Reworking Twain

[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

[TacoButt]

Does the attention to the word say more about Clemens or us?

[billl]

There's a thread where this topic was recently discussed here, so you might want to add your idea there:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58576

[Alexander III]

I say keep it as it is, I mean geez If I write down the word NIGER, does just the word offend people? I mean surly people understand that it is the context or connotation of a word not the actual word which is offensive.

Besides Im sorry...in all the mtv rap videos they use that word abundantly without censor, yet for a classic book written a hundred years ago, where the word niger had a different meaning we have to censor it ?

[Baking Caesar]

I would say that if I was a young black child barely into my adolescent years and sitting in a class room of mostly white children studying a book that talks about "niggers", I would feel very alienated and wonder about my place in society. Thats why this must be changed. Its not only a good idea. Its an imperative. But keep it similar. don't call it 'slave'. that destroys the truth.

[stlukesguild]

I would say that if I was a young black child barely into my adolescent years and sitting in a class room of mostly white children studying a book that talks about "niggers", I would feel very alienated and wonder about my place in society. Thats why this must be changed. Its not only a good idea. Its an imperative. But keep it similar. don't call it 'slave'. that destroys the truth.

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.

[Syd A]

Yes, that's exactly what we need - more PC psychopaths destroying more classical literature! Why use hyphenation and not go all the way to African-American? While we're at it, let's make Injun Joe a victim!

[Perandorrrr]

Leave it as it is, i say.

[Lokasenna]

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.

Beautifully put - I wholeheartedly agree.

[OrphanPip]

I would say that if I was a young black child barely into my adolescent years and sitting in a class room of mostly white children studying a book that talks about "niggers", I would feel very alienated and wonder about my place in society. Thats why this must be changed. Its not only a good idea. Its an imperative. But keep it similar. don't call it 'slave'. that destroys the truth.

I'm in agreement that changing the text is pointless.

Yet, I also think it's not sensible to teach the text to high school students. Minorities in high school will be stigmatized at that point more than they are likely ever to be again. Stlukes argument essentially, I think, brushes aside what the impact of having to read a text that parrots back to you stereotypes and racial epithets that you might have to deal with in reality. The text isn't suitable for teaching in high school, where it may offend some students that are coerced into being in that class. At a college a student may choose whether they want to face texts that are offensive to them, they can switch out of a class or chose not to study literature at all, a high school student has no such choice. Essentially, teaching the text to a student who is offended by it amounts to merely forcing the child to be repeatedly offended for some abstract value placed on the integrity and value of Huck Finn.

[PeterL]

The noise about that word is assinine. Until the 1970's it was just another variation of Negro. Any word can be used in a derogatory way, because the word is not at fault; attitudes are at fault.

[mortalterror]

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

Using euphemisms like "the N word" is just a way for white people to say nigger without other people getting offended, but really it's the same word and everybody knows what is meant by it. If you think "the N word" is an acceptable and interchangeable alternative, then you should try using it interchangeably with African American or black and see where that gets you.

Offensive as the word is, you wouldn't want it taken out of Roots, because it serves a socio-philosophical purpose. Removing the word would be to whitewash a work that derives it's strength from the very starkness of it's language and the graphic depiction of it's subject matter. Changing the words changes the meaning of the work.

If a youth reads Huckleberry Finn, they most likely won't pick up on much of what goes on anyway. I read it four times as a boy without realizing it was a comedy. I didn't pick up on the racism, the humor, the anti-religious parts, the literary parodies, or the historical references. When I re-read the novel as an adult, I laughed so hard I dropped the book and fell down crying. Children won't be aware of what is in it, and adults will have the sense not to misinterpret Twain's message as one of hate; so I really don't see a problem with people of all age groups reading it. If you don't have hate inside you, a book can't put it there.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."- Mark Twain

[Buh4Bee]

I see no reason to change the word. I am wondering who changed the word in the new edition and for what reason. Was it politically motivated? Need to read up on this story further.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I said this before and I'll say it again. If the word presents a problem in the classroom, don't teach Huck Finn. Don't change a piece of art to suit your needs.

[Paulclem]

I think it's a good idea - the text isn't being destroyed. it's not offensive or literary vandalism - everyone knows there are two versions which remain very easy to get hold of. Whether it's ultimately a good idea or not, it brings the whole question to the debate.

