"huck finn" edited...despicable!

[Lord Macbeth]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/45645-upcoming-newsouth-huck-finn-eliminates-the-n-word.html?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly%27s+PW+Dail y&utm_campaign=74671e6e20-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email

I can't remember the last time I was so infuriated at the re-working of a classic...THAT IS HEINOUS!

A classic that made its mark by displaying the social and moral fabric of American society like no other book--it's arguably THE "Great American Novel," and certainly ranks up there for that honor--with the highs AND lows of America, the good ideas at work AND the ugliness and hypocrisy within...the claim of "All men are created equal" and the enslavement and demeaning treatment of an entire race and the removal and in some cases extinction of another...

A book that ATTACKS racism and bigotry...

And they take out the "N-word" and "Injun" to make it more pallateable?

Well, while we're at it, why not change around some of the work from the 1920s and 1930s?

I'm a Jew but, hey, I just can't handle it and any future kids someday just would be better off not having to face the "K-word," right? And we can just rewrite those books that have Anti-Semetic characters to soften the blow--no problem!

After all, why have Shylock suffer all the slings and arrows and terrible treatment and slanders in The Merchant of Venice when we can just PC it up and make it perfectly clear those nice, virtuous Venetians were perfect Christians in that day and age and didn't subjugate Shylock or the Jews at all! We don't need THAT! Who needs cold, cruel details and an actual reason for one of the first complex Jewish characters in literature to do what he does when we can just nice it up and clear the Venetians' names and make Shylock a flat character and be SURE no one EVER need see he had ANY reason to act badly.

Shakespeare...he was less evolved, less civilized, right?

Same with Twain!

After all, THEY know better than Twain what Twain meant to get across--why should Jim and his people have to face such terrible language and provide them with reasons for what they do and how we should feel about them and their white masters when "slave" works just fine! After all, "slave" gets it AL across, right? No need to throw in a word that was far more derogatory and insulting and humiliating for them, no need to make us feel uncomfortable that we treated them not only as slaves, but less than human, and called them as such!

And hey--while we took over the "Native American" lands, we were at least SURE we didn't "insult them" by calling them "injun" while sending them on a Trail of Tears and destroying their society and way of life, rioght?

NO REASON we should have to face the problems of race today, because in American society today race relations are 100% perfect and utpoian and everyone loves everyone in a perfect. totally-PC America where nothing bad ever happened and no bad things EVER happen!



Mr. Twain...on behalf of my generation and all of us who actually still read and still are able to think before we act, all of us who aren't afraid to look into the past to see the darker side of our pasts and even ourselves, I apologize.

Your words haven't fallen on deaf ears--its just that "sivilized world" that has it all wrong.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I heard about this on the news today, and it is truly heart-breaking. One would hope no school, or person for that matter, in their right mind would buy this bastardized version over an unedited version, but it will happen, whether from ignorance or choice.

What a shame.

[hanzklein]

Calm down, its just the children's version of the book. And Huckleberry Finn does overtly use the N word, that's because in that time it was not as offensive as today.

[sithkittie]

That is truly sad. I hadn't heard about that. Huckleberry Finn was one of my favorite books as a kid, and I've always found it rather ridiculous that people make such a big deal out of "the N word" despite it's continued common and only selectively offensive use. It's just another part of the language that makes the book. It's really a pity people have felt the need to edit something rather than face their problems.

[Lord Macbeth]

Calm down, its just the children's version of the book. And Huckleberry Finn does overtly use the N word, that's because in that time it was not as offensive as today.

"Just" the children's version?

That'sthe version that MOST needs those slurs in there, because those are the versions that will be TAUGHT!

We're going to have a whole generation--thanks aptly-named "NewSouth Books," rewriting the classics so as to make it perfectly clear that what happens in the South never ACTUALLY happens in the idyllic, alway-perfect South!--who will read this new version and miss the scatching commen tary that Twain passes and instead get a watered-down, PC version that downplays the entire race issue TWO race issues if you count their taking out "injun" and the Native American slurs, too.)

Also...how is placing "slave" in there any better ?!

There's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with people when SLAVERY doesn't make them uneasy to read about, but a racial slur they used to further demean those they enslaved...now THAT'S off-limits!

[Lord Macbeth]

Bottom line: if you don't feel at least a bit uneasy reading a book like this, you've missed what has made it so special and so important to our culture.

Making kids comfortable with what Huck experiences is the LAST THING TWAIN WANTED!

He WANTED people to feel uncomfortable!




This is a travesty, not just on the literary side of things, but on the cultural side. America can't look itself in the face. It can't handle the truth about what happened anymore, and so wants to downplay it, make its children comfortable with elements of its past that would horrify any right-minded child.

And now those same kids who WOULD ahve been horrified at the racial tensions in that time and this time and perhaps actually cared will simply brush it off...and as a classic work is mangled for the "good" of the work and the society, somewhere Twain is sighing, and Orwell even more so...

Big Brother is editing you...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Calm down, its just the children's version of the book. And Huckleberry Finn does overtly use the N word, that's because in that time it was not as offensive as today.

What does this even mean? Are the two different versions of the book I'm not aware of?

And of course "nigger" was more offensive now than it was then, and that's the point. It shows the dark side of America's past. Even reading the word (which, for some reason isn't censored on here) makes most uncomfortable, but that does not mean it should be stricken from history.

In my mind, if it's that big of a deal for schools, don't teach the book. You either teach all of it, or you teach none of it. You don't change a piece of art to fit your needs.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

what happens in the South never ACTUALLY happens in the idyllic, alway-perfect South

Did you mean to write "America" there? Maybe "the World?"

[kiki1982]

Well, not wanting to be racist or political at all, but there you go with the great country of freedom and free speech.

@Hanzklein:

'Just' the children's version means that you find that acceptable?
1. One does not change the wording in a work of literature.It was published like it is, and so considered good enough. It does not need re-writing.
2. One expresses ignorance deleting certain words/passages.
3. One takes away the ability of people to read the work properly.
4. One makes one's children and otehr readers ignorant by doing it. How is that acceptable? That cannot be the general aim, right?

There is nothing wrong with racism in the past, or with the word 'n*gger' (I'll do a concession towards the people who cannot face the word, I had written it in full). America needs to face the past, not coneal it.

Same with the Holocaust. Considering it is actually already 60 years ago, I think Germany and the rest of Europe has dealt better with that than America with something that happened much longer ago (which admittedly had its effects still after WWII).

Face it, it does not go away, and that counts for works written then too.

But hey, why do they not bann them all, so they don't have to face it? That would be a better solution. But I forgot, it's a classic. Problem.

Something of 1984 filters through here. Call me Miss Exaggeration, but I think I would prefer to give that a miss somethow (in the cynical words of Blackadder).

[edit] Though, I'll spell the so-called 'offensive' word, just to make a point, now Mutatis (thank you) has done it before me. 'Nigger'. Doesn't sound that bad. Only because it's connected to a certain context, is it so bad. It is only a word and thought provoking in Huch Fin at that. As the thought of it won't go away, one would do better facing it than running away from it. We don't go and shout it around at every black man, now, are we?

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

I haven't read the book since I was a child, but I don't remember all the black people being slaves. On the other hand, I don't see the point in being all "the government is taking away our "niggers!"" when this is being done by a private party.

That said, if you want to read a watered down version you should have the freedom to do so, but you're probably a moron because the book is the way it is because that's the way it was and this is the way it is.

[JCamilo]

Well, not wanting to be racist or political at all, but there you go with the great country of freedom and free speech.

Political correctness is not now, it is old. Hey, it is the country where manifestations of the KKK is protected under the free speech, but Mark Twain is not. But what they pretend? The lack of use of the N word will make it inoffensive?
Last year, Brazil. Monteiro Lobato, the undeniable father of brazilian children literature and father of one of the most beloved creations of brazilian literature (named Sitio do PicaPau Amarelo) was the center of a similar dispute. A relatory of a governament specialist detected the use of racist language in one his stories. Mainly be cause one of the main characters was a black woman worker (the story is in a small farm) and one of the characters (a doll that talks plus the jaguars who want to eat them) called her black, with big lips and also that she could climb like a monkey (albeit a brazilian monkey which fur is white). Have in mind that the end of slavery here did not occured but in 1888. So, Lobato was born in a coutry with slavery. Fact, the character was based on his own "nanny", of course, a house-work slave woman who helped to raise kids. The thing, the character, Tia Anastasia is the black character more famous of brazil thanks to Lobato and his work did no less than make people love her as part of the "Sitio" crew (2 kids, a talking corn, a talking doll, the grandmother of the kids and herself).
Lobato is much more controversial than Twain, having objectivelly defended at some point eugeny (this is a more complicated sittuation in Brazil) and even writting a work (The Black President) when he tried to gain american market about the first black president where he is outsmarted by the white minorities. But he is also responsable for defending a brazilian myth (Saci) for his symbolic mix of brazil "races" (Portuguese european, african former slaves, and native indians) which would add the uniqueness and strength to brazilian culture. But even so, the mobilization was imense and the Education Minister hold the case. It will go under the carpet because the accusation of racism is ridiculous.
Mostly, the bigger problem of historical revisionism is not giving proper vallue to those same words. Without their ties with history, they lose significance. And more, it was works like Twain and Lobato who actually created the link to bring those dicussions under a new light. White upper class would never know the N word correctly without Twain approaching it to the users with his books.
Anyways, some points people complain are wrong.


@Hanzklein:

'Just' the children's version means that you find that acceptable?

It is not different from any children version of Shakespeare or the Red Hidding Hood, the new author modifies the work for them.



1. One does not change the wording in a work of literature.It was published like it is, and so considered good enough. It does not need re-writing.


Not true. It is certain that the version we have of Iliad and Odissey was modificated latter and so are Shakespeare plays. And translations are modifications. Plus, even the author has different versions of his works. Literature is not static.


2. One expresses ignorance deleting certain words/passages.
3. One takes away the ability of people to read the work properly.

Well, there is not reading properly, there is only reading. So it cannt be taken away.


4. One makes one's children and otehr readers ignorant by doing it. How is that acceptable? That cannot be the general aim, right?

How? A person who nevers read Mark Twain is not ignorant. So a person who reads an edited version wont be either.


There is nothing wrong with racism in the past, or with the word 'n*gger' (I'll do a concession towards the people who cannot face the word, I had written it in full). America needs to face the past, not coneal it.

Well, technically, anyone will just point racists wont be stopped by N*gger. Those filters are even silly. A word is not just the symbols, but the meaning they represent. Anyone will read the real word and anyone will find new racists terms.


Same with the Holocaust. Considering it is actually already 60 years ago, I think Germany and the rest of Europe has dealt better with that than America with something that happened much longer ago (which admittedly had its effects still after WWII).

Face it, it does not go away, and that counts for works written then too.

But hey, why do they not bann them all, so they don't have to face it? That would be a better solution. But I forgot, it's a classic. Problem.

Something of 1984 filters through here. Call me Miss Exaggeration, but I think I would prefer to give that a miss somethow (in the cynical words of Blackadder).

[edit] Though, I'll spell the so-called 'offensive' word, just to make a point, now Mutatis (thank you) has done it before me. 'Nigger'. Doesn't sound that bad. Only because it's connected to a certain context, is it so bad. It is only a word and thought provoking in Huch Fin at that. As the thought of it won't go away, one would do better facing it than running away from it. We don't go and shout it around at every black man, now, are we?

The problem is another. The problem is that those questions (either here Brazil or USA) talk about more than art integrity or authoral rights. It is education. We are just saying our kids are too dumb and the teachers to show proper context and language usage. People do not get racist because they know the N word, people won became gay reading Oscar Wilde, do not believe they fly because of Superman (and this is a generalization, individuals are individuals). The very capacity of understandment of art (or rather, enjoyment or experience as understandment is not really the aim of art) is filtered by a obnoxious realism.
It is the question who decides what to write and why? What is the fuction of reading in school at all.

And I am laughing out loud at kids getting near a bunch of black people and intead of calling them "Come here, N*gger" can call "Come here, slave". :D

[Lord Macbeth]

I haven't read the book since I was a child, but I don't remember all the black people being slaves. On the other hand, I don't see the point in being all "the government is taking away our "niggers!"" when this is being done by a private party. Freedom of the press I guess.

That said, if you want to read a watered down version you should have the freedom to do so, but you're probably a moron because the book is the way it is because that's the way it was and this is the way it is.

It's not morons reading the book we must be worried about.

It's morons TEACHING this version of the book th CHILDREN.

Of course an adult ahs the right to by the real or watered-down version, and I'd like to think most adults will by the real version, if they do buy it.

But they intend to teach this to children who will then grow up with no knowledge of the real book...or what really happened.

Take out the n-word and HEY! We can ALL jsut enjoy a nice, happy little raft ride with Huck and his PAL Jim!

Put that word back in and suddenly that raft ride, that "boy's tale" becomes less boyish and more mature--as it was intended to be.

Adventures of Hucklebery Finn is more about the characters and society rather than the plot, and that's why this is such a travesty.

Take that word away and the characters aren't QUITE as mean or ignorant or bound by society, and the society itself doesn't seem QUITE as bad.

"Slave" can apply anywhere in the world, we've had slaves everywhere.
But the n-word is specific to America--it's AMERICA'S demon to bear.

And as the fellow from Germany said above--and as a Jew I say this--Europe HAS done a better job facing their demons from the First and Second World Wars, they've acknowledged some groups were treated badly and that the whole thing became a mess, and THEY don't sugarcoat it, but accept the fact it happened and don't hide it, even more so, they make sure the kids KNOW what happened...

So it WON'T happen again.

Blind America to its past demons, and watch them crop right back up again as the CHILDREN are NOT passed on the lessons their forefathers had to learn and struggle with.

[hanzklein]

"Just" the children's version?

That'sthe version that MOST needs those slurs in there, because those are the versions that will be TAUGHT!

We're going to have a whole generation--thanks aptly-named "NewSouth Books," rewriting the classics so as to make it perfectly clear that what happens in the South never ACTUALLY happens in the idyllic, alway-perfect South!--who will read this new version and miss the scatching commen tary that Twain passes and instead get a watered-down, PC version that downplays the entire race issue TWO race issues if you count their taking out "injun" and the Native American slurs, too.)

Also...how is placing "slave" in there any better ?!

There's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with people when SLAVERY doesn't make them uneasy to read about, but a racial slur they used to further demean those they enslaved...now THAT'S off-limits!

So you think children reading this are going to open their eyes to the racial injustices of the south via this word rather than give them a new name to call their friends at lunch?

[kiki1982]

It is not different from any children version of Shakespeare or the Red Hidding Hood, the new author modifies the work for them.

I cannot comment on Shakespeare, but I have never come across a version of Red Riding Hood which did not have SPOILER ALERT ! :D Red Riding Hood eaten as well as her grandmother and then the wolf cut open by the hunter. SPOILER ALERT OVER! :D The tale was gruesome, but it always stayed the same. I do not see the advantage of watering such a thing down.


Not true. It is certain that the version we have of Iliad and Odissey was modificated latter and so are Shakespeare plays. And translations are modifications. Plus, even the author has different versions of his works. Literature is not static.

The works you name are works written in a time when there was no copyright and where there was consequently no final form of anything. Not even of the gods I recently discovered. Since the advent of copyright, a text is only changed either by the author himself, or by the editor prior to publication (while discussed I suppose), not later by another person and certainly not for ideological reasons. In that sense, literature is static. After the death of an author, if he actually did change his text in various editions, the books are always published with a certain edition as base. Rarely are they changed for any other reason, though there are some texts that were changed, but then mostly by a family member who tended to be close to the person in question (Chalotte changed Emily Brontë's manuscript of Wuthering Heights, for example, and Jane Austen's brother edited Persuasion and Northanger Abbey prior to posthumous publication).


Well, there is not reading properly, there is only reading. So it cannt be taken away.

A a reader, you can choose how you read. I.e. for plot or for deeper interest. Taking away certain words, takes away certain possible interpretations. As such, you do take the possibility of reading properly away of someone by altering the text.


How? A person who nevers read Mark Twain is not ignorant. So a person who reads an edited version wont be either.

This is not only about the word 'nigger', it is about the idea. If those people had their way, they would ban everything that only even refers slightly to that time. It is making people ignorant. The consequence of that would be that the same will happen over and over again. And that is also what it is. On the news, more offenses by black people are reported. The suspect is always 'a black man', never white. Whether that is always right, is never actually highlighted. Black people are paid less for the same job. Etc. That is what happens if the past in this case is ignored. Things are allowed to carry on the way they did. Why did it have to last until the 1950s (and later!) until people of that colour were actually accepted? It is because that society likes to ignore slavery and deeply rooted racism that things have not really really moved along.


Well, technically, anyone will just point racists wont be stopped by N*gger. Those filters are even silly. A word is not just the symbols, but the meaning they represent. Anyone will read the real word and anyone will find new racists terms.

That's why I argue that it is both ignorant and making people ignorant, ignoring the word 'nigger'.

And at any rate, I would argue that America hadn't had that amount of rich people that made the country really, if it wasn't for slavery. They were able to gather so much money because they only had to feed their slaves and house them (sometimes in despicable circumstances). In Europe there was also an upper class, but they still had to pay their servants a wage of some kind (though without social security and the like they have to pay now). Still, they were not at all so rich as for example the Russian upper class which essentially had slaves too (serfs). Not to mention the families in the rest of the world, some in the UK, which got incredibly rich because if the slave trade. The Industrial Revolution had probably gone a little more slowly, if the slave trade hadn't been so prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries. But that's another discussion I suppose.

It is part of America and that is why it is wrong to ignore it. hat is the problem with it anyway? It is in the past, right? Or is it, and is that maybe the problem?

[JCamilo]

I cannot comment on Shakespeare, but I have never come across a version of Red Riding Hood which did not have SPOILER ALERT ! :D Red Riding Hood eaten as well as her grandmother and then the wolf cut open by the hunter. SPOILER ALERT OVER! :D The tale was gruesome, but it always stayed the same. I do not see the advantage of watering such a thing down.

Shakespeare text of the plays are not "his final" word, as he did not published, but result of a long research. Since then, his text have been altered, changed, included by people like Charles Lamb who made it acessible to children. But no, Red Ridding Hood or many of the oral faery tales (Cinderela, Sleeping beauty, etc) has several versions. The Hunter was actually added by Grimms to teach a moral lesson to kids. (Perrault early version ends with she laying with the wolf, she is never saved).




