what the issue is. That word is said by white folks all the time. What the "Oh woe is me" crowd wants is the right to say it without consequence to black people.

Oh, man, you're onto us! It's true, every time I'm at a party, or work, or coffee shop, if there are no black people around, it's like, "Let the n***er games begin!" Woo! We just can't wait for the opportunity to use racial slurs! But let's be reasonable here - it wouldn't be nearly as fun if we could say it without offending anyone.

Ok, explain to me how a story about a SLAVE, you know, a person who was owned, could be raped or killed without consequence and was considered subhuman loses it's power cause the n-word isn't in it? Calling him Nigger Jim is the only way the horror of the slave trade resonates? Maybe that's what's really wrong with this discussion. That the word is more important than the reality of a slave's life.

It isn't the word but the whole attitude behind it. They didn't just call Jim a slave- a slave is a neutral terminology almost an pseudo -occupational title. They called him a cruel and derogatory term on top of that.

He wasn't just a human being in the forced servitude of other human beings. He was considered LESS than human. He wasn't a person, he was a mobile object to be owned. It wasn't just the act of keeping slaves, but rather how people we able to delude themselves into believing what they were doing was acceptable. To forcibly keep another human being who has thoughts and feelings as you do is difficult if not conflicting with someone's conscience. But to look at them as inferior, to look down upon them as talking animals who are living better under your boot heel rather than as a free and equal individual from another culture, has allowed people to perform abominable acts all over human history. And I believe that was part of the whole point Samuel Clemens had in the first place. And while you can convey the technical act in a more sanitized way, you also take some of the sting of the hatred and ignorance out by not being true. The word is a part of that.

I have heard many an ignoramus argue to ban the book over the years from schools and libraries without considering the most obvious thing- this word is already in schools. Kids use it, it's in songs on their iPods, it's in movies they watch. Perhaps if they read about it as authored by someone who saw it it firsthand in the content it was originally used, a few of them might reconsider not using it again. Instead, it runs a very strong risk of being used much longer in colloquialism mainly because of efforts not to show its dubious origins.

So while I'm not keen on hearing the word used in modern conversation or art, I would like examples such as this to remain intact to show WHY.

Chipwitch,
Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't read it in years, and I suspect many of the commenters here haven't, either.
One of my objections is that in order to teach this book, some students have to be subject the stupidity of their racist or merely stupid fellow students, IN CLASS, solely for the purpose of covering a book that while good, isn't in some objective ranking, the best book that could be used. If the issue is slavery, it isn't even close to being the best and if it's for the purpose of the literature Puddinghead Wilson gives a better sense of the times. I don't have any reason to trust the good will or racial sensitivity of most teachers assigned to do the work. I rather doubt that white students would be subjected to Elridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice for the mere exploration of the spirit of the time. Parents wouldn't tolerate it.

As I said before, the book isn't going away. There's just going to be a different edition of it. Much like the Bible, no one who wants to read a more traditional version can't find one in place of that smiley, happy face version that came out a few years ago.
And I do think the Slave Jim thing is stupid.

Granted, I haven't experienced anything akin to the situation Khia213 described, but I don't think the matter is so easily resolved by saying that since there's no equivalently derogatory word for white people, there's no point in arguing for its merit in Twain's book. Hate breeds hate, but widespread knowledge is the root of change in cultural attitudes.

I'm an injun though, so you might not want to take my word for it.

Sooo I'm late to the party as usual. But I had an idea. So that we don't offend anyone, why don't we cut all characters of a non white persuasion out of books, just to make sure nothing bad happens to them. Better yet lets cut the white people out too. So as not to remind people of their incessant devilry. We could make all the characters of all books, ducks or chipmunks. We can't use both ducks and chipmunks though. Then it would be allegory, and when ducks call chipmunks 'munkers' people might actually grasp the original idea, thus offending everyone all over again. Not to mention offending chipmunks.

P.S. Ducks can go fuck themselves.

Weirdly, I'm with khia213 on this one.

Kids are sociopaths for a significant part of their development (thanks, Dr. Sweets) and I don't believe enough teachers will be able to effectively control use of the word by reference to an understanding of its historical context/present-day connotations.

Re: that dude's comment, why use this book to teach a difficult subject, when better resources could be employed?

Huck Finn is not my history and wasn't tought in my high school (although I read it during that period), but I tell you, the punks I went to school with would've made a joke about it. Come assessment time, they would've rented the movie, bought the cliffnotes, etc., but there is no way in hell they would've read the book cover to cover and been guided to some great moment of insight when the slave became "Just Jim". They simply could not have been brought to that level of maturity in a class room of thirty (and we had some pretty good teachers at a great school).

So, yeah, don't bastardise the book, leave it as is, but maybe don't teach it in high schools. To teach these lessons to young fucks, there has to be better and more efficient tools.

Also, kids are learning creationism as fact in US schools. Curriculum is a big fu*king issue.