If it was said that the original version was being removed, then I would agree. As it is, it provides a good talking point for black history in America for young - up to 10 is it? - kids - whilst the original version can be introduced to older kids who can appreciate the complexities of race and language. It's a teaching tool. No one is talking censorship. Lamb's version of shakespeare made it accessible to children. No-one would imagine that they wouldn't go on to the full plays.

[stlukesguild]

I also think it's not sensible to teach the text to high school students. Minorities in high school will be stigmatized at that point more than they are likely ever to be again. Stlukes argument essentially, I think, brushes aside what the impact of having to read a text that parrots back to you stereotypes and racial epithets that you might have to deal with in reality. The text isn't suitable for teaching in high school, where it may offend some students that are coerced into being in that class. At a college a student may choose whether they want to face texts that are offensive to them, they can switch out of a class or chose not to study literature at all, a high school student has no such choice. Essentially, teaching the text to a student who is offended by it amounts to merely forcing the child to be repeatedly offended for some abstract value placed on the integrity and value of Huck Finn.

I have mixed feelings on this. Let's face it, students are going to confront any number of things that might offend them in the study of science, history, art, and literature. Sweeping these all under the rug in order to protect the sensitive teen psyche is not likely to be the ideal way of preparing a student for the realities of life. I read any number of books in high-school that might be interpreted as offensive: The Iliad, Huck Finn, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Catcher in the Rye, 1984, The Clockwork Orange, etc... Most of these were read in advanced literature courses that were electives. I don't remember the need for a parental sign-off to take these classes, but it seems to me that parents weren't as neurotically if not hysterically over-protective of their children. They also didn't see the need for T-ball (lest jr. get hit by a pitched ball), bicycle helmets, etc... and we were actually allowed to walk to school on our own and even climb trees.:eek:

[JuniperWoolf]

Yet, I also think it's not sensible to teach the text to high school students. Minorities in high school will be stigmatized at that point more than they are likely ever to be again. Stlukes argument essentially, I think, brushes aside what the impact of having to read a text that parrots back to you stereotypes and racial epithets that you might have to deal with in reality. The text isn't suitable for teaching in high school, where it may offend some students that are coerced into being in that class. At a college a student may choose whether they want to face texts that are offensive to them, they can switch out of a class or chose not to study literature at all, a high school student has no such choice. Essentially, teaching the text to a student who is offended by it amounts to merely forcing the child to be repeatedly offended for some abstract value placed on the integrity and value of Huck Finn.

I agree completely. There's nothing really more that I could say about it, Huck Finn should simply be a college text.

Despite this, it looks like it's going to be taught in highschool anyway, so I'd like to add something else to the conversation. Everybody's been so focused about the "political motives" of removing the word, and the effect on black students in the classroom which are both really important points, but I haven't heard much discourse on the actual reason given for removing the word in the first place: making the book more readable. As it is, reading Huck Finn is just straight-up uncomfortable.

I know that it's flimsy and discriminatory in itself and psuedo-PC, but think about it: you're a sixteen year old kid. You're asked to read out loud in class, an awkward enough situation as it is which most students dread. On top of that, the paragraph that you're supposed to read says the word "nigger" eight times. Just thinking that word makes most people squirm. I know that on an intellectual level making white kids feel "comfortable" isn't exactly a good reason to "whitewash" (funny choice of words) over history, but that really doesn't matter when it comes to actually reading the book in class which is the problem that English teachers have encountered that prompted the change in the first place. What matters to the kids who are going to have to read it is the immediate reality of the situation: that they find it extremely disturbing, and they simply won't do it.

[Baking Caesar]

I actually agree that this is not necessarilly a book for the kids in high school. Read it if they want. Theres alot more to read. And I for one did not read it in high school. Its only now that I plan to give it a read at a much older age.

[Alexander III]

I agree completely. There's nothing really more that I could say about it, Huck Finn should simply be a college text.

Despite this, it looks like it's going to be taught in highschool anyway, so I'd like to add something else to the conversation. Everybody's been so focused about the "political motives" of removing the word, and the effect on black students in the classroom which are both really important points, but I haven't heard much discourse on the actual reason given for removing the word in the first place: making the book more readable. As it is, reading Huck Finn is just straight-up uncomfortable.

I know that it's kind of flimsy and discriminatory in itself and psuedo-PC, but think about it: you're a sixteen year old kid. You're asked to read out loud in class, an awkward enough situation as it is which most students dread. On top of that, the paragraph that you're supposed to read says the word "nigger" eight times. Just thinking that word makes most people squirm. In fact, you know what? If I were in that situation, I think that I would just flat-out refuse.