The works you name are works written in a time when there was no copyright and where there was consequently no final form of anything. Not even of the gods I recently discovered. Since the advent of copyright, a text is only changed either by the author himself, or by the editor prior to publication (while discussed I suppose), not later by another person and certainly not for ideological reasons. In that sense, literature is static. After the death of an author, if he actually did change his text in various editions, the books are always published with a certain edition as base. Rarely are they changed for any other reason, though there are some texts that were changed, but then mostly by a family member who tended to be close to the person in question (Chalotte changed Emily Brontë's manuscript of Wuthering Heights, for example, and Jane Austen's brother edited Persuasion and Northanger Abbey prior to posthumous publication).

No, translations and versions still exists. Not those you talked but the famous abrigaded versions or children versions are published every single day. I can find a hundred different Moby Dicks. Literature is and never was static.




A a reader, you can choose how you read. I.e. for plot or for deeper interest. Taking away certain words, takes away certain possible interpretations. As such, you do take the possibility of reading properly away of someone by altering the text.

You are doing exactly the same, taking away possibility for interepreation by arguing against the word changes. Again, there is no absolute interpretations, there is no sense complaning about "Not allowing" this interpretation.




This is not only about the word 'nigger', it is about the idea. If those people had their way, they would ban everything that only even refers slightly to that time. It is making people ignorant. The consequence of that would be that the same will happen over and over again. And that is also what it is. On the news, more offenses by black people are reported. The suspect is always 'a black man', never white. Whether that is always right, is never actually highlighted. Black people are paid less for the same job. Etc. That is what happens if the past in this case is ignored. Things are allowed to carry on the way they did. Why did it have to last until the 1950s (and later!) until people of that colour were actually accepted? It is because that society likes to ignore slavery and deeply rooted racism that things have not really really moved along.

Look, those people are dealing with a modern problem, not old problems. But then again, who said they are making anyone ignorant? Like I said, reading Twain does not make any more or less ignorant, so how come reading a version of twain (something ALL who do not read english do) will create ignorance?
You may have a point that such action is inefective, but it is not the same as "holocaust denial" that sometimes pop on.




That's why I argue that it is both ignorant and making people ignorant, ignoring the word 'nigger'.

The word is meaningless. I can come up with enough insults to make N word be gone. It is just inefective. They will have another word, be it "rappers" or "Jayzes" to segregate black people if they want.


t is part of America and that is why it is wrong to ignore it. hat is the problem with it anyway? It is in the past, right? Or is it, and is that maybe the problem?

You are talking about literature. Like I said the question is: the future readers will enjoy more reading? Does it matter? History classes may give them the proper perspective but Literature classes? Are them for this?

[AuntShecky]

Please watch and listen to this video with Professor Melissa
Harris-Parry whose explanation against censoring the book
is intelligent and concise:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40917922

[JCamilo]

I would love to meet a book with a slave kidnapped in africa and read "Native American" on it :D

[BienvenuJDC]

Why is the word "Injun" supposed to be considered insulting? It's just a rapid pronunciation of the word, "Indian".

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why is the word "Injun" supposed to be considered insulting? It's just a rapid pronunciation of the word, "Indian".

Are you being serious?

[kiki1982]

Shakespeare text of the plays are not "his final" word, as he did not published, but result of a long research. Since then, his text have been altered, changed, included by people like Charles Lamb who made it acessible to children. But no, Red Ridding Hood or many of the oral faery tales (Cinderela, Sleeping beauty, etc) has several versions. The Hunter was actually added by Grimms to teach a moral lesson to kids. (Perrault early version ends with she laying with the wolf, she is never saved).

As I said with Homer and the like, Shakespeare is also from the times before copyright, as such there is indeed no clear text per se. Though, that does not at all apply to later works.
The fairy tales have indeed several versions, even across Europe. That does not mean that 'the Grimms' Red Riding Hood' is changed often. The concept, yes, their re-telling of it, no. That was it, they recorded them from all over the country. Their edition of 1857 of which I have a reprint, lists the fairy tale as out of the vicinity of Main and has two versions, one with the wolf and the hunter and one where the wolf drowns in a trough with water outside because of the grandmother. They also link it with a Swedish one where a young woman is eaten by a wolf and only her bloody arm is found by her lover who heard her cry from an oak tree. In various oral versions, it would appear, does the wolf die. It would surprise me if the Grimms actually put on a certain end just to make it a moral tale, as they were zealous in trying to find genuine tales, not for their own honour and glory, like Perrault who was operating in a much earlier time.

That is no argument for the changing of more modern texts though, because in both cases we are speaking of texts which were either orally passed on or printed in the time before real copyright.


No, translations and versions still exists. Not those you talked but the famous abrigaded versions or children versions are published every single day. I can find a hundred different Moby Dicks. Literature is and never was static.

I agree that translations can do something with a work, but it is never the aim of a translator nowadays to simplify or make something better, I would hope. And then there is always the freedom of leaving certain words a 'realia' in the text. As to abridged versions, they should not exist and I would say I haven't really come across them in great numbers until I started reading in English. That could be perception though.


You are doing exactly the same, taking away possibility for interepreation by arguing against the word changes. Again, there is no absolute interpretations, there is no sense complaning about "Not allowing" this interpretation.

Pardon? So we should all agree to change a work when it doesn't suit us? I refer to professor Harris-Parry for her argument that actually the whole point of Huckleberry Finn is passed by because of 'slave'.
One can interpret, yes, but not, never, impose a certain interpretation on someone or something, especially not whe the person is reading something for the first time. One can put forward a certain interpretation in an essay, but not change the text so it will only reflect that.
That is an insult to all art. One does not paint over a painting either. Probably the last time that was done was in the 19th century, I thought. In the Sixtine Chapel I think.


Look, those people are dealing with a modern problem, not old problems. But then again, who said they are making anyone ignorant? Like I said, reading Twain does not make any more or less ignorant, so how come reading a version of twain (something ALL who do not read english do) will create ignorance?
You may have a point that such action is inefective, but it is not the same as "holocaust denial" that sometimes pop on.

They are definitely dealing with an old problem. They still have a trauma, otherwise they would not fuss over a stupid word. There is no problem, in connection with the holocaust, to write particular names in your book that refer to Jews (I just can't recall any right now, apart from 'Jude', which is not really that bad, though it may do in the right scene). Why is it in America when it refers to a slave of black descent?
My point is not that people who haven't read Twain are ignorant, nor that people who have to read a version are ignorant, my point is that editing his work is another symptom of wanting to conceal that fase of history and actively try to make American youth ignorant (which they are already trying, apparently, by banning it altogether).
No, it is not the same as holocaust denial, that is much worse as there were so many people who perished (although, I would wonder how many slaves actually saw the light and died as well because of the bad treatment they received), but the problem is the same, and much bigger. Where there are a few negatonists which are sometimes punished or fined for their actions, or at least reprimanded, there are many more people in America who would like to forget the 'slave'-thing. I mean, calling them an 'ensalved person' to make sure that everyone knows they were actually humans... That says more about the speaker than about the slaves. I mean, they were there in the Greek and Roman times, in Russia up until more or less 1917, in Europe in the middle ages, the Celts and Germanic tribes also had them I believe. So actually Ameria was better off because they got rid of 'slaves' much earlier than Russia. Why is it such a problem then? The Russians don'r seem to have a major issue.


The word is meaningless. I can come up with enough insults to make N word be gone. It is just inefective. They will have another word, be it "rappers" or "Jayzes" to segregate black people if they want.

But of course. It is not about that though.


You are talking about literature. Like I said the question is: the future readers will enjoy more reading? Does it matter? History classes may give them the proper perspective but Literature classes? Are them for this?

Literature is art and art is an expression of current culture. The pictures painters paint reflect the style and society they moved in. So does literature. So, yes history classes can supply youngsters with context, but literature can do that in another way, by applying that context. If one reads, one both applies one's history classes and learns about one's history classes. A history class is only an analysis of the situation, a snap-shot. A book is more in detail, and as such I would argue, more important to get a good picture of history than a history class which can only focus on certain things.
One can learn about the French Revolution, but it is only as one reads books written at the time that one realises what impact those changes had on people.
Take for example Doctor Zhivago. Everyone knows how communism worked (everything nationalised), but here is this figure who suddenly loses his comfortable life because of communism. Now that is the other side which we did not learn about. Even the mere mention 'people's estates were confistcated' cannot express the sorrow and powerlessness that that figure feels in that book.
So young people in America can learn about slavery (if they do at all), but they cannot picture adequately the strange (un)equality in their heads without a good story. They will not understand the ambiguity of rich men making children with their slaves and some slaves actually loving their masters (as in Mr Jefferson and his children). Films about it, books about it may help to gain an insight. Not allowing that is making people ignorant.

[JCamilo]

As I said with Homer and the like, Shakespeare is also from the times before copyright, as such there is indeed no clear text per se. Though, that does not at all apply to later works.

Because? I wish to find a single theory of literature that stabilishes this differencial reggarding authoral rights and literature and also a single one that deniies the proccess of copy and adaptations that exists and existed since ever. It is a completely misconception that it does not apply and I cann't see how you insist to argue about it considering the enormous production of children versions of classics that modify the original of any work that they are legallly free to do so. And underground production never stopped it, I know for example, popular versions of latter work, who do not pay authoral rights (Just because they have a marginal production anyways) and also, if adaptation to another mediuns (comic books, movies) clearly show the work is not static.


The fairy tales have indeed several versions, even across Europe. That does not mean that 'the Grimms' Red Riding Hood' is changed often. The concept, yes, their re-telling of it, no. That was it, they recorded them from all over the country. Their edition of 1857 of which I have a reprint, lists the fairy tale as out of the vicinity of Main and has two versions, one with the wolf and the hunter and one where the wolf drowns in a trough with water outside because of the grandmother. They also link it with a Swedish one where a young woman is eaten by a wolf and only her bloody arm is found by her lover who heard her cry from an oak tree. In various oral versions, it would appear, does the wolf die. It would surprise me if the Grimms actually put on a certain end just to make it a moral tale, as they were zealous in trying to find genuine tales, not for their own honour and glory, like Perrault who was operating in a much earlier time.

It is a commn knowledge that both Perrault (who did not seek face, he hide his name under his son name) and Grimmn claimed to use the most faithful version possible of their tales and that both have changed it to be used with their objectives (In the Grimms was an pedagogical project to produce texts for the german youth and children to be taught in school) and many researches consider Perrault version not less modificated but also that Grimm's have used previous texts (Such as Perrault himself, Strapparola, Basile, etc) to his texts, not to mention tales which the origem of the text is actually the Perrault original who became oral due his fame. Not that they were lying or not honest, but the defition and conditions for a work of such nature has changed much. Today it would not be acceptable to do as the Grimms, who mixed the tales from a similar "character" and sometimes even when the character was not the same, but the story much similar, they organized a version of it.


That is no argument for the changing of more modern texts though, because in both cases we are speaking of texts which were either orally passed on or printed in the time before real copyright.

I already gave examples of post-copyright texts you just claimed "they should not exist."You can not say why. You just is against it. But you cann't say why a law who protect texts for only 100 years does have more saying than a 2000 years "natural" process, considering the history of literature has thousands of works where this process happens. Hans Christian Andersen is now public domain, this means 2 years ago, his text could not be changed and now they can?? This makes no sense, it is the same text.




I agree that translations can do something with a work, but it is never the aim of a translator nowadays to simplify or make something better, I would hope. And then there is always the freedom of leaving certain words a 'realia' in the text.


Considering how we can find translations with a considerable difference of size, it is obvious that translators have a great attempt to make something better. Like Ezra Pound suggests, some translations are even superior to the original. I would go and point the english story of classical translations (Homer, Virgil, the Bible) to point that translators are actually "creators".
One of the richest story of all literature is the story of the translations of 1001 Nights, which if filled with interferences, modifications and much more, to the point that the tale more indentified to the nights, Alladin is not actually an arabian invention but an european XVIII century invention.
And before you go about the oral tradition or copy-rights, we have a interesting story of translation of The Raven, each version from great names (Baudelaire, Mallarme, Machado de Assis, Fernando Pessoa) has modified the rhytim or the metric system of the poem, some like Mallarme, clearly in dialogue with Baudelaire version. Not to mention the bird has changed, from a Raven to a Crow to statisfy a rythimic matter.
And to add a final tale of Ernesto Sabato, who once found a Orlando copy and read, finding several hyperbolic interventions which are not Woolf style and guessed was Borges the translator, modfying the original and years late found this to be true.


As to abridged versions, they should not exist and I would say I haven't really come across them in great numbers until I started reading in English. That could be perception though.

They are an old tradition, published in big number. In almost all countries. For example, Lamb's Shakespeare for kids is a small genre classic of english literature and in many aspects a huge responsable for the Shakespeare familiarity.
But I have more questions: Who are you and which basis you say something that exists for centuries and is done by several individuals should not exist?
And since they do exist, what will you say? Earth is flat? They just prove that the "after copyright" argument is false. So why insist on it?



Pardon? So we should all agree to change a work when it doesn't suit us?

Oui, like Proust said the writer starts when the reader finished and wants to modify what he read. Of course, slightly different things, but they mean the same: literature does not have beneficy from static texts. They need mobility, agility, creation. Fasten the web under I can guess which one reason and you are acting against literary process and not for it.


I refer to professor Harris-Parry for her argument that actually the whole point of Huckleberry Finn is passed by because of 'slave'.

I like the professor because in no momment she went for the untouchable text, she talked about the class interation and how futile seems those changes. Anyways, I would point that the whole point of Huck is lost already, after all those people changing it read it with the word N and did not got this "whole point". Changing to slave does not grant it is recovered or lost at all.
Plus it is clearly ironic. Calling people slaves is offensive. Not nice at all. And anyone could point, now all "Nigger" in a old book is or was a slave, so the word change is more comic.



One can interpret, yes, but not, never, impose a certain interpretation on someone or something, especially not whe the person is reading something for the first time.

I had no idea the first or second a twenty or watever time do any difference, but You insist to impose the interpretation that you want. And by day, it is not given by the word N. People from other countries do not read it with N word and apparently they get Twain quite fine. The very argument the presence of this word is necessary for a correct interpretation of the text is falacious.



One can put forward a certain interpretation in an essay, but not change the text so it will only reflect that.
That is an insult to all art. One does not paint over a painting either. Probably the last time that was done was in the 19th century, I thought. In the Sixtine Chapel I think.

Lots of people paint over other painting yet, obviously reduced because the material price is not the same as the past, but people still do it. And some do it like a certain Dali who added a certain moustache and changed completely the interpretations of the painting.




They are definitely dealing with an old problem. They still have a trauma, otherwise they would not fuss over a stupid word. There is no problem, in connection with the holocaust, to write particular names in your book that refer to Jews (I just can't recall any right now, apart from 'Jude', which is not really that bad, though it may do in the right scene). Why is it in America when it refers to a slave of black descent?

The actual problem is more to do with the fact the black population is more intergrated to the society, less margialized and they have to deal with it. The Majority of americans have no more problem with slavery, simple because they are ok people with ok ideas and are more worried with the politically correct.
Now about jews, they obviously cut down many references. Like the South Park episode where they joke it is finnally nice to laugh about the holocaust, which obviously suggest there is something that protect the holacaust to be mocked while other tragedies is not (And mocked in the perfect healthy sense, since dealing with horrors with humor is part of human nature). I would suggest you to see accross the world the history of censorship in the world to see neither the black question is a big concern in the world as there is a considerable less effort towards many others aspects. And in German, if I am not mistaken, the printing of Mein Kampf is not allowed, which suggest they "deal" with this by not printing it?



My point is not that people who haven't read Twain are ignorant, nor that people who have to read a version are ignorant, my point is that editing his work is another symptom of wanting to conceal that fase of history and actively try to make American youth ignorant (which they are already trying, apparently, by banning it altogether).

Which leads to the questions reggarding to the objective of literature in classroom. It is to teach history? Or to enjoy art?
Plus, those aspects are still taught in history class, so how they are making this more ignorant?


No, it is not the same as holocaust denial, that is much worse as there were so many people who perished (although, I would wonder how many slaves actually saw the light and died as well because of the bad treatment they received), but the problem is the same, and much bigger. Where there are a few negatonists which are sometimes punished or fined for their actions, or at least reprimanded, there are many more people in America who would like to forget the 'slave'-thing.

Holocaust denial is much worst than changing the N word to Slave, which by the way is a curious arguments towards America attempt to forgot the Slave-thing.



I mean, calling them an 'ensalved person' to make sure that everyone knows they were actually humans... That says more about the speaker than about the slaves. I mean, they were there in the Greek and Roman times, in Russia up until more or less 1917, in Europe in the middle ages, the Celts and Germanic tribes also had them I believe. So actually Ameria was better off because they got rid of 'slaves' much earlier than Russia. Why is it such a problem then? The Russians don'r seem to have a major issue.

Does them? They lived under a dictatorial regim for 70 years, perhaps they have other concerns than "Oops, we had slaves"?



Literature is art and art is an expression of current culture.

Apparently the current culture is thinking to change the text.



The pictures painters paint reflect the style and society they moved in. So does literature. So, yes history classes can supply youngsters with context, but literature can do that in another way, by applying that context. If one reads, one both applies one's history classes and learns about one's history classes. A history class is only an analysis of the situation, a snap-shot. A book is more in detail, and as such I would argue, more important to get a good picture of history than a history class which can only focus on certain things.

Mark Twain certainly does not help people to understand history more than the the history teaching itself. The person who has no notion of it, do not get even what is the fuzz about N word even. And Twain is far from a truthworth source, considering his humor and pleasure to confund people.



One can learn about the French Revolution, but it is only as one reads books written at the time that one realises what impact those changes had on people.

Really? Because reading Ovid and Virgil will teach more about the roman empire than Gibbon???



Take for example Doctor Zhivago. Everyone knows how communism worked (everything nationalised), but here is this figure who suddenly loses his comfortable life because of communism. Now that is the other side which we did not learn about. Even the mere mention 'people's estates were confistcated' cannot express the sorrow and powerlessness that that figure feels in that book.


Which could be applied to several non communist regims. Sorry, I never read Doc Z or watched the movie, but I do know that Communist regim confiscated proprieties.


So young people in America can learn about slavery (if they do at all), but they cannot picture adequately the strange (un)equality in their heads without a good story. They will not understand the ambiguity of rich men making children with their slaves and some slaves actually loving their masters (as in Mr Jefferson and his children). Films about it, books about it may help to gain an insight. Not allowing that is making people ignorant.