We're talking a captive audience here. This isn't college we're talking about, where you elect to take a class or not. These are students who, whether they want to sit there or not, are forced to. And I'm glad that so many people had a positive experience with the book. But in some ways it's like the chicken and the pig discussing the farmer's breakfast - the chicken is invested; the pig is committed. The book is like that. White students are invested. The black student has more on the line.
I called the woman in my state who was selected as Language Arts (that's English, to you and me) Teacher of the year for the entire state two years running. She's an extrordinary teacher and she's racially conscious in that she tries to see the world from more than just her on suburban, upper middle class background. Her method is to allow students to read what they want, within limits, so that they become invested in what they read. She thinks that forcing a discussion of Finn is asking for problems. She would in a literature circle as part of a collection of books teach it, but says that 1. the book is generally lost on high schoolers because of the level of satire and is too hard and 2. that because the book falls apart at the the end, it isn't the best literary experience to represent the time period or the folkloric tradition.
I don't like censorship, but on thinking about it, I don't get my panties in a bunch about editing. We edit Shakespeare. (Except for Branagh, no one ever stages a full text Shakespeare play.) We've edited The Canterbury Tales for language and content. The unedited version of the Arabian Nights is pretty much unreadable. And then there's the Bible. Not even considering what King James did to it, we have so many versions of that book that there's one to fit every need. And very few versions kept that lovely "Slaves love your masters" bullshit.
All that said, I think it a sloppy edit designed to force the book on a captive audience, which for some of them is an unpleasant experience and for all of them is not crucial to their education.

"So, yeah, don't bastardise the book, leave it as is, but maybe don't teach it in high schools. To teach these lessons to young fucks, there has to be better and more efficient tools."

I wasn't taught it in high school, it was too juvenile for college (it's actually not, but it's perceived that way), and I've made three tries to read it. I'm semi-literate for many reasons, among them what I wasn't frigging FORCED to read in high school. Yeah, I know kids are a captive audience. What more could they possibly be at 13, 14 years of age? Seriously. And I'd argue that Mark fucking Twain IS crucial to their education, not because of the "lesson" behind the book (something I cringe to even write) but because he's a full-on member of the American canon - probably one of its most distinguished members.

"White students are invested. The black student has more on the line."

Dangerous and insulting to all involved. It is part of the teacher's JOB to deal with these issues: race, class, sex, religion, etc.

Samantha,
You have more faith in the ability of teachers to deal with an issue that the rest of society has routinely missed the boat on. I don't believe that people, who in their own lives can't discuss racial questions with any level of depth, are suddenly able to assess a the kind of discomfort that this discussion can raise in students of color. Eric Holder didn't lie. We are a nation of cowards on the issue of race. And I think that teachers would dispute that it's their responsibility to deal with race, sex and religion as a part of their jobs. It may exist in the school as a part of the environment. It is not a requirement that they teach it if it isn't their concentration.

A collective discussion of an issue is a great goal to strive for. But on the issue of race, no student of color should be forced to be the representative of the race, which is exactly what happens with this kind of book. While diversity of opinion on an race would be informative, it's not an entitlement for the benefit of those who are looking on the outside in.

And since it's insulting to all involved, where is the level of insult to a white student who hasn't lived with the question of whether they are a full member of society? They can be disturbed by the word, but at the end of the day, they're not living with whether that's what their fellow students think of them.

Leuce,
You really think the discussion of Huck Finn is the the first time black kids figure out their history or place in this country? and unlike being weight, hair color or clothes, your race never goes away. And unlike the things kids face in high school, race will continue to be an issue for the rest of their lives. And the discussion of race by an unqualified teacher is the only occasion where a student's race is a focus for a a class hour. There is no circumstance where you would ask the same of a white student.

"And I think that teachers would dispute that it's their responsibility to deal with race, sex and religion as a part of their jobs. It may exist in the school as a part of the environment. It is not a requirement that they teach it if it isn't their concentration."

Khia, come on. Any teacher who teaches, say, The Scarlett Letter without mentioning sex roles is abdicating his or her responsibility. We're not asking for an in-depth discussion of racial politics, we're asking for respectful treatment of the text and students. Are they supposed to teach Huck Finn as the story of two friends who have some adventures together without mentioning race? As to black kids feeling uncomfortable, I think it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to say "There's language in this book that is specific to its time. I think we all agree that there are words in this book that we're not using in this class." If that doesn't come up or is badly mishandled, the offense is that the teacher sucks, not that the book is just too much for black kids to handle. The remedy is to train teachers, not to edit books to remove potentially-upsetting language.

"A collective discussion of an issue is a great goal to strive for. But on the issue of race, no student of color should be forced to be the representative of the race, which is exactly what happens with this kind of book. While diversity of opinion on an race would be informative, it's not an entitlement for the benefit of those who are looking on the outside in."

Nobody's asking anybody to be a representative of a race. I'm asking for a collective discussion - meaning kids who liked the book, kids who hated it, kids who got the satire, kids who didn't. "Diversity" doesn't mean asking the black kids if they identified with Jim or asking white kids if they identify with a white kid in the antebellum south. Everybody reading this book is on the outside looking in - the time period is entirely foreign to any reader, regardless of race. You're also presuming that the only enlightening or unexpected commentary would come from students of color, which reinforces the sense that such students are somehow exotic in the classroom.

You mention Eric Holder's statement that we're a nation of cowards when it comes to race. How does handling this kind of situation with kid gloves do anything but reinforcing that? Please note his follow-up statement:

"certain subjects are off-limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

This subject is near and dear to my heart, as you can tell.

I understand that the word may be a source of embarrassment when it is used during a lesson but that doesn't mean they are authorized to erase it completely from the novel. What about explaining to students that the word used to be part of a particular period in our history even though its usage today is inappropriate and should be avoided?