I dont know what type of imaginary dream high school student your are talking about, but me in high school and all my friends used the word nigger rather often, like any cuss or swear word. We didn't even use them as insults we often all greeted each other in a sarcastic way with a variety of insults such as: Nigger, fag, fat ***, son of a (b)itch, whore, mother (f)ucker, ect...

I assure you there is nothing P.C about your average teenage boy, heck in college it's still the same in fact probably worse. Yet nobody is insulted by it.

In my group of friends we have black guy's and jewish guys and well call them nigger and jew often. They laugh, we laugh, because we have the ability to understand that the word relies on it's context. We all insult each other, and laugh. We never take it to far, because we can distinguish the difference of how the word is used and in which context.

In elementary school, the case would be different. The kids would not understand the entire historical implication and all they would get from it would be a new insult word. Nonetheless just don't teach it, wait till high school. Altering a text is extremely repugnant.

It is like democracy, either everyone can vote OR the second you make the slightest small change with the best intention the entire system soon collapses.

The second you begin making alteration's to texts for political/social reasons is the second when the entire system collapses.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm in agreement that changing the text is pointless.

Yet, I also think it's not sensible to teach the text to high school students. Minorities in high school will be stigmatized at that point more than they are likely ever to be again. Stlukes argument essentially, I think, brushes aside what the impact of having to read a text that parrots back to you stereotypes and racial epithets that you might have to deal with in reality. The text isn't suitable for teaching in high school, where it may offend some students that are coerced into being in that class. At a college a student may choose whether they want to face texts that are offensive to them, they can switch out of a class or chose not to study literature at all, a high school student has no such choice. Essentially, teaching the text to a student who is offended by it amounts to merely forcing the child to be repeatedly offended for some abstract value placed on the integrity and value of Huck Finn.

Jumping off your comment, it was fascinating reading the comments of this blog post (http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/07/force-non-white-students-to-read-great.html) in which you see the actual reactions of various people of color to great literature with race issues. There is a lot of bitterness over the issue for exactly the reasons you noted.


I dont know what type of imaginary dream high school student your are talking about, but me in high school and all my friends used the word nigger rather often, like any cuss or swear word. We didn't even use them as insults we often all greeted each other in a sarcastic way with a variety of insults such as: Nigger, fag, fat ***, son of a (b)itch, whore, mother (f)ucker, ect...

I assure you there is nothing P.C about your average teenage boy, heck in college it's still the same in fact probably worse. Yet nobody is insulted by it.

In my group of friends we have black guy's and jewish guys and well call them nigger and jew often. They laugh, we laugh, because we have the ability to understand that the word relies on it's context. We all insult each other, and laugh. We never take it to far, because we can distinguish the difference of how the word is used and in which context.


Not true that people aren't insulted. You might think it's true, but it's not. I remember doing all of that in high school.

I pretended it didn't bother me because you're in high school and if you whine about people calling you a Jew or making racial stereotypes, they're going to rag on you even harder, and poke fun at you for being overly sensitive on top of the racial bull**** you have to put up with.

I know it bothered my black friend when people called him the n-word or even constantly reminded him he was black. Often this came from people who were supposed to be his friends. But he pretended it didn't bother him.

I bet you deep down it really does bother those friends of yours, but they're almost definitely not going to admit that to you. One of the reasons also has to do with gender; God forbid men show that their feelings were hurt by another male. Also, when it's a good friend who is making the comments, sometimes you do just kind of look the other way so to speak and try to ignore it (even though, the comment twisted your gut a little).

[stlukesguild]

I must agree. Most of this PC speak nonsense comes from white suburbia or white academia that have no exposure to minorities and no clue as to reality. African-American, for example, is a euphemism that most Black Americans never use. At least not the mostly Black children that I teach nor the Black parents and teachers I deal with.

I find the whole PC speech offensive because it attempts to seep anything under the rug that might make anyone the least uncomfortable... but the reality is that sometimes a little discomfort is necessary. I don't care if talking about slavery, the mistreatment of the Indians, or the Holocaust makes you uncomfortable. They dam*-well should.

I share a studio with several other artists: one Korean, one Jewish, one Chinese, one Black... and myself... white of German heritage. At times we use racial slurs... but in a mocking and joking way... at once making fun of old stereotypes as well as the phony PC speech that doesn't erase racism... but merely masks it beneath the proper etiquette. My Jewish studio mate sometimes tells the most horrible jokes about Nazis and the Holocaust... but he notes that humor has long been a traditional weapon (especially employed by the Jews) that deflates tyrants and abusers.