Actually, Poeple are reading Twain. Calling him a Slave wont make people do not "learn" about slavery at all.

[AuntShecky]

Quote:
I refer to professor Harris-Parry for her argument that actually the whole point of Huckleberry Finn is passed by because of 'slave'.

I like the professor because in no momment she went for the untouchable text, she talked about the class interation and how futile seems those changes. Anyways, I would point that the whole point of Huck is lost already, after all those people changing it read it with the word N and did not got this "whole point". Changing to slave does not grant it is recovered or lost at all.


I think the Professor's point is that we shouldn't Bowdlerize, sanitize, or make literature "P.C." because literature is supposed to "challenge us" to change or rethink our perceptions of the world.

It is ironic that when the book was originally published it was censored because it portrayed Jim as a human being.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

My only concern with this is that the new text becomes the de facto correct version because that's the only one that people read because they were assigned it. On the flip side, this could broaden the books influence seeing as how the word "nigger" is in actuality ridiculously offensive and it's totally reasonable that a person wouldn't want to read a book that makes their blood boil. The idea that replacing the word with "slave" is going to negate the racial themes doesn't add up to me either because slave 1) gets the point across and 2) the story (and I haven't read it recently) is presumably strong enough to get the point across whether the word "nigger" or "slave" is used. Another thing is that some of you are claiming (ignoring the fact that the word slave is not merely a perjorative) that we will somehow forget about racism and slavery by changing this one word as if there weren't a multitude of works that comment on the same thing.

Another poster said that you either teach the story as it is or don't teach it at all, which is probably the best thing, but as long as people are being forced to read it using the word slave so that people are less alienated is OK. Yes, we know the word was used profusely and still is and someone who is offended by it doesn't need to see the word hundreds of times to understand that it is awful and maybe now they can instead focus on the other parts of the story.

[JCamilo]

Quote:
I refer to professor Harris-Parry for her argument that actually the whole point of Huckleberry Finn is passed by because of 'slave'.

I like the professor because in no momment she went for the untouchable text, she talked about the class interation and how futile seems those changes. Anyways, I would point that the whole point of Huck is lost already, after all those people changing it read it with the word N and did not got this "whole point". Changing to slave does not grant it is recovered or lost at all.


I think the Professor's point is that we shouldn't Bowdlerize sanitize or make literature "P.C." because
literature is supposed to "challenge us" to change or rethink our perceptions of the world.

It is ironic that when the book was originally published
it was censored because it portrayed Jim as a human being.

She does not mention Bowdlerization(Isnt the anchor who does?), she just point a person can deal by themselves with the text and difficulties and those attempts to smooth it, does not help at all.
The teacher does not defend the santification of texts or anything similar, she defends the actual teaching of literature: let people read, do what they want and trust the teachers and society to give the proper context. And she may not say it, but this can be done with any text (In an aspect, changing N to S may create an inferior version, considering the big trait of Twain is his use of realistic language) but there is no way to afirm that all changes, versions, etc are going to damage reading, possibilities of interpretation,etc.

Adding, the books are not banned just because of Jim was a human being. It was more because it was vulgar with vulgar language. The popular language of Twain causes problems to his books for quite awhile. :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The idea that replacing the word with "slave" is going to negate the racial themes doesn't add up to me either because slave 1) gets the point across

It may get the point across, but it definitely doesn't do as good of a job at doing this as the n-word does.


Another thing is that some of you are claiming (ignoring the fact that the word slave is not merely a perjorative) that we will somehow forget about racism and slavery by changing this one word as if there weren't a multitude of works that comment on the same thing.

Did someone claim this? I admit I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so maybe I missed it.

[AuntShecky]

She does not mention Bowdlerization(Isnt the anchor who does?), she just point a person can deal by themselves with the text and difficulties and those attempts to smooth it, does not help at all.
The teacher does not defend the santification of texts or anything similar, she defends the actual teaching of literature: let people read, do what they want and trust the teachers and society to give the proper context. And she may not say it, but this can be done with any text (In an aspect, changing N to S may create an inferior version, considering the big trait of Twain is his use of realistic language) but there is no way to afirm that all changes, versions, etc are going to damage reading, possibilities of interpretation,etc.

Adding, the books are not banned just because of Jim was a human being. It was more because it was vulgar with vulgar language. The popular language of Twain causes problems to his books for quite awhile. :)

You're right, Prof. Harris-Perry did not mention the word "Bowdlerize," but Olbermann did. He is also the one who said The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was censored soon after it it was published because the book depicted Jim as a human being, specifically they did not cotton to the camaraderie-- friendship-- if you will. Back then the language was just fine, believe or not. If you listened to what the professor said, you would certainly get the impression that she agrees with the anchor that the book should not be censored. She implied what are we shielding the kids from -- a word that they still, unfortunately, hear every day on the playground or in some rap songs? The larger issue-- that there is no stronger argument against slavery and for full acceptance than Twain's work is much, much more important than the use of any one word, including the one which has become taboo, rightfully so, in our present day culture.

Despite the facts of the Emancipation Proclamation and the North's victory in the Civil War, many people in the South clung to their antebellum attitudes toward race and slavery; such a harmful mind-set lasted well until the middle of the Twentieth Century; even today there are some, in every region of the country, who harbor deep-seated racism, even beyond their awareness, since it has been ingrained into the system for so many hundreds of years.

So, if a teacher can successfully place the book in its historical context, and can also make the students understand Twain's intentions, then there is no reason to censor this book or limit its access in any way.

[billl]

In my mind, if it's that big of a deal for schools, don't teach the book. You either teach all of it, or you teach none of it. You don't change a piece of art to fit your needs.



So, if a teacher can successfully place the book in its historical context, and can also make the students understand Twain's intentions, then there is no reason to censor this book or limit its access in any way.

I agree with these two statements. There are other books (where the language would be less of an 'issue') that are great literature, and address slavery. For example, I happened to read Frederick Douglas in the university, but I am sure a high school class (or any class reading Huck Finn) could handle it, enjoy it, and get just as powerful of a message about the topic as Huck Finn delivers.


She [Prof. Harris-Perry] implied what are we shielding the kids from -- a word that they still, unfortunately, hear every day on the playground or in some rap songs? The larger issue-- that there is no stronger argument against slavery and for full acceptance than Twain's work is much, much more important than the use of any one word, including the one which has become taboo, rightfully so, in our present day culture.


I think these "new version" people are suggesting the new version BECAUSE they think that Huck Finn is such a strong argument for full acceptance, and the repeated use of that one word might distract, and make the story less important for some students/classes.

EDIT: The problem is, it has a risk of becoming a "slippery-slope" if we change this classic for this reason. How might some parents respond if their child is in a class where the regular version is chosen? "Why does MY child have to be exposed to this? Other systems are more sensitive, they are cleaning up the language..." The thing could spread further than it needs to, and maybe rob some kids of an experience they and their classmates could've handled.

I can even imagine this newer version eventually being chosen by some professors, here and there, at institutions of higher learning (although I can't imagine it becoming the predominant text, somehow--I don't think the slope is THAT slippery. Just as this release is generating controversy, I think the essential points about confronting history and respecting the original work will prevail.)

[JCamilo]

You're right, Prof. Harris-Perry did not mention the word "Bowdlerize," but Olbermann did. He is also the one who said The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was censored soon after it it was published because the book depicted Jim as a human being, specifically they did not cotton to the camaraderie-- friendship-- if you will.


I was correcting Olbermann, not you. One of the reasons of the importance of Twain is the "vulgarization" of language.


Back then the language was just fine, believe or not. If you listened to what the professor said, you would certainly get the impression that she agrees with the anchor that the book should not be censored. She implied what are we shielding the kids from -- a word that they still, unfortunately, hear every day on the playground or in some rap songs?

Yes, she is against. I never said otherwise. I am against also. She is not against for the reasons which are irrelevant (versions of works, etc) and she is also against because the solution is dumb.



The larger issue-- that there is no stronger argument against slavery and for full acceptance than Twain's work is much, much more important than the use of any one word, including the one which has become taboo, rightfully so, in our present day culture.[/B]


There is obviously stronger arguments than Twain, but of course, changing the word is not a strong arguements agaisnt it either, so we must ask why the change and see it does not justify itself.


Despite the facts of the Emancipation Proclamation and the North's victory in the Civil War, many people in the South clung to their antebellum attitudes toward race and slavery; such a harmful mind-set lasted well until the middle of the Twentieth Century; even today there are some, in every region of the country, who harbor deep-seated racism, even beyond their awareness, since it has been ingrained into the system for so many hundreds of years.

So, if a teacher can successfully place the book in its historical context, and can also make the students understand Twain's intentions, then there is no reason to censor this book or limit its access in any way.

That is true. And the teacher says it: teachers in class can give the proper context. She says herself. Kids can find the proper context because the language can be found elsewhere. So, the censor, with all his good intentions, is actually implying "Kids are too dumb unable to read and Teachers are very limited.". So the problem is another. Not the work itself, but what is seen and expected from education.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think these "new version" people are suggesting the new version BECAUSE they think that Huck Finn is such a strong argument for full acceptance, and the repeated use of that one word might distract, and make the story less important for some students/classes.

Frederick Douglas's Narrative is taught in many schools, and I think it can be a more effective communicator of the evils of slavery/racism than Huck Finn for students because it is the story of an actual person who faced actual violence and oppression, which matters a lot when it comes to the relevance of a text to many high schoolers (and adults, for that matter).

The problem with Huck Finn in the classroom is that it usually isn't taught correctly (as is the case with a lot of literature). Often it isn't revealed that HF is a satire, and if it is, it isn't fully explained how Twain is showing the evils of slavery and racism by portraying it in the way he does. This often leads students to think it's just an old, racist book. In one of the articles I read about this, a black girl mentioned hating the book so much when reading it in class that it made her feel ill. I doubt she understood the book. I know from people who read the book in school and hated it that this was usually the case.

[billl]

Often it isn't revealed that HF is a satire, and if it is, it isn't fully explained how Twain is showing the evils of slavery and racism by portraying it in the way he does. This often leads students to think it's just an old, racist book. In one of the articles I read about this, a black girl mentioned hating the book so much when reading it in class that it made her feel ill. I doubt she understood the book. I know from people who read the book in school and hated it that this was usually the case.

That's a good point, I bet there are teachers that don't know how to handle it, or how important it might be to make such a point very early on, for those that don't understand.

But, even if it is explained to a class, I still don't know if all kids in every situation would be ready for it. To see a black character referred to as that by a white author and white characters might make some students sick even if the satire element is explained, and even if they can be reassured that each of their classmates is also on board with appreciating it as a satire. And, I'd like to add: even if the student happened to already love reading books.

Maybe such students will just have to "deal with it" in some classes and learn later on why they had to go through with it along with other kids that seemed less upset about it; and in other cases, maybe there'll be classes that would do best to just avoid the book. The unfortunate thing is, there'll still be some teachers making bad judgement calls about this, probably, if they are given the option to teach it or not. Not that each lesson and teacher has to be perfect and work out great, but this book seems to be particularly tricky for a lot of schools.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's a good point, I bet there are teachers that don't know how to handle it, or how important it might be to make such a point very early on, for those that don't understand.

But, even if it is explained to a class, I still don't know if all kids in every situation would be ready for it. To see a black character referred to as that by a white author and white characters might make some students sick even if the satire element is explained, and even if they can be reassured that each of their classmates is also on board with appreciating it as a satire. And, I'd like to add: even if the student happened to already love reading books.

Maybe such students will just have to "deal with it" in some classes and learn later on why they had to go through with it along with other kids that seemed less upset about it; and in other cases, maybe there'll be classes that would do best to just avoid the book. The unfortunate thing is, there'll still be some teachers making bad judgement calls about this, probably, if they are given the option to teach it or not. Not that each lesson and teacher has to be perfect and work out great, but this book seems to be particularly tricky for a lot of schools.

Yes, I agree. I think many students, actually, will be uncomfortable with the book no matter how much it is explained, just due to the very nature of the word. But if they understood the book, at least they would know what is being portrayed isn't being portrayed out of malice. After all, the reader should be at least a little uncomfortable with the material.

Plus, there is something to be said about the pedagogical value of making students uncomfortable on purpose with certain materials, whether it be racism, war, sex, or any multitude of subjects. This is always a tricky tightrope to walk though; you don't want to reduce your students to tears.

I think HF is often taught at way too low of a level (many times 7th and 8th grade). It would work better with a junior and senior class, in my opinion.

[JCamilo]

Actually, if Huck finn is in the schools because his political message, then I say it would remain out of the schools. The question is why we pick the books and why they are taught. Literature is not the political message. I can read Virgil without glorying the roman empire, Dante without medieval faith and I hoope we can read Twain beyong his sympathy for slavery cause. (Meaning, the end of slavery)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While we, as teachers, are not supposed to impart political beliefs on our students, but one of our duties is to guide them towards becoming well-rounded, moral citizens. This includes teaching them that racism and slavery are wrong.

Plus, we can teach what political messages works send without endorsing those political messages.

[kiki1982]

hear, hear!

Anything short of that is a waste of time.

[JCamilo]

Errr, the dude editing Mark Twain has the same argument. He is moralizing the text.

Hear, hear... Teaching literature is not about reading the books with moral intentions, that is what keep Moby Dick out of fashion - those dumb teachers that see racism, destruction of nature, etc and must talk about it and not Melville's work.

[kiki1982]

Err, it is not his place to moralise anything? Leave that up to the teacher teaching the work, or maybe to the pupils themselves, thinking about it. That is more than good enough.

Teaching literature is about teaching the message of relevant books to your pupils about things relevant to their history (as that is relevant to the society of today).

As such, it is about moral messages as well as other things, depending on the books you read.

I don't know what you think is the benefit of literature class, but that is what it is to a lot of people.

And before you ask about Shakespeare. Shapespeare is important as to human nature and how human nature deals with certain things. That is also relevant, for everyone, no matter how old Shaklespeare may be. And there are loads of moral messages in Shakespeare.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Errr, the dude editing Mark Twain has the same argument. He is moralizing the text.

Hear, hear... Teaching literature is not about reading the books with moral intentions, that is what keep Moby Dick out of fashion - those dumb teachers that see racism, destruction of nature, etc and must talk about it and not Melville's work.

You can do both.

[JCamilo]

No, you cann't. Feminist teachers destroy Woolf work because they focus on her feminist trait. And this destroy literature. Voltaire was a bastard anti-democratic, so is borges. I wont repeat the effect that what you two are propoposing is exactly what keep classical works from classes is exactly the moralization of literature teaching. Morals change. But when they are in vigor they are absolute, so Moby Dick lose his place, Kipling loses his space, Twain, Carlyle, etc. Despite the undeniable literary quality of their works.

You want to teach ethics and moral, go for Kant and in the philosophy class. Literature class should not be about this. Even because those guys who ban books believe in their morals. So, in the end, you two are now advocating exactly the control of the books by moral standars, since this is the result of bringing a book with moral intentions.

Even when we agree the moral is acceptable (Like anti-slavery), Twain is NOWHERE the moral high-grounds there. He is not even the first (Uncle Thomas Cabin was first), so the only reason that should matter is Twain's literary merit, not his moral.

Teaching literature is NOT about teaching a message. It is not propaganda. Some books do not even have a message. How come you can say so much about allowing people to have their own interpretation and now is claiming some addult is free to give the message (he thinks it is right, since the majority of great works of literature do not have a conclusive message or we do not know we which one was the message) or a moral (which by the way, is not universal. Christians and Muslims have different moral codes, but a teacher may find both in his literature class).

In Shakespeare there is a lot of moral messages? Such as obeying the king. Does it matter? Not at all. Romeo and Juliet are under age. It is the moral of young kids should not run away from their parents. The moral YOU think it is important, nobody else and it is lost, misinterpreted, irrelevant.

If the literature class is that for a lot of people (haha, I doubt so.) then it would be no wonder why any text from anyone should be read: does not matter the quality, the aesthetic experience, the pleasure, only means the doctrine of the teacher. And Voilá, those students grow up and can change Nigger to Slave.

[kiki1982]

Oh, please, we are not at all arguing that one has to ONLY teach a certain interpretation. Yes, writers can be narrowed down to some particular message if the teacher hammers it home too much. BUT, there are certain moral messages from a historic point of view.
How do you suggest that Jane Eyre has no moral message at all? And I am not talking about the raving feminist interpretation of the mad woman in the attic, I am just talking about the inherent criticism present in that story of Jane and Rochester, that she does not want to be dominated.

And how is 'the king must be obeyed' the only moral message in Shakespeare? King Lear's narcism doesn't have any bad consequences? The avariciousness of Cordelia's two sisters hasn't got any either? The tricks of Edmund have no bad effect upon him? The feud between the Montagues and the Capulets has no effects whatsoever? The murder of Hamlet's father and his uncle's trickery have no consequences? Those are also moral messages, it seems to me.

The thought that reading is merely literary merit is very narrow-minded. People are welcome to read a book only for that reason, or for plot reasons, but that is not at all where literature stops. Usually there is a message, otherwise there would nothing to discuss, nor anything to study (so what are all those academics doing anyway?). That should be taught in class, if anything, not merely literary merit if that can be taught at all... You cannot tell anyone to have pleasure, nor to find something beautiful.
How can one teach that? It is beautiful. Why? Because the teacher says it? because most people find it (it has become a classic)? because some obscure academic finds that?

The mere form of HF is a message. One does never make a satire about something he approves of. In a minor or major way, a satire disapproves of things that happen. Gulliver's Travels (and other work of Swift; not least the battle of the books) can be read as an allegory or satire on the society he lived in. Austen's work is a satire on the ridiculous appearance society of her day. Some of Kafka's work is satirical as well. Does that mean he approved of the over-active admin streak of the Habsburg empire? I would be surprised. If he calls a renouned secretary Momus (The Castle), god of satire, mochery and censure, why does he do that? Surely not to encouragingly nod to the vast administrative machine? Dickens's Circumlocution Office, merely by its name, cannot be called positive I presume? How is that not a message then? How is the whole story of LIttle Dorrit no message at all?

[JCamilo]

Oh, please, we are not at all arguing that one has to ONLY teach a certain interpretation. Yes, writers can be narrowed down to some particular message if the teacher hammers it home too much. BUT, there are certain moral messages from a historic point of view.
How do you suggest that Jane Eyre has no moral message at all? And I am not talking about the raving feminist interpretation of the mad woman in the attic, I am just talking about the inherent criticism present in that story of Jane and Rochester, that she does not want to be dominated.