I agree that students need to be of the appropriate level of maturity to deal with any number of art works and that the proper context should be established in confronting potentially disturbing or offensive material. I would presume that such is part of the job of any good teacher. The teacher who feels unable to tackle such topics should probably avoid such books.

[Alexander III]

Jumping off your comment, it was fascinating reading the comments of this blog post (http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/07/force-non-white-students-to-read-great.html) in which you see the actual reactions of various people of color to great literature with race issues. There is a lot of bitterness over the issue for exactly the reasons you noted.



Not true that people aren't insulted. You might think it's true, but it's not. I remember doing all of that in high school.

I pretended it didn't bother me because you're in high school and if you ***** about people calling you a Jew or making racial stereotypes, they're going to rag on you even harder, and poke fun at you for being overly sensitive on top of the racial bull**** you have to put up with.

I know it bothered my black friend when people called him the n-word or even constantly reminded him he was black. Often this came from people who were supposed to be his friends. But he pretended it didn't bother him.

I bet you deep down it really does bother those friends of yours, but they're almost definitely not going to admit that to you. One of the reasons also has to do with gender; God forbid men show that their feelings were hurt by another male. Also, when it's a good friend who is making the comments, sometimes you do just kind of look the other way so to speak and try to ignore it (even though, the comment twisted your gut a little).

I dont know if you are a guy or a girl, to be honest gender utterly changes the dynamics.

But I assure we nor anyone I know uses those terms to acquaintances or 'friends' we use them amongst good friends, and no one is insulted by it, because they have no reason to be insulted by it. But then again I have gone to international schools my whole life and all my friends are from all over the world, so the word nigger or jew doesn't make you feel out of teh group, every one is different there.

Besides if amongst your friends you don't like them calling you 'nigger; or 'jew' you say it. We wont stop calling you that, but hey. At the end of the day if you can't take insulting words which are used as non-insults but rather as just a way of male bondage, go find a group of P.C friends, sure they won't be fun but then again it's a choice.

The whole insulting each other in a casual way is just a guy thing, I guess we just use it to remind ourselves how ridiculous society and P.C is.

In this P.C society we teach our children that life is ideal, when the reality is that it is not, you have two options you man up and laugh or you cry in the corner.

[OrphanPip]

In this P.C society we teach our children that life is ideal, when the reality is that it is not, you have two options you man up and laugh or you cry in the corner.

I think your idea would rather teach that we should be complicit in our own oppression rather than resist and stand up to be treated with dignity. Someone who calls me a faggot deserves a punch in the face, even if they mean it as a joke.

[billl]

In my group of friends we have black guy's and jewish guys and well call them nigger and jew often. They laugh, we laugh, because we have the ability to understand that the word relies on it's context. We all insult each other, and laugh. We never take it to far, because we can distinguish the difference of how the word is used and in which context.


Wow, I don't know what kind of high school you went to, but if you had attended mine, you would have stopped calling black guys that unless you were one yourself. I'm not saying you are lying, or that you all weren't a great bunch of friends, but that situation wasn't and isn't the norm in a lot of places, including the Washington D.C. metro area.



I agree that students need to be of the appropriate level of maturity to deal with any number of art works and that the proper context should be established in confronting potentially disturbing or offensive material. I would presume that such is part of the job of any good teacher. The teacher who feels unable to tackle such topics should probably avoid such books.

I agree with this completely. Leaving the skills of the teachers aside, even, I think there are, unfortunately, some classes of U.S. high school seniors in which Huck Finn would not be the best bet for engaging students and focussing on the text beyond the occurrence of the n-word--although I'd like to think that most if not all schools would also have classes that would do well with the book.

[Drkshadow03]

Besides if amongst your friends you don't like them calling you 'nigger; or 'jew' you say it. We wont stop calling you that, but hey. At the end of the day if you can't take insulting words which are used as non-insults but rather as just a way of male bondage, go find a group of P.C friends, sure they won't be fun but then again it's a choice.

The whole insulting each other in a casual way is just a guy thing, I guess we just use it to remind ourselves how ridiculous society and P.C is.

In this P.C society we teach our children that life is ideal, when the reality is that it is not, you have two options you man up and laugh or you cry in the corner.


Yep, this pretty much proves my point about why your friends wouldn't speak up even if it did bother them.