Irrelevant, moral messages of the books are not what makes them relevant. Milton had no intention to create a freedom fight in Lucifer. Happened. Mistakes in the interpretation are more relevant than anything else. And please, do not detour, you complained about the change of the words as a form to control the kids reading capacity, and now reckon the external interference as valid? Dont you see how pointless is to say: those people changing the word are also making their interpretation interference, tour. Like I said, that was an irrelevant point to attack the change.

And how is 'the king must be obeyed' the only moral message in Shakespeare? King Lear's narcism doesn't have any bad consequences? The avariciousness of Cordelia's two sisters hasn't got any either? The tricks of Edmund have no bad effect upon him? The feud between the Montagues and the Capulets has no effects whatsoever? The murder of Hamlet's father and his uncle's trickery have no consequences? Those are also moral messages, it seems to me.


The thought that reading is merely literary merit is very narrow-minded.

Pardon, then you can write Mark Twain with modified words. Your rage cannt be justified, neither the reading of classics, who survive due their literary merit.


People are welcome to read a book only for that reason, or for plot reasons, but that is not at all where literature stops. Usually there is a message, otherwise there would nothing to discuss, nor anything to study (so what are all those academics doing anyway?)

You may have not noticed but academics are a minority. The majority of readers have no academic capacity, study, simple because it is a specialized job. And it may surprise you, the Academic specialist usually study the books they see merit on it, they find pleasure. Not for some obligation.



That should be taught in class, if anything, not merely literary merit if that can be taught at all... You cannot tell anyone to have pleasure, nor to find something beautiful.


What? Academic study of literature should be taught in class? Hey, they are academic, other kids, you understand the concept of graduation? Kids do not have condition to study academically any work.
And literary merit means what Academics find, what are you talking about? Who discovers it ? And not teached, they decide to use a book by its merits, it is a reason to let be read, not what to be taught.


How can one teach that? It is beautiful. Why? Because the teacher says it? because most people find it (it has become a classic)? because some obscure academic finds that?

You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature.


The mere form of HF is a message. One does never make a satire about something he approves of. In a minor or major way, a satire disapproves of things that happen. Gulliver's Travels (and other work of Swift; not least the battle of the books) can be read as an allegory or satire on the society he lived in. Austen's work is a satire on the ridiculous appearance society of her day. Some of Kafka's work is satirical as well. Does that mean he approved of the over-active admin streak of the Habsburg empire? I would be surprised. If he calls a renouned secretary Momus (The Castle), god of satire, mochery and censure, why does he do that? Surely not to encouragingly nod to the vast administrative machine? Dickens's Circumlocution Office, merely by its name, cannot be called positive I presume? How is that not a message then? How is the whole story of LIttle Dorrit no message at all?

No, no message at all. The message is over. Everyone knows black people are humans as white people. So Twain lost its function.

[kiki1982]

Irrelevant, moral messages of the books are not what makes them relevant. Milton had no intention to create a freedom fight in Lucifer. Happened. Mistakes in the interpretation are more relevant than anything else. And please, do not detour, you complained about the change of the words as a form to control the kids reading capacity, and now reckon the external interference as valid? Dont you see how pointless is to say: those people changing the word are also making their interpretation interference, tour. Like I said, that was an irrelevant point to attack the change.

No Milton did not intend a freedom fight in Lucifer, but intended to make people realise it was easier to follow Lucifer than God. That was also a message and a very powerful one at that.


Pardon, then you can write Mark Twain with modified words. Your rage cannt be justified, neither the reading of classics, who survive due their literary merit.

And how is that? Literary merit is not so narrow as 'it is beautiful' alone. Literary merit includes something to think about. Books which have been only well written rarely get into the classics list. Examples are all those that were once popular and now forgotten. Take Radcliffe for instance. Imensely popular in her day, but now not anymore. Certainly not due to her writing style which I would call enjoyable and pretty.


You may have not noticed but academics are a minority. The majority of readers have no academic capacity, study, simple because it is a specialized job. And it may surprise you, the Academic specialist usually study the books they see merit on it, they find pleasure. Not for some obligation.

Of course academics are in the minority, although literature would never have turned into a science if 'it is beautiful' was the only criterium available to the literary science.


What? Academic study of literature should be taught in class? Hey, they are academic, other kids, you understand the concept of graduation? Kids do not have condition to study academically any work.
And literary merit means what Academics find, what are you talking about? Who discovers it ? And not teached, they decide to use a book by its merits, it is a reason to let be read, not what to be taught.

Analysis should be taught, and was taught in my classes limitedly. That is the merit of reading, not 'it is beautiful'. The criterium 'it is beautiful' leads you to read different writers whose style you like because it is subjective, not to literary merit.


You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature.

And how do you discuss something, which is the best way of getting people interested? By just letting them say, 'I found it nice to read', and then what? What are we doing on this forum then? Something that doesn't matter? We could as well do away with this forum as we know that the books we read have literary merit. As that is the only thing that matters, we can stop discussing them. Clearlyb , that is not at all the point of literature.


No, no message at all. The message is over. Everyone knows black people are humans as white people. So Twain lost its function.

Twain has not lost his function. Maybe as a renewing idea about slavery, he has, but otherwise not. Why would people still be studying it then if there was no purpose at all?
As I said, it is about educating people.

[JCamilo]

No Milton did not intend a freedom fight in Lucifer, but intended to make people realise it was easier to follow Lucifer than God. That was also a message and a very powerful one at that.

Which means: the message was threw out of the window. The main reason the most influential readers of Milton and today readers still with him is unrelated to his message.




And how is that? Literary merit is not so narrow as 'it is beautiful' alone. Literary merit includes something to think about. Books which have been only well written rarely get into the classics list. Examples are all those that were once popular and now forgotten. Take Radcliffe for instance. Imensely popular in her day, but now not anymore. Certainly not due to her writing style which I would call enjoyable and pretty.

Literary merit is and often is about how well written a book is. Not about the message it conveys. That is why you can read Virgil until today, find beautiful and not pray for the roman emperors.




Of course academics are in the minority, although literature would never have turned into a science if 'it is beautiful' was the only criterium available to the literary science.

Literature is not a science. Neither literary academic criticism really aim or claim to be one.




Analysis should be taught, and was taught in my classes limitedly. That is the merit of reading, not 'it is beautiful'. The criterium 'it is beautiful' leads you to read different writers whose style you like because it is subjective, not to literary merit.

Analysis is not taught, not even touched. No teacher in classes have studied at depth the academics of literary theories to taught and explain it.
And congratulations: Classicis or the cannon is composed by different writers which merit is hardly subjective.




And how do you discuss something, which is the best way of getting people interested? By just letting them say, 'I found it nice to read', and then what? What are we doing on this forum then? Something that doesn't matter?

The best way to keep someone interessed on reading, the best argument is often the text itself. Discussing is hardly as interesting as presenting more and more texts.



We could as well do away with this forum as we know that the books we read have literary merit. As that is the only thing that matters, we can stop discussing them. Clearlyb , that is not at all the point of literature.

The point of literature is not this forum neither discussing about it. It is writing and reading texts. And do not move goals, this forum is not about reading books (as in the class) and neither about formal education.




Twain has not lost his function. Maybe as a renewing idea about slavery, he has, but otherwise not. Why would people still be studying it then if there was no purpose at all?
As I said, it is about educating people.

Congratulations: Twain did not his function, because the so called message against slavery is not what matters in his book. The message lost its function, the book does not? Why, because his literary merity sustain it beyond any moral lesson. Just like sustain Benito Cereno, where black slaves mutiy is evil. So, I am glad you agreed, the books are not there for the moreal lessons.

And literature class for education will lose purpose. Several politicians, philosophers wrote with deeper than Twain about the subject. Read them.

[kiki1982]

Which means: the message was threw out of the window. The main reason the most influential readers of Milton and today readers still with him is unrelated to his message.

The message has not been thrown out of the window. Where do you get that from? As long as the work exists, the message exists, maybe it has lost its relevance to people who know what the message is, but it stays relevant for one who wants to learn about the change of perception. AT any rate, it does not have to necessarily be about God and Lucifer, it can be extended to many more relevant things.


Literary merit is and often is about how well written a book is. Not about the message it conveys. That is why you can read Virgil until today, find beautiful and not pray for the roman emperors.

I can say nothing of Virgil, but there are many more novels that are meaningless if read only for their literary merit. And what do you say of Kafka who is so bland? Is he not allowed to have literary merit without lyrical language yet incredibly dense thoughts behind his prose? He is the blandest I have ever read. Granted, he has occasional lapses of sheer brilliance in grammatical construction, but not at all the greatest part of his books. Where is his literary merit? He even repeats himself endlessly, even repeats words in the same sentence up to three times. I would argue he has brilliant moments which admittedly make you cry with admiration (single sentences, that is), but some stuff is just bland and honestly not very well written at all. Is he then not a good writer? He is a brilliant writer.


Literature is not a science. Neither literary academic criticism really aim or claim to be one.

It is maybe not an exact science, but it is definitely considered worth calling a science of some sort. At least in the country I come from. Part of the humanist sciences.


Analysis is not taught, not even touched. No teacher in classes have studied at depth the academics of literary theories to taught and explain it.
And congratulations: Classicis or the cannon is composed by different writers which merit is hardly subjective.

Analysis is definitely taught. Maybe not in your country. In mine it was. Not 'how is this writer writing' or 'how well', but really 'what does this character say', 'what does he/she mean' and 'what is the general theme of the book'. Also the different genres (what is a short story, novella, novel, etc).
Literary threory, as I see it, is more popular in de Anglosaxon world. In order to analyse one does not need theory.


The best way to keep someone interessed on reading, the best argument is often the text itself. Discussing is hardly as interesting as presenting more and more texts.

Oh, yes, overload is really going to help. Better slow and good than fast and crappy. As you have admitted that beauty is subjective, you can also see that with the over all majority of texts you will only annoy the average student. Certainly as they are teenagers, they will rather be disposed to not like it for its 'literary merit' than to get interested in some issues that are relevant to them as teenagers.
They did it in our school, I don't see why they shouldn't be able do it anywhere else.


The point of literature is not this forum neither discussing about it. It is writing and reading texts. And do not move goals, this forum is not about reading books (as in the class) and neither about formal education.

So for what purpose is this forum here apart from discussing what we like to discuss (i.e. 'why')?
I learn all the time when I read and I keep learning every day, with every text I read.
The point of literature is partly enjoyment and one gets more enjoyment out of a text by reading it, enjoying it and then talking about it with other people past the 'literary merit'-thing than by stopping at the end of the book.


Congratulations: Twain did not his function, because the so called message against slavery is not what matters in his book. The message lost its function, the book does not? Why, because his literary merity sustain it beyond any moral lesson. Just like sustain Benito Cereno, where black slaves mutiy is evil. So, I am glad you agreed, the books are not there for the moreal lessons.

As I said about Milton, the message stays, but is now a message in the past which can still be discussed.


And literature class for education will lose purpose. Several politicians, philosophers wrote with deeper than Twain about the subject. Read them.

Nope, I can't agree with that. Non-fiction and philosophy is much more uninteresting at first sight than literature in itself. Better a book where you care about the characters than a treatise on how the state should be run or how slavery is wrong or anything like that. A novel is much more personal than a paper of a minister or philosopher will ever be.

[JCamilo]

The message has not been thrown out of the window. Where do you get that from? As long as the work exists, the message exists, maybe it has lost its relevance to people who know what the message is, but it stays relevant for one who wants to learn about the change of perception. AT any rate, it does not have to necessarily be about God and Lucifer, it can be extended to many more relevant things.

Completely. Even the religious discussion is not part of any christian church anymore. There is no relevant moviment, no author, no work inspired by Milton but the reading of Satan as a rebel. The message of Milton is almost some archeological curiosity.




I can say nothing of Virgil, but there are many more novels that are meaningless if read only for their literary merit. And what do you say of Kafka who is so bland?

Sorry, but you are not helping youself. Kafka is not bland and has a huge literary merit. He wrote quite well, his construction of sentences in german is hightly praised. His domain of parabole technique imense, his capacity of parelelism with other works, his narrtive as short story unique, his construction of sittuation and even his characters (K or Samsa, are extremelly well used). The reason Kafka stands is exactly because he writes well, not for any message because there is no message that people can discover for sure.



Is he not allowed to have literary merit without lyrical language yet incredibly dense thoughts behind his prose? He is the blandest I have ever read. Granted, he has occasional lapses of sheer brilliance in grammatical construction, but not at all the greatest part of his books. Where is his literary merit?

So he, Hemingway, Borges, Stevenson... wait, typical short stories writers which merit is suggest with economy the density of the sittuation inside a frame.


He even repeats himself endlessly, even repeats words in the same sentence up to three times. I would argue he has brilliant moments which admittedly make you cry with admiration (single sentences, that is), but some stuff is just bland and honestly not very well written at all. Is he then not a good writer? He is a brilliant writer.

He is very well written. He many not be very well edited, considering he did not took care of it.



It is maybe not an exact science, but it is definitely considered worth calling a science of some sort. At least in the country I come from. Part of the humanist sciences.

Which Coutry? German? It is just not, either something is science (unless you mean science as Dante said he was a scientist) or not. It is just a field of discussion and even science, you barelly teach to kids.




Analysis is definitely taught. Maybe not in your country. In mine it was. Not 'how is this writer writing' or 'how well', but really 'what does this character say', 'what does he/she mean' and 'what is the general theme of the book'. Also the different genres (what is a short story, novella, novel, etc).

Lol to a country who teaches real analyses of literature to kids who are reading Mark Twain for the first time.


Literary threory, as I see it, is more popular in de Anglosaxon world. In order to analyse one does not need theory.

That is academic teaching.




Oh, yes, overload is really going to help. Better slow and good than fast and crappy. As you have admitted that beauty is subjective, you can also see that with the over all majority of texts you will only annoy the average student. Certainly as they are teenagers, they will rather be disposed to not like it for its 'literary merit' than to get interested in some issues that are relevant to them as teenagers.

I never said beauty is subjective. So, now we should avoid Twain because the repulse of classics. Good.



They did it in our school, I don't see why they shouldn't be able do it anywhere else.

No wonder many countries are worried with the decrease of reading habits...




So for what purpose is this forum here apart from discussing what we like to discuss (i.e. 'why')?
I learn all the time when I read and I keep learning every day, with every text I read.

It is not education. You may learn everyday in your home. It is not school.


The point of literature is partly enjoyment and one gets more enjoyment out of a text by reading it, enjoying it and then talking about it with other people past the 'literary merit'-thing than by stopping at the end of the book.

Most of people like to talk about books they think are good. They seek literary merit. And the purpose of literature is not it at all. Even the idea of solitary reader is strong and literature predates social forums.


As I said about Milton, the message stays, but is now a message in the past which can still be discussed.

And are by the vast minority who cares about it.



Nope, I can't agree with that. Non-fiction and philosophy is much more uninteresting at first sight than literature in itself. Better a book where you care about the characters than a treatise on how the state should be run or how slavery is wrong or anything like that. A novel is much more personal than a paper of a minister or philosopher will ever be.

It may shook you but if you erase all novels of literature the loss will be imensally inferior to erasing all philosophy texts. Some of the best writers ever where philosophics. Plato is probally more influential and interesting than all american novelists. And this is irrelevant: if you want to discuss philosophical subjects, they will be better than artistic presentantion, which is often shadowny.
In the end, you need texts which literary merit allow them to manipulate characters so you follow them and not discuss philosophy. In the end, down with moral.

[kiki1982]

Completely. Even the religious discussion is not part of any christian church anymore. There is no relevant moviment, no author, no work inspired by Milton but the reading of Satan as a rebel. The message of Milton is almost some archeological curiosity.

Well, you see, a message can actually be read differently and become relevant again. As is the case with Twain. You have just stated yourself that Satan is now viewed as a rebel whereas he started off as a means to an end.


Sorry, but you are not helping youself. Kafka is not bland and has a huge literary merit. He wrote quite well, his construction of sentences in german is hightly praised. His domain of parabole technique imense, his capacity of parelelism with other works, his narrtive as short story unique, his construction of sittuation and even his characters (K or Samsa, are extremelly well used). The reason Kafka stands is exactly because he writes well, not for any message because there is no message that people can discover for sure.

Like I said, he definitely has great moments, brilliant moments even, which he is rightly praised for but his language is bland in most places. I do not mean bland as in not worth reading, I mean bland as in normal. There is nothing Ghoethe-esk about him. I have read him in German. The claim that there is no message in him is utterly ridiculous and so utterly ridiculous that the most easy guides you can buy in German (Koenig for example) which are made for school students actually put a lot of messages forward. Fro anti-semitism to his disclike for admin, to whatever seems relevant.


He is very well written. He many not be very well edited, considering he did not took care of it.

That is one aspect of his merit though. You are not helping yourself either here.


Which Coutry? German? It is just not, either something is science (unless you mean science as Dante said he was a scientist) or not. It is just a field of discussion and even science, you barelly teach to kids.

Any Belgian will be able to tell you.


Lol to a country who teaches real analyses of literature to kids who are reading Mark Twain for the first time.

It is not about Twain himself, but about learning to 'read' if you get my meaning; You can only learn that by practising.


That is academic teaching.

And why is that academic teaching? In order to think you need a brain, not a finely tuned computer.


I never said beauty is subjective. So, now we should avoid Twain because the repulse of classics. Good.

Oh, so you are talking of the Platonic kind of beauty! Of course, I see! They're really going to get that if you tell them.
As to the rest, you twist my words to suit your own purpose.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I feel absolutely fine endorsing things like anti-racism in my classroom. I feel absolutely fine pointing out messages novels send. If you don't, JCamillo, become a teacher and do it the right way, since you so perfectly know how.

I was going to get into the discussion here, but as far as I can tell, you're just talking out of your ***, stating multiple OPINIONS as if they were facts, and being quite pompous to boot.

[JCamilo]

Well, you see, a message can actually be read differently and become relevant again. As is the case with Twain. You have just stated yourself that Satan is now viewed as a rebel whereas he started off as a means to an end.

In the end, this only proves: literature is not about understanding the message, watever it is, coming from the writer.




Like I said, he definitely has great moments, brilliant moments even, which he is rightly praised for but his language is bland in most places. I do not mean bland as in not worth reading, I mean bland as in normal. There is nothing Ghoethe-esk about him. I have read him in German.

Your argument that he has no literary merit because he is no Goethe is as valid as someone saying Chekhov has no literary merits because he is no Tolstoy. Meaning, the argument makes no sense. By the same logic Twain has no literary merit, since he is no Emerson.




The claim that there is no message in him is utterly ridiculous and so utterly ridiculous that the most easy guides you can buy in German (Koenig for example) which are made for school students actually put a lot of messages forward. Fro anti-semitism to his disclike for admin, to whatever seems relevant.

I never claimed he has no message. I said nobody knows what is Kafka message. The interpretation of Kafka is a hot topic of XX century literature, due to his allegorism and Koening guide is just one of thousands options. Nobody reads Kafka because Kafka message - but because of his merits and people try to product their own interpretation.




That is one aspect of his merit though. You are not helping yourself either here.

Not even funny. You claimed Kafka had no literary merit. I list some and just say it is one aspect when you should say "Oops, He has a lot of merit."




Any Belgian will be able to tell you.

I really challenge any belgiam to tell prove me kids learning to enjoy literature are taught with anything but some superficial stuff.



It is not about Twain himself, but about learning to 'read' if you get my meaning; You can only learn that by practising.

Obviously, people can do it with any text. So, why to bother to pull them Classics?



And why is that academic teaching? In order to think you need a brain, not a finely tuned computer.

Because 1% of the readers like it. Not related at all to kids having first contact with Twain.




Oh, so you are talking of the Platonic kind of beauty! Of course, I see! They're really going to get that if you tell them.
As to the rest, you twist my words to suit your own purpose.

I am not talking about Beauty at all. Discussing aesthetics has nothing to do with telling - or showing - moralization of literature teaching do more harm than good and the guys editing Twain are actually doing exactly that.

[JCamilo]

Well, I feel absolutely fine endorsing things like anti-racism in my classroom. I feel absolutely fine pointing out messages novels send. If you don't, JCamillo, become a teacher and do it the right way, since you so perfectly know how.

I am already one. And if you feel fine, then I must repeat: You are doing exactly what the guys who edited Twain are doing. It is very easy with Twain, but not with works with undoubtable literary merit which are pro-racism, such as Benito Cereno by Melville. You would not allow your students to read it, would waste your time destroying the work, in name of your moralism. And in the end, you would be banning books who were written when your moral code was not dominant.


I was going to get into the discussion here, but as far as I can tell, you're just talking out of your ***, stating multiple OPINIONS as if they were facts, and being quite pompous to boot.

I feel glad to only defend my opinions, specially when I can defend them. As far I know moralization dampers teaching. I mentioned a couple of examples. I will be pompous if you address to me. I live in a castle after all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I am already one. And if you feel fine, then I must repeat: You are doing exactly what the guys who edited Twain are doing. It is very easy with Twain, but not with works with undoubtable literary merit which are pro-racism, such as Benito Cereno by Melville. You would not allow your students to read it, would waste your time destroying the work, in name of your moralism. And in the end, you would be banning books who were written when your moral code was not dominant.

I am not advocating we change a work or the moral code it may or may not address. If a work does not address something morally, I will not impose it into the work. If a student interprets a work to have a moral message, we will discuss it.

If a book I was teaching had pro-racism themes, I would teach them, just like the anti-racism themes in HF. We would discuss those themes, I would see how students reacted to them, and go from there. I do not tolerate racism in my class, that just the way it is. If a student some something derogatory about another race, I do not let it go. Do you?


I feel glad to only defend my opinions, specially when I can defend them. As far I know moralization dampers teaching. I mentioned a couple of examples. I will be pompous if you address to me. I live in a castle after all.

Too much moralization is a bad thing, especially when imposed when it isn't needed. In my limited experience, discussions on morals and ethics can be extremely productive.

And, sorry for the pejoratives. They were made in haste, and I write stupid things in haste.

[JCamilo]

I am not advocating we change a work or the moral code it may or may not address. If a work does not address something morally, I will not impose it into the work. If a student interprets a work to have a moral message, we will discuss it.

If a book I was teaching had pro-racism themes, I would teach them, just like the anti-racism themes in HF. We would discuss those themes, I would see how students reacted to them, and go from there. I do not tolerate racism in my class, that just the way it is. If a student some something derogatory about another race, I do not let it go. Do you?

Not tolerating bad mouthing is just not the same as someone building a controversial theme which is not easily to discern. And then again, Philosophers or others have better merits in putting those moral questions and discuss it. And then your class wont be literature, but philosophy.




Too much moralization is a bad thing, especially when imposed when it isn't needed. In my limited experience, discussions on morals and ethics can be extremely productive.

And, sorry for the pejoratives. They were made in haste, and I write stupid things in haste.

I never said moral and ethical discussion to be not productive and that they should not be in class. I said that it is not affected by the editing (which is caused by a similar discussion after all); that other texts can discuss it objectivelly, more even; that literature was not as claimed about passing the message or moral code of the writer; and finally that is no the objective of showing kids for the first time the classics, but rather bring them the spark and pleasure for reading.

(of course, a point, a book and educational system is considered in face of all society and all teachers. Of course, your own actions in class - it is your realm - can not justify the decisions, once there is no form to grant all teachers will behave like you.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And then again, Philosophers or others have better merits in putting those moral questions and discuss it. And then your class wont be literature, but philosophy.

As long as we're talking about a topic concerning whatever text we're reading, and it's relevant, it's fine in my eyes (especially seeing as how it's hard enough getting students to talk in the first place.


I never said moral and ethical discussion to be not productive and that they should not be in class. I said that it is not affected by the editing (which is caused by a similar discussion after all); that other texts can discuss it objectivelly, more even; that literature was not as claimed about passing the message or moral code of the writer; and finally that is no the objective of showing kids for the first time the classics, but rather bring them the spark and pleasure for reading.

(of course, a point, a book and educational system is considered in face of all society and all teachers. Of course, your own actions in class - it is your realm - can not justify the decisions, once there is no form to grant all teachers will behave like you.)

Agreed on pretty much all points (still, I think the n-word will generate more discussion through the sheer emotional impact of the word than "slave" will). I think there was some misunderstanding on my part. I know English is your third language and admire how well you do use it (and thank you for using it to share your thoughts on this board), but sometimes the grammar can trip me up if I read your posts too quickly.

[JCamilo]

Well, there is no problem into talking about the historical context of a text, but there entire criical schools who ignore it completely. It entirelly possible to have a class about Huck without discussing the matter, or yet, you can just make it as a history about friendship like Dom Quixote, Divina Comedy, Sherlock Holmes can all be. Nothing stops you, but there is no such absolute as "need only to be" or Twain is the best possible text if you objective is either historical (Why not Uncle Tom? It is much more direct. Why not the many other writers, non-fictional, who are more direct than Twain?) or why not philosophical (again, you can have other texts about it). In the end, Twain prevails because the prime objective is always the quality of his texts.

And no worries, arguments are safegrounds, I have no problem with being confused, confusing or confuse. Whole package.
Anyways, the N word exchange is silly as it gets, Slave is much more offensive after all. But the real reason why Huck can tell a story about the boy becoming friendly and reckonizing the vallue of Jim is much more due the capacity of Twain to develop and show this on both characters. It is not lost with the removal of the word. Twain merit stands.
However, from the point of view of another literary merit: Twain work with language, the realism he used, which is part of importance, it is certainly a huge mistake.

[kiki1982]

In the end, this only proves: literature is not about understanding the message, watever it is, coming from the writer.

In order to re-interpret the message, the message must be understood. I think you get that.


Your argument that he has no literary merit because he is no Goethe is as valid as someone saying Chekhov has no literary merits because he is no Tolstoy. Meaning, the argument makes no sense. By the same logic Twain has no literary merit, since he is no Emerson.

Here you go again. You twist my words again. I said when it comes to his text alone he has little literary merit. Some, maybe, in his brilliant moments (which he definitely has) he has literary merit, but that is not even half of his text. I have read him in German and his language is... normal. Not more pompous, not more sophisticated than the average letter he wrote. He rarely uses metaphor explicitly. Apart from the extended and implicit metaphors in his Metamorphosis for example, which is the message, so according to your theory we must disregard that completely and think that Samsa really became a cockroach or rodent or whatever. Kafka only uses comparisons extensively in the most boring way. He uses the same word for the same thing three times in one sentence because he chooses to. He uses an incredible amount of 'übrigens' (by the way) and 'doch/ja' (after all). He uses very few expressions. When writing dialogues, he does not change his expressions for 'saying'. He continues with 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt', 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt' and so forth. He chooses it, it is not that he could not change it. An editor would have problems with that.
Face it, there is a sort of sloppiness in his work which is part of him, but which a serious 19th-early 20ieth century editor would not have accepted. He only got a small number of his work published while living. Most of it was published after his death; Why do you think? Part of the problem was his writing style.
His greatest merit, and I do not say 'literary merit' because his language is nothing special, is what is behind his text (impressions v appearances v perception; outsiders in society and reasons; obsessions with administrative organisation; father v son; existentialism of Kierkegaard). That is acknowledged by most as well. That you, as a reader, have to go deeper in order to really enjoy his work, because on the surface there is a sea of words, no more. And mostly such in consistent things that happen that you are at a loss which the bloody hell is happening anyway. In order to preserve your own sanity, you better look at what is behind it.


I never claimed he has no message. I said nobody knows what is Kafka message. The interpretation of Kafka is a hot topic of XX century literature, due to his allegorism and Koening guide is just one of thousands options. Nobody reads Kafka because Kafka message - but because of his merits and people try to product their own interpretation.

Oh, and you think Koenig and the other company which publishes those companions have no public to sell them to? Their production is only charity no doubt. That companion was one which was used in schools. I looked at them all and they pretty much put the same introductions forward, only written in different wording by another author of course which, for your information, were connected to universities. Those companions are especially marketed towards the school student and written in silmple language.
The claim that no-one knows Kafka's message is utterly ridiculous.


Obviously, people can do it with any text. So, why to bother to pull them Classics?

People cannot do it with any text simply because any text does not offer the same depth. Some texts are just superficial, only surface and nothing more. Amongst the deeper texts, there are those which are easier and those which are not so easy to discover. Any idea why Jane Eyre is so popular? Because it offers straight away some discussable ideas about women which are obvious and do not require such extensive analysis, secondary texts, philosophy etc. Still, analysis is analysis. As such, if you start on Brontë's view on women for example, then you are doing it. It doesn't need to be difficult in order to be effective. Things become more tricky in terms of Hardy's Tess for example. There you could discuss whether Hardy meant to make her a feeble or strong woman. And that is without becoming feminist because it should be mentioned that neither Jane Eyre nor Tess are not really an argument for raving feminists, despite them having made that of it.


I am not talking about Beauty at all. Discussing aesthetics has nothing to do with telling - or showing - moralization of literature teaching do more harm than good and the guys editing Twain are actually doing exactly that.

I am with Mutatis if I say that moral messages should not be imposed if they are not inherent to the text. Though, ff Twain disapproved of slavery then that should be taught, and his views on it discovered, the way he does that t the same time, and while doing it, you could discover the concept of satire.

Can you finally tell me what you consider 'literary merit' by the way, as I am now at a loss what you conider it to be if it is not a message/opinion of the author at any time, nor aesthetics...

And then I am also puzzled at what you do with allegories or pieces that are possible but which clearly evoke a theory like Cyrano de Bergerac which despises nice words without contents and mock that idea. If you only teach the literary merit of it, in my mind aesthetics, which is clearly abundant, you might as well not bother as that was clearly not the purpose of the piece.

[Paulclem]

I think the editing may well be a good approach to schooling children in the related but complex race issues around race and language. Certainly slave is easier to understand for the younger kids, whereas the term Nigger has more complex contemporary and historical associations. I'm not against editing for this reason. It's not as if the unedited book is being banned - it's still available to follow up for older kids.

[JCamilo]

In order to re-interpret the message, the message must be understood. I think you get that.

No, it does not. That is why in Belgium people do not teach in depth anything. Understanding the text is not similar to understanding the message. Interpretation creates a third "object" from the symbols (and their union). You may produce a message even without ever understanding what the author ever wanted to write, which is far from literal form.




Here you go again. You twist my words again. I said when it comes to his text alone he has little literary merit. Some, maybe, in his brilliant moments (which he definitely has) he has literary merit, but that is not even half of his text. I have read him in German and his language is... normal. Not more pompous, not more sophisticated than the average letter he wrote. He rarely uses metaphor explicitly. Apart from the extended and implicit metaphors in his Metamorphosis for example, which is the message, so according to your theory we must disregard that completely and think that Samsa really became a cockroach or rodent or whatever.


No, I did not misunderstood or twisted your words. Your position is fragile, easy to be contested that is all. You attempted to justify the reading of a canonical author by claiming he is read because of his (1)message and (2)not because his literary merits which are few.

(1) The message of Kafka is not an universal consensus. People debate about it over and over. It is a huge mistery even because they consider the interference of Max Brody on the editions of the text. His texts are compared often to a new kabala. And you do not get it well, claiming his metaphors (sic) are a message (geez, a metaphor is not a message, it is the code that the metaphor implies that is the message) and not either the literal form of the text.

(2)I listed some of reasons of his litery merit. And they are find intensily on his work. Even in his letters. By such, it should be enough to dismiss those claims of Kafka's minor literary merits. But you insist, and it is not much good. You mention again the pompous and not sophisticated (sic) language and seems to fail to understand that short story writers are not meant to use pompous language. The order is the simplification of language aiming for higher impact. That is Poe rule, Maupassant, Tchekhov, Borges, Hemingway and all of them are using language with quality and style; It is not a lack of merit, but a merit of higher order. And to end, Kafka didnt use metaphors, he use allegories, which increases the difficulty of interpretation of his texts considerably. But it also shows a domain of form and modernization of jewish culture that allow him to stand out in XX century by his litery merit.


Kafka only uses comparisons extensively in the most boring way. He uses the same word for the same thing three times in one sentence because he chooses to. He uses an incredible amount of 'übrigens' (by the way) and 'doch/ja' (after all). He uses very few expressions. When writing dialogues, he does not change his expressions for 'saying'. He continues with 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt', 'sagte K', 'sagte der Wirt' and so forth. He chooses it, it is not that he could not change it. An editor would have problems with that.

An editor would have problem with Kafka? And with Joyce? And with Faulkner? And hell, J.K.Rowling had problems! Good argument. I find boring when I see - or : , and frankly, those, if problems are considerable minor, if compared to his merits.



Face it, there is a sort of sloppiness in his work which is part of him, but which a serious 19th-early 20ieth century editor would not have accepted. He only got a small number of his work published while living. Most of it was published after his death; Why do you think? Part of the problem was his writing style.

And after his death the editors felt pity for him? Do you want a number of great writers who had problem to publish? Who had the majority of works published after life? And please, Kafka barelly submit his works to avaliation. He barelly finished them in first place.



His greatest merit, and I do not say 'literary merit' because his language is nothing special, is what is behind his text (impressions v appearances v perception; outsiders in society and reasons; obsessions with administrative organisation; father v son; existentialism of Kierkegaard). That is acknowledged by most as well. That you, as a reader, have to go deeper in order to really enjoy his work, because on the surface there is a sea of words, no more. And mostly such in consistent things that happen that you are at a loss which the bloody hell is happening anyway. In order to preserve your own sanity, you better look at what is behind it.

There is some themes in Kafka that repeat but thoyse are irrelevant. How Kafka do it is his merit and he does and it is highly aknowledged by it.




Oh, and you think Koenig and the other company which publishes those companions have no public to sell them to? Their production is only charity no doubt. That companion was one which was used in schools. I looked at them all and they pretty much put the same introductions forward, only written in different wording by another author of course which, for your information, were connected to universities. Those companions are especially marketed towards the school student and written in silmple language.
The claim that no-one knows Kafka's message is utterly ridiculous.

That is why there is a extensive discussion about the message in Kafka that dates from the 30's. They never had a bigger consensus and you can pick even similar writers like Borges, Eco, Calvino and will see they interpreted the work differently. But hey, I love to be ridiculous, dont you remember? That time when I claimed Kafka had few literary merit...




People cannot do it with any text simply because any text does not offer the same depth. Some texts are just superficial, only surface and nothing more. Amongst the deeper texts, there are those which are easier and those which are not so easy to discover.


To simple exercise their reading? They can do with any text. Rowling, Dan Brown, Kafka, Twain, Rapper musics, the daily papper, this thing we write here. That is why libraries do not offer only classical books, they offer any book that will allow the person to continue reading. That has nothing to do with higher interpretation of classical texts.


Any idea why Jane Eyre is so poptular? Because it offers straight away some discussable ideas about women which are obvious and do not require such extensive analysis, secondary texts, philosophy etc. Still, analysis is analysis. As such, if you start on Brontë's view on women for example, then you are doing it. It doesn't need to be difficult in order to be effective. Things become more tricky in terms of Hardy's Tess for example. There you could discuss whether Hardy meant to make her a feeble or strong woman. And that is without becoming feminist because it should be mentioned that neither Jane Eyre nor Tess are not really an argument for raving feminists, despite them having made that of it.

Do you really think those minor irrelevant detail, hooks as you say, really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses of a text done inside academies?




I am with Mutatis if I say that moral messages should not be imposed if they are not inherent to the text. Though, ff Twain disapproved of slavery then that should be taught, and his views on it discovered, the way he does that t the same time, and while doing it, you could discover the concept of satire.

Twain position is quite easily, but saying "Twain disaproves slavery" (a content that should be discovered reading the text) is not a moralization and not even near to a moral discussion of the text.


Can you finally tell me what you consider 'literary merit' by the way, as I am now at a loss what you conider it to be if it is not a message/opinion of the author at any time, nor aesthetics...


Literary merit is of course the aesthetics merit, but I am not discussing the systems of aesthetics. It is a red herring taking away from the main theme: Why some books are picked in school and with which objective. I do not need to say what are Shakespeare literary merits to discussion.


And then I am also puzzled at what you do with allegories or pieces that are possible but which clearly evoke a theory like Cyrano de Bergerac which despises nice words without contents and mock that idea. If you only teach the literary merit of it, in my mind aesthetics, which is clearly abundant, you might as well not bother as that was clearly not the purpose of the piece.

Sorry, but this phrase is confuse. Cyrano the author? Cyrano the play? And when did I said anything about teaching to kids in school the literary merit?

[kiki1982]

(1) The message of Kafka is not an universal consensus. People debate about it over and over. It is a huge mistery even because they consider the interference of Max Brody on the editions of the text. His texts are compared often to a new kabala. And you do not get it well, claiming his metaphors (sic) are a message (geez, a metaphor is not a message, it is the code that the metaphor implies that is the message) and not either the literal form of the text.

Did I ever claim there needed to be consensus to discuss something? Consensus is not needed for discussion; even worse, there would be no discussion. The message is not unique.
There are rarely metaphors in his texts. He does not use them. Apart from extended metaphors like Samsa turning into a rodent of some kind (Ungeziefer). Otherwise he uses comparisons. ('as if/als ob...'). Have you ever read him in German?


(2)I listed some of reasons of his litery merit. And they are find intensily on his work. Even in his letters. By such, it should be enough to dismiss those claims of Kafka's minor literary merits. But you insist, and it is not much good. You mention again the pompous and not sophisticated (sic) language and seems to fail to understand that short story writers are not meant to use pompous language. The order is the simplification of language aiming for higher impact. That is Poe rule, Maupassant, Tchekhov, Borges, Hemingway and all of them are using language with quality and style; It is not a lack of merit, but a merit of higher order. And to end, Kafka didnt use metaphors, he use allegories, which increases the difficulty of interpretation of his texts considerably. But it also shows a domain of form and modernization of jewish culture that allow him to stand out in XX century by his litery merit.

He did not only write short stories. Far from. And even then, in the German, tradition, his language is very very direct. Though Kleist also wrote some short stories, his language is by far more flowing than Kafka's.


An editor would have problem with Kafka? And with Joyce? And with Faulkner? And hell, J.K.Rowling had problems! Good argument. I find boring when I see - or : , and frankly, those, if problems are considerable minor, if compared to his merits.

Brod did a lot to persuade publishers to publish Kafka's work. If it wasn't for him and for a few academics claiming great genius (not because of 'literary merit' as amongst Germans here he is considered to be awfully boring and scary), Kafka would not have achieved so great an image. It depends of course how his work is translated, but I did not have great impressions of him.


To simple exercise their reading? They can do with any text. Rowling, Dan Brown, Kafka, Twain, Rapper musics, the daily papper, this thing we write here. That is why libraries do not offer only classical books, they offer any book that will allow the person to continue reading. That has nothing to do with higher interpretation of classical texts.

I said "'reading'", not reading. With Dan Brown there is nothing to practise. It is plot-driven, that is all. 'Reading' on the other hand is different and requires skill. If reading is all that is taught, then it does not surprise me how there are so many posts on the General Literature Forum that are about 'getting' books. People learn to read, but not to 'read'.


Do you really think those minor irrelevant detail, hooks as you say, really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses of a text done inside academies?

Oh, and so analysis is nothing but academic, is it? Really... That is ridiculous and you know it.


Literary merit is of course the aesthetics merit, but I am not discussing the systems of aesthetics. It is a red herring taking away from the main theme: Why some books are picked in school and with which objective. I do not need to say what are Shakespeare literary merits to discussion.

So essentially, you do know what it is, but you are refusing to discuss it because it is not relevant to the discussion, tough we have been discussing that for a few posts now. That is at least to be called iffy.


Sorry, but this phrase is confuse. Cyrano the author? Cyrano the play? And when did I said anything about teaching to kids in school the literary merit?

So you did not at all say:

"You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature."

You definitely imply that the way to interest the kid is reading the book by literary merit, so to educate the child about what is literary merit and how to recognise it. I am at a loss how you do that. You cannot, under no circumstances, demand someone to like something.

And what 'Cyrano the author'? CdB is in italics which means that I am talking about the play. So not confusing. So what do you do with that? The play despises only words and wit. What do you do with it if not teaching the purpose of the play, namely satirising the whole thing, the pastoral, and the 'billets doux de Voiture'? The pastoral side of the play, the love poems, the wit which Roxanne desires above contents? That is clearly pointless.

[billl]

I think the editing may well be a good approach to schooling children in the related but complex race issues around race and language. Certainly slave is easier to understand for the younger kids, whereas the term Nigger has more complex contemporary and historical associations. I'm not against editing for this reason. It's not as if the unedited book is being banned - it's still available to follow up for older kids.

I agree Paul, but it is worth considering if it might be better to just make the kids wait until they are ready for the real thing. If we want a book that just gives the message and plot, then a complete re-write and edit might be nice--just a picture book or something (and teach it when they are learning to read, maybe. Or is that too young?). Once they can read a novel, then I think we may as well wait until they are ready for the real thing.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that there might very well be a temptation to extend this new version's use even into some colleges and universities, or have it in bookstores next to the real one (and probably winning some sales among those casual readers who just think the word is bad, want to do the 'right thing', and haven't considered the other issues, such as author's voice, honesty about history, their personal ability to navigate controversy, slippery slopes, etc.). I don't think the original would ever disappear, of course, or even lose status as the by-far-most-used version, but still...

[qimissung]

I think replacing the word "nigger" with "slave" in Huckleberry Finn is a mistake. There are, however, many books that have special children's editions. I have never entirely supported these either.

In the long run I think replacing this controversial pejorative is just another way of hiding from ourselves the racial problems that continue to exist in our country. For me the whole last section of the book in which Tom concocts his elaborate scheme to free Jim by, among other things, digging a tunnel, is far more painful than the author's use of the word "nigger," and which, yes, to me did seem racist, even though I knew the book was a satire. As it is, Huck Finn was among the first books in America to present a black man as a fully rounded character. Perhaps the book is flawed in it's presentation, but I don't think it can be argued that Jim is the heart and soul of the book, the one decent human being of the lot of them. Huck is sympathetic in his moral struggle and does, to my eyes, prevail. In part, Twain was against "book learnin'" as Huck might have called it. He vastly preferred the school of life as an educator and I think this can be seen in the book. He said of Huck Finn that it was "...a book of mine where a sound heart and a deformed conscience come into collision and conscience suffers defeat."

I think whether or not Huck Finn is a racist novel or not will be discussed until the end of time. To me that is not the problem. We look at this book, discuss it's themes, and hopefully we are in the end able to turn it around and ask hard questions of ourselves.

I haven't ever taught Huck Finn, but I have taught To Kill a Mockingbird which uses the "N" word also. My students and I discussed whether or not to read the word as used or gloss over it as I did above. They told me that it didn't bother them, and in the end we did a little of both. I found it surprisingly hard to say.

When I read Huck Finn in college the professor asked the lone African-American student in the class if she found it racist. She did. Even so, or perhaps for that very reason we should continue to read Huck Finn, in and out of the classroom, in its original form. And Uncle Tom's Cabin and Frederick Douglass' slave narrative. There is no end of ways we human beings find to mistreat each other, and literature is one of the best ways I can think of to discuss these various themes, in addition to the fact that they are worthy as literature in and of themselves.

[JCamilo]

Did I ever claim there needed to be consensus to discuss something? Consensus is not needed for discussion; even worse, there would be no discussion. The message is not unique.
There are rarely metaphors in his texts. He does not use them. Apart from extended metaphors like Samsa turning into a rodent of some kind (Ungeziefer). Otherwise he uses comparisons. ('as if/als ob...'). Have you ever read him in German?

Do not cling in another word: if there is no consensus this imply that people have no clear idea about his message, which imply: people is not reading because of the message Kafka left in his work(if any message at all) but for another reason.
I have not read in german, I have only the understandment of what a metaphor is (which is a kind of comparassion in the end of the day) and that the crawling thing Samsa turns is not one.




He did not only write short stories. Far from. And even then, in the German, tradition, his language is very very direct. Though Kleist also wrote some short stories, his language is by far more flowing than Kafka's.

He is basically a short story writer. America, Castle, The process are his "novels", Metamorphosis falling on that shadow line between short stories and novels, because of the size. Short stories and texts are the majority of his texts (excluding diaries, aforism, letters) and his longer texts are born from shorter stories he expanded. Also his style is clearly a short story style, derivated from hebrewish parables.




Brod did a lot to persuade publishers to publish Kafka's work. If it wasn't for him and for a few academics claiming great genius (not because of 'literary merit' as amongst Germans here he is considered to be awfully boring and scary), Kafka would not have achieved so great an image. It depends of course how his work is translated, but I did not have great impressions of him.

Ridiculous, Brod did it when Kafka was alive also. The attempt to claim his "lack of literary merit" kept him from publishing while alive when it was ok when he was death, as if his death made him some celebrity is really low.
Trying to imply he is also imposed by academic text is ridiculous and the germans are the first to discover him (much due to gues like Walter Benjamin) who may find him scary but praized his style.
It is pathetic to imply the writer who "taught" Gabriel Garcia Marquez to writer depends on this fake fabrication of him or even near of "great impressions" as if Your opinion can change he runs up as one of the most influential writers of XX century.




I said "'reading'", not reading. With Dan Brown there is nothing to practise. It is plot-driven, that is all. 'Reading' on the other hand is different and requires skill. If reading is all that is taught, then it does not surprise me how there are so many posts on the General Literature Forum that are about 'getting' books. People learn to read, but not to 'read'.

It is funny, but this all started because someone is worried with changing a single word and how it would affected reading, and the only reading it can affect is the literal comprehension.
And you can pratice with any text, any form of reading. Dan Brown even, because that is how you perceive how esterile it is.




Oh, and so analysis is nothing but academic, is it? Really... That is ridiculous and you know it.

Are you ignorining the "really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses " previously on purpose? Are you really trying to transform a question in an afirmation? Really?



So essentially, you do know what it is, but you are refusing to discuss it because it is not relevant to the discussion, tough we have been discussing that for a few posts now. That is at least to be called iffy.

We have never discussed that. It is irrelevant for the discussion because we are not discussing if Twain have aesthetic merits and just if the book must be taught due their literary merits.
You may have been sliding aside trying to imply the ridiculous notion of Kafka have few liteary merits, but it is not the debate here. If yu want we can all go to the Kafka section for this.




So you did not at all say:

"You do not teach it to kids. When you are trying to educate people and form future readers, not explain literature process with them in first place. A book is read by its literary merits, which implies a greater possibility of interesting the kid and pleasing her. Not because it explains the history of literature."

You definitely imply that the way to interest the kid is reading the book by literary merit, so to educate the child about what is literary merit and how to recognise it. I am at a loss how you do that. You cannot, under no circumstances, demand someone to like something.

No, I did not said it. I said book is read by its literary merits. Not that kids or anyone need to deeply understand those literary merits. Two completely different things. And it is not even the kids who pick which books they read at school, so I have no idea how you joined the two ideas.
And you can not, that is why people go for books with high appraisal and literary merits - they have the tendency to be liked and provoke pleasure, but considering it is not matemathical people may dislike them (hence you show to people a broad list, not a narrow).


And what 'Cyrano the author'? CdB is in italics which means that I am talking about the play. So not confusing. So what do you do with that? The play despises only words and wit. What do you do with it if not teaching the purpose of the play, namely satirising the whole thing, the pastoral, and the 'billets doux de Voiture'? The pastoral side of the play, the love poems, the wit which Roxanne desires above contents? That is clearly pointless.

Funny, I made my sisters read the play and said nothing about it. Apparently, they liked and I have not said a word about being a satyre. There a hundred satyres, Cyrano survives due to its literary merits and surprise, you can read it, like it without even going on about "theory"...
Thinking when, when I first read it I had no idea about that also... So, how I do. Read. Easy.

[kiki1982]

Do not cling in another word: if there is no consensus this imply that people have no clear idea about his message, which imply: people is not reading because of the message Kafka left in his work(if any message at all) but for another reason.
I have not read in german, I have only the understandment of what a metaphor is (which is a kind of comparassion in the end of the day) and that the crawling thing Samsa turns is not one.

Samsa's metamorphosis is an extended metaphor for the simple fact that Samsa is compared to an Ungeziefer, an animal which is not accepted by society as being appropriate, which is desired to be dead, which is considered to be dirty. Is it coming yet? Is your penny dropping?
I never implied that the unique message of a work should be taught. Simply because in most cases there is no unique message. As you are aware, there are always several interpretations possible. Not even all those should be taught, the art of making one should be taught by practice.
It was taught in my school for a whole year.


He is basically a short story writer. America, Castle, The process are his "novels", Metamorphosis falling on that shadow line between short stories and novels, because of the size. Short stories and texts are the majority of his texts (excluding diaries, aforism, letters) and his longer texts are born from shorter stories he expanded. Also his style is clearly a short story style, derivated from hebrewish parables.

And so from that you conclude what? I have read short stories in German, am now doing Kleist, and that style is nothing like Kafka. The symbolism, yes, not the use of wording. Kafka did not even know Hebrew, because he had never had a formal Jewish education apart from his Bar Mitzwah (?).


It is funny, but this all started because someone is worried with changing a single word and how it would affected reading, and the only reading it can affect is the literal comprehension.
And you can pratice with any text, any form of reading. Dan Brown even, because that is how you perceive how esterile it is.

The argument clearly goes past your understanding. If the literal comprehension is affected, then also attempted understanding.


Are you ignorining the "really equate to a deepth in understanding or analyses " previously on purpose?

Do you consider analysis to be 'understanding'? I thought that was something totally different.


We have never discussed that. It is irrelevant for the discussion because we are not discussing if Twain have aesthetic merits and just if the book must be taught due their literary merits.
You may have been sliding aside trying to imply the ridiculous notion of Kafka have few liteary merits, but it is not the debate here. If yu want we can all go to the Kafka section for this.

The fact you are ignoring the question would suggest you actually do not know the answer.
If you are a teacher and you teach books, and read books, by their literary merit then you know what it is. I must have a clear misconception of literary merit and I want to be helped.
On the mere surface, Kafka is not easy flowing, it could be a lot shorter, a lot more edited, a lot less stop and start. It is his style, with brilliant moments (again!), BUT that does not do away with any of the faults which I adress most honestly.


No, I did not said it. I said book is read by its literary merits. Not that kids or anyone need to deeply understand those literary merits. Two completely different things. And it is not even the kids who pick which books they read at school, so I have no idea how you joined the two ideas.
And you can not, that is why people go for books with high appraisal and literary merits - they have the tendency to be liked and provoke pleasure, but considering it is not matemathical people may dislike them (hence you show to people a broad list, not a narrow).

Oh, so literary merit is deeper than the surface. We are getting somewhere.


Funny, I made my sisters read the play and said nothing about it. Apparently, they liked and I have not said a word about being a satyre. There a hundred satyres, Cyrano survives due to its literary merits and surprise, you can read it, like it without even going on about "theory"...
Thinking when, when I first read it I had no idea about that also... So, how I do. Read. Easy.

Easy, yes, that's the word. Still, education is not about it being easy, and neither is reading about 'liking' it alone. Compare it to a present. A present is good when? When it is something you like/want/useful to you. It is not about the decoration on the outside, is it. I may be wrong though. Would you be happy with an empty box that was nicely wrapped up?

[JCamilo]

Samsa's metamorphosis is an extended metaphor for the simple fact that Samsa is compared to an Ungeziefer, an animal which is not accepted by society as being appropriate, which is desired to be dead, which is considered to be dirty. Is it coming yet? Is your penny dropping?

This is not a metaphor... Fables compare humans to animals, they are allegories. Not all comparassions are metaphors. Kafka made an allegory.


I never implied that the unique message of a work should be taught. Simply because in most cases there is no unique message. As you are aware, there are always several interpretations possible. Not even all those should be taught, the art of making one should be taught by practice.
It was taught in my school for a whole year.

You implied that literature is the teaching of a message. This is false, as evidenced by the fact messages are even lost. Some advocate that poetry for example must be felt.
It is you who is narrowing the definition by your experience, all I need to point is who it can be done differently to show that your argument is false.




And so from that you conclude what? I have read short stories in German, am now doing Kleist, and that style is nothing like Kafka. The symbolism, yes, not the use of wording. Kafka did not even know Hebrew, because he had never had a formal Jewish education apart from his Bar Mitzwah (?).

It implies kafka style is one of the short story writer. Now, stop being ridiculous. I read in germany? So what? I already mentioned Borges here, I do not need to mention anything else to anyone about Kafka relation to short stories.




The argument clearly goes past your understanding. If the literal comprehension is affected, then also attempted understanding.

Irrelevant. You are abusing your lucky by mentioning my penny dropping or how the argument past my understanding. You should bring evidence of how the reading of any text will or not affect the capacity of the reader. After all, people do not read Finnegans Wake, Borges or Dante, who are considerable more complex than all others - they develop their capacity in simpler texts.




Do you consider analysis to be 'understanding'? I thought that was something totally different.

Please, enlighten me how you will understand anything without the proper analyse or study of the subject? Apple falling in your head?




The fact you are ignoring the question would suggest you actually do not know the answer.

Please, do not be annoying. The question is not What is aesthetic. Nobody even discussed the aesthetic merits of Twain, it is assumed he has those merits. Go to first post and demand him a fully detailed explanation of Twain merits, since it is necessary to answer the topic in question. Apparently, you didnt (in fact you are the only one trying to prove an accepted writer of literary merit that you dislike has no such merits, taking the discussion to another turn).



If you are a teacher and you teach books, and read books, by their literary merit then you know what it is. I must have a clear misconception of literary merit and I want to be helped.

Which is no problem. I would have no problem to talk with you about literary merit, but it is not the topic in question neither, as you suggested, implies that I have no idea what is.
Now, teachers in school rarely are specialists (hence why the suggestion they can teach deeper the books is a bit hilarious, they can not teach what they do not have domain) and they most of time, accept the books they receive from tradition or authorities.


On the mere surface, Kafka is not easy flowing, it could be a lot shorter, a lot more edited, a lot less stop and start. It is his style, with brilliant moments (again!), BUT that does not do away with any of the faults which I adress most honestly.

On mere surface, Goethe is not easy flowing, it could be a lot shorter, a lot more edited, a lot less flights and falls. It is his style, with brillant moments (first time!), BUT that does not do away with any of the faults which I adres most honestly.

Easy, all great writer is only brillant at his moments. Even Dante or Shakespeare could be improved. Dom Quixote is a masterwork and has a lot of flaws and his merits wash away the flaws, just like Metamorphosis or Hunger Artist wash away all those so called flaws (stop and start is not a flaw, watever it means, be longer or short much less) and place Kafka as one of the best writers of XX century, able to make Borges and Marquez be writers. The fact you disliked him and his style does not change it.



Oh, so literary merit is deeper than the surface. We are getting somewhere.

You are not in position to use irony, you know.




Easy, yes, that's the word. Still, education is not about it being easy, and neither is reading about 'liking' it alone. Compare it to a present. A present is good when? When it is something you like/want/useful to you. It is not about the decoration on the outside, is it. I may be wrong though. Would you be happy with an empty box that was nicely wrapped up?

Actually, when reggarding young readers, most of the educators will rather agree it is only about making them like to read. And frankly, you may like a present just because you liked it? Enterteiment? Sentimental reckonigtion? You know, those functions of literature? The exemplary majority of population do not read a novel and go to quest what is historical relation between the texts, how the form was developed, etc. They just read.
The same goes for Cyrano, after all the majority of "readers (or viewers, since it is a play) relate to the failed love story and the big nose comedy, not the dialogue with other forms of literature.
In my first post I said and I turn to say, the real question about Twain banning is defining why this book is read in schools in first place. What is the intention. It is rather obvious highly specialized readers are beyond the word Nigger, they are aware that Twain was not always such guy, they will know the story of American literature, Melville most likely and his clear literary racism (albeit, I imagine what would happen if Moby turn to be a popular offensive nickname to fat albinos) and they do not need the editing. But you are talking about teens who are reading Twain for, most likely, the first time. I assume, Twain is some short of introdutory novel for american literature, considering the more difficult Moby Dick and the puritanism of Hawthorne are out of fashion. It is to those readers, under that context you must address the question, not to people who are able, just by reading, to say what kind of metric is used in a verse.

[kiki1982]

This is not a metaphor... Fables compare humans to animals, they are allegories. Not all comparassions are metaphors. Kafka made an allegory.

Please, you know well enough (or you should at least) that an allegory is an extended metaphor, just as a fable. A metaphor is an implicit comparison, and in that an allegory is an extended metaphor as it implicitly compares the one to the other, but makes a whole story of it. By the way, fables are not allegories. Same as parables are no allegories either.


You implied that literature is the teaching of a message. This is false, as evidenced by the fact messages are even lost. Some advocate that poetry for example must be felt.
It is you who is narrowing the definition by your experience, all I need to point is who it can be done differently to show that your argument is false.

Messages can be interpreted differently. There are very few works that do not speak with the reader anymore and which are still read. Shakespeare possibly sought his public to entertain different thoughts, or may have had more simple morals in mind (goes around what comes around), but it does not mean that the idea about King Lear's excessive narcism is lost, does it?


It implies kafka style is one of the short story writer. Now, stop being ridiculous. I read in germany? So what? I already mentioned Borges here, I do not need to mention anything else to anyone about Kafka relation to short stories.

So what? How do you know he has not been mistranslated? A lot of those translations are much too idiomatic to be as uneventful as Kafka in German.


Irrelevant. You are abusing your lucky by mentioning my penny dropping or how the argument past my understanding. You should bring evidence of how the reading of any text will or not affect the capacity of the reader. After all, people do not read Finnegans Wake, Borges or Dante, who are considerable more complex than all others - they develop their capacity in simpler texts.

You said it yourself, you do not start with texts like Dante. Why? Surely not because the aesthetics, as those are the same to everyone, are too difficult to understand. To appreciate them, you do not need knowledge, only eyes and a brain process. Maybe a dictionary.


Please, enlighten me how you will understand anything without the proper analyse or study of the subject? Apple falling in your head?

An apple cannot fall "in my head". Anywho, it does not require a five year study to understand a book, you do not need to write papers of 300 pages on it for another period of five years. You need to know the basics of motif, theme, quoting, types of stories, devices writers employ in order to bring meaning to their work (imagery, setting). It does not require such a lot of study, just a maximum of a mere two years teaching 4 hours a week, going by the system I attended. And, if anything, even if you do not use it anymroe because you are too lazy, at least you have learned analytical thinking which can also go a ong way in any subject.


Please, do not be annoying. The question is not What is aesthetic. Nobody even discussed the aesthetic merits of Twain, it is assumed he has those merits. Go to first post and demand him a fully detailed explanation of Twain merits, since it is necessary to answer the topic in question. Apparently, you didnt (in fact you are the only one trying to prove an accepted writer of literary merit that you dislike has no such merits, taking the discussion to another turn).

So, actually, to be really blunt, people are teaching books by their literary merit, because those books are considered to have it, but actually the teachers don't necessarily see it themselves. So what are they teaching, if it is not motives, imagery, and the like? Permit me to call that interesting.


Which is no problem. I would have no problem to talk with you about literary merit, but it is not the topic in question neither, as you suggested, implies that I have no idea what is.
Now, teachers in school rarely are specialists (hence why the suggestion they can teach deeper the books is a bit hilarious, they can not teach what they do not have domain) and they most of time, accept the books they receive from tradition or authorities.

I would hope they are educated enough and are able to 'read' and not merely read as the normal person on the street does the street sign... At least my teachers were, the one a bit more driven than the other, but still... They had studied 4 years of that language, the history of that language, of its literature and of its nation. And added to that, general literature, general linguistics as well.


On mere surface, Goethe is not easy flowing, it could be a lot shorter, a lot more edited, a lot less flights and falls. It is his style, with brillant moments (first time!), BUT that does not do away with any of the faults which I adres most honestly.

Oh, no, not more flowing. I can tell you, he flows very well in his Leiden/Sorrows. The only thing you could call it is a little oversentimental and bourgeois ('kleinbürgerlich') (Biedermeier, closed to any outside bad influence), but that has to do with the time, though. For the rest, he is not pompous, not stop and start, no nothing. Surprising. Like Kleist.


Easy, all great writer is only brillant at his moments. Even Dante or Shakespeare could be improved. Dom Quixote is a masterwork and has a lot of flaws and his merits wash away the flaws, just like Metamorphosis or Hunger Artist wash away all those so called flaws (stop and start is not a flaw, watever it means, be longer or short much less) and place Kafka as one of the best writers of XX century, able to make Borges and Marquez be writers. The fact you disliked him and his style does not change it.

Oh, I agree that Kafka is one of the best, but not merely because of his text alone though. If that was the only thing there was (think Dan Brown), there would be little to read. It's the things behind it which are mindboggling. AND, I believe that The Metamorphosis is not so good as The Castle. I would argue that that story, although it is unfinished, is one of the most intricate and well-crafted I have read. Not down to his text.


Actually, when reggarding young readers, most of the educators will rather agree it is only about making them like to read. And frankly, you may like a present just because you liked it? Enterteiment? Sentimental reckonigtion? You know, those functions of literature? The exemplary majority of population do not read a novel and go to quest what is historical relation between the texts, how the form was developed, etc. They just read.
The same goes for Cyrano, after all the majority of "readers (or viewers, since it is a play) relate to the failed love story and the big nose comedy, not the dialogue with other forms of literature.

And how do you make people like reading? Do you tell them, 'You will like it, now!' How do you make them interested. Do you tell them, 'Be interested, now!' It would seem very difficult. My class, at the time I was 17 read a famous Dutch book (Karakter, if you know it, it was made into an international film). The most straightforwardly written thing I have read in Dutch, a bit like Kafka really, but less brilliant in use of grammar. We did discuss the style, but not for very long. What is there to discuss? We went through all the possible motives, comparisons, metaphors, reasons for feelings, if there were any feelings, etc etc. I can tell you, that sparked the interest of most. Not the style. We did that with another book of Brouwers as well. That also sparked the itnerest of my classmates and me. The year after we had this teacher who was really to lazy to do any of it. Do you think anyone was interested? To be fair, she was little bit limited, becuse she had to teach us the history of the novel from about the end of the 18th century to now and so was limited to excerpts. Still, the teacher of the former year did a better job. I suppose because she was a reader? Both in English and Dutch.
Why do I like a present? Surely not because it is beautiful, but I can't use it? Surely not because it is nicely wrapped with a nice ribban? If someone gives me a porcelain dog of Wedgwood, I may be delighted or not. Delighted because I collect them and so the present has meaning to me. Not delighted, because I do not know what the bloody hell to do with it apart from stare at it. If the present has contents value for me, I will be delighted, otherise not.
Most people would probably relate more to Cyrano if they knew what the deal was, because then Cyrano's complex becomes a bigger problem than something merely to find funny and then his speeches become much more touching. That is probably why the play is considered the greatest in French lit. At first sight, the thing is funny and a bit pathetic, at second sight the thing is heartbreaking. What is more meaningful?


In my first post I said and I turn to say, the real question about Twain banning is defining why this book is read in schools in first place. What is the intention. It is rather obvious highly specialized readers are beyond the word Nigger, they are aware that Twain was not always such guy, they will know the story of American literature, Melville most likely and his clear literary racism (albeit, I imagine what would happen if Moby turn to be a popular offensive nickname to fat albinos) and they do not need the editing. But you are talking about teens who are reading Twain for, most likely, the first time. I assume, Twain is some short of introdutory novel for american literature, considering the more difficult Moby Dick and the puritanism of Hawthorne are out of fashion. It is to those readers, under that context you must address the question, not to people who are able, just by reading, to say what kind of metric is used in a verse.

And yet this professor Parry seemed to argue that putting the word 'slave' in place of 'nigger' is actually taking the ambiguity away. 'Nigger' is a derogatory word but not impersonal where 'slave' is. As such, even a person who fully understands this work is aware that ALSO for people who are 'beyond the word "Nigger"' it is no good to change it in such a manner. You are not supposed to know, by reading a book/criticism/whatever, that Twain is not such a guy, you need to notice it, it needs to be written down. On what is that criticim otherwise based? The ambiguity of that relationship between those two people, that is the argument. Where are you with the argument if you leave a part of it out?

At any rate, they should have addressed the same topic in history class, so there should be no problem in them knowing, only seeing a contemporary view on it. Or is that maybe the problem?

[JCamilo]

Please, you know well enough (or you should at least) that an allegory is an extended metaphor, just as a fable. A metaphor is an implicit comparison, and in that an allegory is an extended metaphor as it implicitly compares the one to the other, but makes a whole story of it. By the way, fables are not allegories. Same as parables are no allegories either.

Allegories and metaphors are not the same thing. They once were grouped as symbolism, but was the medieval thinking. Since englightment, they are clearly appart. Goethe, Coleridge, Poe, Tolkien, Borges, Chesterton, Ruskin, Umberto Eco all treat them as different things. There is even a serious (unserious as all those debates are) huge debate against the use of allegories and the use of metaphors (because allegories do tend to be more obscures) that lasted until the XX century (when basically Kafka and Borges ended with that due their heavy allegorism). One is a symbol that moves from universal sphere to a particular meaning, and the other uses a particular symbol to a universal meaning.
Fables are notorious allegories (you may find parables or fables who are not, but most of the time, they are), and an extended metaphor is composed of metaphors. The kind of wikipedia deffinition is just a form to ignore a considerable ammount of literary history. But them, there may be some translation noise.




Messages can be interpreted differently. There are very few works that do not speak with the reader anymore and which are still read. Shakespeare possibly sought his public to entertain different thoughts, or may have had more simple morals in mind (goes around what comes around), but it does not mean that the idea about King Lear's excessive narcism is lost, does it?

Irrelevant, the transmition of a given message is not literature, the prime objective of literature, neither the prime objective of reading.



So what? How do you know he has not been mistranslated? A lot of those translations are much too idiomatic to be as uneventful as Kafka in German.

Now Kafka universal influence is due to mistranslations? Things are getting better... No, Borges read and speak german, having lived in Genebra and was a translator of Kafka to spanish.




You said it yourself, you do not start with texts like Dante. Why? Surely not because the aesthetics, as those are the same to everyone, are too difficult to understand. To appreciate them, you do not need knowledge, only eyes and a brain process. Maybe a dictionary.

not really, I read Dante with 10 years I had no idea even who Virgil was. And I loved it. Anyways, if the argument is "teaching "reading" needs to be developed by the most difficulty books and not by very easy, since you do not exercise with the most easier books, then you would start with the hardest, and that is not what happens.




An apple cannot fall "in my head". Anywho, it does not require a five year study to understand a book, you do not need to write papers of 300 pages on it for another period of five years. You need to know the basics of motif, theme, quoting, types of stories, devices writers employ in order to bring meaning to their work (imagery, setting). It does not require such a lot of study, just a maximum of a mere two years teaching 4 hours a week, going by the system I attended. And, if anything, even if you do not use it anymroe because you are too lazy, at least you have learned analytical thinking which can also go a ong way in any subject.

There is decades that Kafka specialists are debating over the meaning of Metamorphosis without reaching an end and you kids did it in 4 years? Nice. You obviously know this all you said can be done with Dan Brown also?




So, actually, to be really blunt, people are teaching books by their literary merit, because those books are considered to have it, but actually the teachers don't necessarily see it themselves. So what are they teaching, if it is not motives, imagery, and the like? Permit me to call that interesting.

I doubt a teacher who did not studies years those books can really teach those books - but surprise, they, lets quote borges, may be teaching just literature love?




I would hope they are educated enough and are able to 'read' and not merely read as the normal person on the street does the street sign... At least my teachers were, the one a bit more driven than the other, but still... They had studied 4 years of that language, the history of that language, of its literature and of its nation. And added to that, general literature, general linguistics as well.

In 4 years you are hardly near to understand the literature of your country.




Oh, no, not more flowing. I can tell you, he flows very well in his Leiden/Sorrows. The only thing you could call it is a little oversentimental and bourgeois ('kleinbürgerlich') (Biedermeier, closed to any outside bad influence), but that has to do with the time, though. For the rest, he is not pompous, not stop and start, no nothing. Surprising. Like Kleist.

I do not think Goethe is pompous, it was you that commented Kafka was not like Goethe and then said his language is not pompous.




Oh, I agree that Kafka is one of the best, but not merely because of his text alone though. If that was the only thing there was (think Dan Brown), there would be little to read. It's the things behind it which are mindboggling. AND, I believe that The Metamorphosis is not so good as The Castle. I would argue that that story, although it is unfinished, is one of the most intricate and well-crafted I have read. Not down to his text.

More of Kafka literary merit, his control of pace, use of K(haracter) and time-space distribution in the Castle.




And how do you make people like reading? Do you tell them, 'You will like it, now!' How do you make them interested. Do you tell them, 'Be interested, now!' It would seem very difficult. My class, at the time I was 17 read a famous Dutch book (Karakter, if you know it, it was made into an international film). The most straightforwardly written thing I have read in Dutch, a bit like Kafka really, but less brilliant in use of grammar. We did discuss the style, but not for very long. What is there to discuss? We went through all the possible motives, comparisons, metaphors, reasons for feelings, if there were any feelings, etc etc. I can tell you, that sparked the interest of most. Not the style.

Most of those things are probally controled by style, but people can even be interessed in the discussion of the movie (I think it is a 80's movie? Reasonable famous) spark the interest for most. There is not formula. But usually a good book best argument is the book itself.


We did that with another book of Brouwers as well. That also sparked the itnerest of my classmates and me. The year after we had this teacher who was really to lazy to do any of it. Do you think anyone was interested? To be fair, she was little bit limited, becuse she had to teach us the history of the novel from about the end of the 18th century to now and so was limited to excerpts. Still, the teacher of the former year did a better job. I suppose because she was a reader? Both in English and Dutch.


No idea. People use to gets kids reading by storytelling usually the same story in the book. Works.


Why do I like a present? Surely not because it is beautiful, but I can't use it? Surely not because it is nicely wrapped with a nice ribban? If someone gives me a porcelain dog of Wedgwood, I may be delighted or not. Delighted because I collect them and so the present has meaning to me. Not delighted, because I do not know what the bloody hell to do with it apart from stare at it. If the present has contents value for me, I will be delighted, otherise not.

I can listen several gifts who are liked because the pleasure they cause. You know, artworks? You know all those fancy dresses girls love?(an ugly dress is also useful), jewells? Jesus, those rich guys who buy paintings needs to know what it is?



Most people would probably relate more to Cyrano if they knew what the deal was, because then Cyrano's complex becomes a bigger problem than something merely to find funny and then his speeches become much more touching. That is probably why the play is considered the greatest in French lit. At first sight, the thing is funny and a bit pathetic, at second sight the thing is heartbreaking. What is more meaningful?

Is it? Racine, Moliere, Coreille may have something to say about. Nobody needs to understand anything, Shakespeare did not explained his plays at deepth at all.




And yet this professor Parry seemed to argue that putting the word 'slave' in place of 'nigger' is actually taking the ambiguity away. 'Nigger' is a derogatory word but not impersonal where 'slave' is. As such, even a person who fully understands this work is aware that ALSO for people who are 'beyond the word "Nigger"' it is no good to change it in such a manner.


Nigger is not more personal than slave. It is a general form of addressing ANY person with black color. Anyways, this absolutelly false. The world nigger is not translated to other languages and people understands that Huck moves from a prejudice to non-prejudice.
People who are full aware of Nigger past use, may have a point because they cann't see an example of Twain literary merit, which is the renovation of literary language by using "vulgar" words and expressions.


You are not supposed to know, by reading a book/criticism/whatever, that Twain is not such a guy, you need to notice it, it needs to be written down. On what is that criticim otherwise based? The ambiguity of that relationship between those two people, that is the argument. Where are you with the argument if you leave a part of it out?

In neither. It is in his biography.


At any rate, they should have addressed the same topic in history class, so there should be no problem in them knowing, only seeing a contemporary view on it. Or is that maybe the problem?

Obviously, as I always said the subject belongs to a history class. If the book was banned because the word was creating a problem, this indicate there is a problem in education (grades, teachers) and not in the book. Hence why the question is why the book is given in class? To teach history (it is a mistake, there more sources for this)? To teach linguistic (the book, either versions does not it)? Ethics? (again, there is better sources). But it do seems like there is something wrong in the classes or (like the teacher really suggests), there is nothing wrong and the teachers can deal with all this. Seems to me that the discussion is not editing it or not, but what the hell those people are thinking?

[Serena03]

There is actually nothing wrong with the word 'nîgger' in and of itself, it's context that needs to be considered as well as the racist jerk using it. Bad language in general doesn't exist, nobody really thinks how these 'curse' words are being used and they instantly cringe over them when they are heard or read. Most of their usage are actually non-derogatory when contemplated, but some senseless ongoing tradition still insists on controlling something. Pitiful that modern times still has to fµck(tamper) with classics of another time. If they insist on modification, they might as well take Twain's name off it.

[Baking Caesar]

Its been a clever idea and clearly one that has much need to rethink the way that we write the N- word in the Mark Twain novels. I thought that the best way to rework this is to hyphenate the word. Do not print the N- word. Instead write N-g-er. In that context. It is much less offensive. Clearly does not make the reader, especially a black person feel stigmatized. Expresses the awful connotation of the original word. And it keeps the book in its true context. Just a thought. I say we do it this way. Please pass the word

[stlukesguild]

Its been a clever idea and clearly one that has much need to rethink the way that we write the N- word in the Mark Twain novels. I thought that the best way to rework this is to hyphenate the word. Do not print the N- word. Instead write N-g-er. In that context. It is much less offensive. Clearly does not make the reader, especially a black person feel stigmatized. Expresses the awful connotation of the original word. And it keeps the book in its true context. Just a thought. I say we do it this way. Please pass the word

No, it's not a good idea, it's an incredibly stupid and offensive idea. As an artist I find it highly offensive that anyone with the least bit of respect for art would suggest as much. The reality is that the value of art is not in reinforcing our own politically correct dogma. The value of art lies in its ability to convey the experiences, standards, values, beliefs, etc... of persons of other times and places... who have different standards, beliefs, ideas, and experiences than our own. Sanitizing or whitewashing art so that it avoids offending anybody destroys its value as a means of expression and as a record of our past. Are we perhaps to clean up all the negative references to Muslims in Dante's Inferno because they might offend an Islamic student? Perhaps we need to rewrite all the portrayals of women that run contrary to our current beliefs concerning the equality of the sexes? And let's get rid of Shakespeare's Shylock and Wagner's Albrecht (if not Wagner altogether) because they might offend the Jewish reader/listener. Art isn't about making everybody feel comfortable. Sometimes the intention of art is to make the audience uncomfortable... to draw attention to ugly aspects of life... to rail against social injustices. I imagine that the white students reading Huckleberry Finn with one or two black classmates will feel just as uncomfortable... albeit from the perspective of one who recognizes and is embarrassed by the racism of his or her ancestors. There is little doubt that Twain intended to shock his audience... or at least wake them up to the racism prevalent at the time. Pretending the past never happened is no solution.

[Jozanny]

I have to chime in and say I agree with luke, and it is why I have taken some risks of late to push back against liberalism, not without some risk to my writing career. I have not read Twain's Finn in a long time, but the entire novel is a condemnation of provincial racism, and when Huck exclaims, "Well, I'm going to hell then." This is the ulitimate dramatic moment for the 19th century novel calling out the United States on its governing idealism co-existing with institutional slavery.

I studied the book with black students in the 80's, and when you are in a university setting faced with their emotional protest, yes, it is difficult, but erasing history is not the answer to the gains made in social equality, not against white guilt, and not to obscure Twain's intent. Huck's heart defied the prejudice he believed, and he was willing to sacrifice himself for his friend, even if it was wrong by the social standards of his peers. That is a powerful message, and it should not be drowned out due to the power of a slur. The n word is a word, and it has legal and historical implications. It is not going away, just like cripple won't be either. If cripple was used in a master work in this context, I am secure enough in myself not to howl. Censorship is the greater evil here.

[JCamilo]

The Nigger word does not convey the message, remove, take it, or do anything. I have no idea why people are making the message of a book to be reduced to a single word (and there should be no bigger evidence about it than the fact there is people reading Twain and getting offended, which means the message is lost) or are specially upset with one more "children" or "abrigaded" version.

The fact that the word was removed and replaced by considerable more offensive Slave should be enough to dismiss te action as pointless.

[Jozanny]

The Nigger word does not convey the message, remove, take it, or do anything.

Yes it does. Any African American could tell you that. In the mouth of a white woman like myself, or white male, it is not just an insult, but a weapon that projects hate, lynchings, Jim Crow, which is all the more reason to hold canonical fidelity to the text dear.

It is different in your country JCam, and I am thinking of forming a protest petition against the publisher, as I found out about this through other sources.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Nigger word does not convey the message, remove, take it, or do anything. I have no idea why people are making the message of a book to be reduced to a single word (and there should be no bigger evidence about it than the fact there is people reading Twain and getting offended, which means the message is lost) or are specially upset with one more "children" or "abrigaded" version.

The fact that the word was removed and replaced by considerable more offensive Slave should be enough to dismiss te action as pointless.

In America, "nigger" is much more offensive than the word slave, even if you think it shouldn't be. The word has a history.

Plus, if you don't get offended by Huck Finn, there's something wrong.

[JCamilo]

Yes it does. Any African American could tell you that. In the mouth of a white woman like myself, or white male, it is not just an insult, but a weapon that projects hate, lynchings, Jim Crow, which is all the more reason to hold canonical fidelity to the text dear.

It does not and You said it yourself. The entire novel is condemation to racism. Not a single word.


It is different in your country JCam, and I am thinking of forming a protest petition against the publisher, as I found out about this through other sources.

Which means I read it, saw the condemantion of racism and NEVER saw the word Nigger, proving yet again the word does not convey the message. (It obviously does not, it is the actions of Huck that shows it).

And if you do so, could you please write a petition against all abrigaded versions, graphic novels, poetry or drama to prose adaptation, and translations... You know, all those little forms of publishing that alter the original?

[Virgil]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/45645-upcoming-newsouth-huck-finn-eliminates-the-n-word.html?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly%27s+PW+Dail y&utm_campaign=74671e6e20-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email

I can't remember the last time I was so infuriated at the re-working of a classic...THAT IS HEINOUS!



I share your outrage completely. It is a travesty.

[JCamilo]

In America, "nigger" is much more offensive than the word slave, even if you think it shouldn't be. The word has a history.

No it is not. Obviously not. Nigger can be even said under acceptable context. The only context which slave is not offensive is under S&M sexual games, but even so, it is show domination over someone. The word nigger itself is only pejorative because its referent to slavery.

There is something much wrong that some black person did not come to this book and said they had fought a lot to not be slaves and not treated like one, to be sundenly be called as one and more, under the premise it is less offensive than a nickname they received as slaves.


Plus, if you don't get offended by Huck Finn, there's something wrong.

There is. But people have all right to be. Plus, it shows that the message is not quite being transmited.

[billl]

JCamilo, you are right in a way, but the simple fact is that in the U.S. there are teachers and professors of many races teaching history and literature to students of many races, and everyone is pretty much fine (as far as I can tell) when the history of slavery is taught, and the word "slave" pops up all the time. Even Martin Luther King used it and never meant to insult or demean his ancestors. But if those same history and literature teachers and professors instead referred to those slaves as "N---ers" in their lectures and text books, there would be anger and outcry. That people were slaves IS offensive, and it would definitely be offensive to call a free African-American a "slave" today. (This happens in the Borat movie, actually.) But calling the enslaved people of history "slaves" in a text book, a classroom, a conference, or an internet forum is not offensive--at least not as offensive as the n-word, which is a recognized racial slur in the U.S. That's why these people with this different version of HF think they are doing something good by switching out the word, they are trying to switch out a slur in favor of a more descriptive and less-emotionally charged and offensive term.

[JCamilo]

That until the rest of the world starts to call the american president, My Slave.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No it is not. Obviously not.

You're just wrong. In America, "nigger" is more offensive to a black person than "slave." You can rationalize all you want why it shouldn't be, but it is. End of discussion.

[billl]

The key point regarding "slave" is that the character Jim was a slave. Today, the acknowledgement and historical study of slavery and slaves is not an insult against the actual slaves. Indeed, it would be more insulting to sweep history under the rug and pretend that there weren't any slaves in the U.S. ever. (I mean, jeez, if we're worried and outraged about changing a word in a novel...)

To go around calling Obama or some other free Black person "a slave" would be offensive, of course for the reasons that JCamilo is talking about (again, as I pointed out in my previous post, this is actually done in the Borat film, and the object is to offend). But the character Jim is not/was not a free person. He was, unfortunately, a slave, and like the many other slaves that suffered under that institution in the U.S., it would not be a slur to refer to him as a slave in telling his and Huck's tale.

It would, however, rob us of insight into how Huck and Jim used and reacted to the use of the n-word.

[Sancho]

There’s not a more loaded term in American English today than that word, and words are funny things, powerful things. A hundred some odd years ago, when Sam Clemens wrote Huck Finn, that word didn’t mean what it does today. A hundred years from now it won’t mean what it does today. But right now, in this time and this place, you can’t use that word. It’s too hurtful. It’s a cuss word on steroids.

Awe shucks, it’s just a word - some letters strung together, some sounds formed with the vocal cords in the larynx - right? Wrong, ho-ho, dead wrong. I’d rather be caught doing a hooker doggie-style on a picnic table at a family reunion than be caught using that word.

The key mechanism of profanity is that it’s meant to offend. The person using it knows it’s meant to offend. And the person listening to it knows the person using it meant to offend the person listening to it, and is therefore offended. And human nature, being what it is, you just can’t let that shiet slide.

And eight-year olds can’t be expected to figure it out. Adults can, and even English professors can, but eight-year olds, nope.

So:


What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like this any more than you men.

--The Captain in Cool Hand Luke

[JCamilo]

You're just wrong. In America, "nigger" is more offensive to a black person than "slave." You can rationalize all you want why it shouldn't be, but it is. End of discussion.

It is not rationalize. It is a fact. Black people call themselves nigger. They do not call themselves slaves. Let the proverbial red neck have his nationalism targetted when the chinese leader call the american president a slave. The discussion over Nigger is more heated I agree, but mostly, that slave is so offensive to all that iti s not used at all, while nigger is.

Bill:

Jim is not a slave all the book. At some point, Huck knew he was a free man, so calling him a slave would not be exactly accurate. There is really no much reaction - Jim does not react even when Huck says he was white from inside (which the professor should feel much less comfortable, I suggest them to change it too). Of course, one of the main reasons of Twain's classic status is his use of vulgar language, so when they remove it, they are removing all reasons to use Twain in class in first place.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It is not rationalize. It is a fact. Black people call themselves nigger. They do not call themselves slaves. Let the proverbial red neck have his nationalism targetted when the chinese leader call the american president a slave. The discussion over Nigger is more heated I agree, but mostly, that slave is so offensive to all that iti s not used at all, while nigger is.

Black people using nigger as a word of familiarity does not mean it is less offensive. Black people use it in an attempt to take away the power of the word (or so the argument goes). If people actually used the term slave, they would use that word in much the same way. But people don't use the word slave. Not because it is "so offensive," but because it doesn't offend, at least not like nigger. When nigger was used when black people were slaves, it was slang on the term negro, even at that time a partially derogatory word. Slave was not. Slaves were slaves; it's what they were, not a word used to insult them.

Slave isn't used because it doesn't insult like any number of derogatory words for blacks. "Darky," "coon," "porch-monkey," "spear-chucker," even "boy" is probably more offensive than "slave." Slave has not entered the modern English vernacular as a common, offensive term for black people.

If you want proof, come to America and call some black people "slave," and then call a few "nigger," and weigh the differing reactions.

[JCamilo]

Mutatis, it is because it is offensive. It is so offensive that you find it in every language as offensive. You find it in the human rights declaration. The word is powerful enough. Nigger in other hand can be used in several circustances which had no power, no relation to any act (Nigger actually only reflects the power of slavery).

It is not offensive for black people, it is for all people, so much stronger it is. (Nigger predates the use derrogatory use.). You are not seriously trying to prove me that people like to called slave?

[billl]

It is not rationalize. It is a fact. Black people call themselves nigger. They do not call themselves slaves.

As far as African-Americans using the n-word to refer to themselves and other African-Americans: there is certainly no universal acceptance or approval of that practice in the African-American community, not by a long shot. And it leaves out the different case of other races using the word (a case which will sometimes have nuances of its own around the edges). It is important, too, to remember that they are not slaves and so they don't refer to themselves as slaves, whereas the use of the n-word does not at all require slavery to be present.




Bill:

Jim is not a slave all the book. At some point, Huck knew he was a free man, so calling him a slave would not be exactly accurate.

Thanks, that's a GREAT point that I had been wondering about in the back of my mind. It's been a long time since I read the book, and it was at a time when I wasn't the best student I've ever been.



Of course, one of the main reasons of Twain's classic status is his use of vulgar language, so when they remove it, they are removing all reasons to use Twain in class in first place.

Not ALL the reasons, but I think that changing that word does remove something important--not the most important thing, but still. Whatever it was, I think it'd be a simplification to say it was always simply a synonym for "slave" when Twain's characters used the word. And instead of whitewashing the book, we should just expect readers to eventually be ready to handle reading it, in context, as satire, etc.

[JCamilo]

As far as African-Americans using the n-word to refer to themselves and other African-Americans: there is certainly no universal acceptance or approval of that practice in the African-American community, not by a long shot. And it leaves out the different case of other races using the word (a case which will sometimes have nuances of its own around the edges). It is important, too, to remember that they are not slaves and so they don't refer to themselves as slaves, whereas the use of the n-word does not at all require slavery to be present.

The n-word is just a reference to color. It predates the use as racial slur and it only happened to slavery. There is no doubt that Nigger is a racial offense while Slave is not. But Slave is a huge offense, since it means the most basic human right to someone living (freedom) is taken away.
It is not approved by anyone, there is no context it is acceptable, it is considered a crime (the pratice) in most countries, there is official apologises for it, destroyed africa, it is more dangerous form of racism, there is more people actually prosecuted by "slavery" in USA than the use of nigger (which is only criminal under contexts, if so).
Even the given book, it is about Slavery, not "offensive language" (another point, slavery is so offensive that people fought it first. Only free people can concern about how they are called after all).





Thanks, that's a GREAT point that I had been wondering about in the back of my mind. It's been a long time since I read the book, and it was at a time when I wasn't the best student I've ever been.

Of course, I do not recall. Maybe Mutatis can check if the change caused the sittuation of, after Huck tells everyone Jim is free, if he uses the word Nigger. It would be very ironic. I was wondering also why they didnt used "black", as many books have niggers under same context without talking about slaves.




Not ALL the reasons, but I think that changing that word does remove something important--not the most important thing, but still. Whatever it was, I think it'd be a simplification to say it was always simply a synonym for "slave" when Twain's characters used the word. And instead of whitewashing the book, we should just expect readers to eventually be ready to handle reading it, in context, as satire, etc.

Which is the problem. Not Twain's book. They do not expect teachers and students to deal with it. This means, those people are just judging the education system of america as a failure and blaming on a book.

[billl]

My final word on the "slave" word (because I think a lot of people reading this are probably wondering why this is going on as long as it is--I think it must be a cultural misunderstanding, or trolling maybe ;-) ).

"Slave" is not an effective slur. People would (at least initially) be dumbfounded if you tried to use it that way, it just doesn't make sense. Obviously, a Black person today is not a slave. It *would* be offensive to actually be made a slave, but the word itself is a serious and acceptable word used in discussion of history, etc.

If I approached Michael Jordan and called him "shorty", I think he would react sort of like a lot of people would respond to being called "slave", at least initially. I would look stupid, far more than they would feel like I had insulted them. If I called him a "slave", he might be upset about it, but he'd probably be more confused than anything. At least initially, but I guess I don't really know. Maybe he'd wonder if I were a racist stock-owner at Nike or something.

The n-word would be a whole different thing. There's no confusion there, it would be an obvious racial slur and sign of disrespect.

Of course, someone would be free to try and start making "slave" into a slur-word in English, but it would take some work. You can't just say it's a slur because slavery is terrible. Too often we use the word "slave" to refer to actual slaves, with no insult intended whatsoever (on the part of the speaker). It just isn't an effective slur, at this point. You'd have to work really hard at it.

[JCamilo]

It is already. Poeple use it even by Peta.

As Nigger, you would have ask under which contest. Eminen can call thousands nigger, but if he calls slave you may be not very upset and think he is just some rich guy being snob, me, you, Jordan, would know you are not being nice - as much they would wonder (Idiot?). You people still forget, Nigger is only offesive because it is a form to call people from black skin slave. That is all, it takes the "offense" of slave to racial level. There is no discussion, the word nigger is negro, a synounimou to black color. Used for thousands non-racists aspects. The word Slave is always an attempt of domimance. Always used for this. And it is not an effective name calling (much like calling someone a rappist) because the effective combat to it. 200 years of liberal attack make the word be clear. But still an offense. And I do not need much effort - a White blondie (Lets suppose Mutatis is one) teacher who calls only his black 9 years old slaves, would be in jail in non time just like as nigger.

[billl]

You are wrong JCamilo, the word is not simply a way to call people with black skin "slave". There is much more to it than that. It can offend by reference to matters of intelligence, drawn caricature, and just pure dismissal, racial inferiority, etc. Slavery was a side-effect of the attitude that the n-word represents and contains, and its use can offend by representing a continuation of that attitude in a post-slavery world, and by representing a line in the sands of respect that can be crossed or not. The attitude can exist apart from slavery, and similar slurs exist with similar intents towards races that have never been enslaved by their speakers.

Just trying to clear things up, but I'll have to leave it at that, this thread deserves a return to the real issue.

[JCamilo]

The word was used to refer to african american slaves. The word only gained such bad "meaning" because it was used on them. I am not wrong. Without the reference to the offensive naming to slaves, it means black. Only this. The continuation of the way slaves are treated? Means, the continuations of slavery. They are tied. The word is even used acceptable if the context has no reference to the negativity caused by slavery treatmement. Any argument that slave is not offensive, is a mockery. Nigger is offensive because represents a linguistic prejudice originated from slavery abuse. That is why it is not as offensive in England or any other country where Negro is used.

For god's sake, how would the word represents Huck treatment to a black person , former slave, it they are unrelated in first place!

p.s.I remembered, but I do not recall if it is true, wasnt LA banned the use of the master/slave terms, because a research showed like 80% of users found it offensive. I do not recall it was a prankster....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree the idea of slavery is more offensive than any idea associated with "nigger," which is what I think you're saying, JCamilo? I also see what you mean when you say that slave is always a negative word with negative connotations no matter the context, while nigger can have a context that is not racially offensive, such as its use in rap music (though, those isn't true, as many plack people find it very offensive).

Still, when used as a pejorative against a black person by a non-black person, "nigger" is more offensive than "slave." At least that much you must concede.

[JCamilo]

That because our morality make the use of it reduced. Imagine a black group of kids because called slave by white (authority of anykind). It would go the same way.

The bigger problem is how easy this solution is gave. Imagine this teacher who said that bothered him to say nigger (in the link there is such thing) but not by slave. If nigger gave idea of racism, slave of what? If the teacher cannt give the context for the use of nigger, how come he wont stop people to call black boys slaves because it?

Not only it is a placebo for a problem, as it is a dumb solution as hell.

[yashara]

:wave::)