You admit no one would stop, even if they did complain and it bothered them. It just doesn't pay socially in high school to alienate your friends who as a person you probably like 90% of the time, even if you inwardly wince every once in a blue moon when they make remarks like that.

I'm a dude. Don't get me wrong. I did exactly the same crap when I was in high school. I even rationalized much the same way you did: that's just what guys do. They do that all the time on South Park. All my friends are doing it to each other, so it's okay. Etc. I don't feel guilt over it, but I have grownup and realized that hey maybe some of that stuff isn't okay like using the word "gay" for things I dislike. Do you honestly think it would be okay for me to do that at the age of 27?

Basically, people only complain about P.C. language and behavior when they want a free license to say something offensive, but hate the idea of being criticized for saying it. It's one thing when talking about art (which can get away with using offensive words for an artistic purpose), but another thing when an individual or group of people want wholesale license to say whatever they want.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yet, I also think it's not sensible to teach the text to high school students. Minorities in high school will be stigmatized at that point more than they are likely ever to be again. Stlukes argument essentially, I think, brushes aside what the impact of having to read a text that parrots back to you stereotypes and racial epithets that you might have to deal with in reality. The text isn't suitable for teaching in high school, where it may offend some students that are coerced into being in that class. At a college a student may choose whether they want to face texts that are offensive to them, they can switch out of a class or chose not to study literature at all, a high school student has no such choice. Essentially, teaching the text to a student who is offended by it amounts to merely forcing the child to be repeatedly offended for some abstract value placed on the integrity and value of Huck Finn.

Personally, I think this is crap. I understand the sentiment, but if we start worrying about what may and may not offend students, all but the lightest, more inane literature will end up being deemed "appropriate."

But the main problem is that HF is often taught incorrectly, much like a lot of literature. Let's read the book, answer some questions, and we're done. This is how many are taught literature. What many teachers fail to do is properly explain that HF is SATIRICAL, that Twain is writing this not as an endorsement of racism, but as an admonishment. And admonishing racism by emphasizing the absurdities of it. If students aren't taught this, they're not going to understand it, and of course they will get offended.

But, I also ask, so what if they get offended? Is that not also one of the points of the book? If a student doesn't get offended, there's something wrong. If a teacher doesn't have discussions in the class on why it's offensive, how it's offensive, while letting students air their grievances, then there's something wrong in that, too.

This is a book not to be read quickly so a test can be given and a grade be put in the books. This, unfortunately, happens often; I've talked to many students who had it taught to them in such a manner. Is it any wonder that the book comes off as so offensive to them? Of course not.

So, with that said, let me add to what I've said before. If the word presents that much of a problem in the classroom, don't teach Huck Finn. Don't change a piece of art to suit your needs. And, if you can't teach it correctly and devote the time that's needed to it, don't teach it at all.

[Drkshadow03]

If a teacher doesn't have discussions in the class on why it's offensive, how it's offensive, while letting students air their grievances, then there's something wrong in that, too.


I think this is one of the biggest problems with reading/teaching the text as well. I imagine when problems do arise or people feel offended it's because very little to no time is spent actually talking about why people have found the text offensive and letting students share their grievances.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with reading/teaching the text as well. I imagine when problems do arise or people feel offended it's because very little to no time is spent actually talking about why people have found the text offensive and letting students share their grievances.

I had a methods of teaching literature class, and a large amount of time was given to how to teach HF. Not only is it uncomfortable for students, but it's uncomfortable for teachers, too. I think a lot just want to get it done and over with as fast as possible. I know I would have a tough time teaching this to a class with white and black students.

If I ever have a choice on whether or not to teach it, I will choose not to, unless it's maybe for an upper-level accelerated class. I am in no way saying that it can't be taught effectively to freshmen, because it can, but I definitely would not feel comfortable tackling it until I get some more teaching time under my belt

[Drkshadow03]

I had a methods of teaching literature class, and a large amount of time was given to how to teach HF. Not only is it uncomfortable for students, but it's uncomfortable for teachers, too. I think a lot just want to get it done and over with as fast as possible. I know I would have a tough time teaching this to a class with white and black students.

If I ever have a choice on whether or not to teach it, I will choose not to, unless it's maybe for an upper-level accelerated class. I am in no way saying that it can't be taught effectively to freshmen, because it can, but I definitely would not feel comfortable tackling it until I get some more teaching time under my belt

Interestingly, in the comments thread of the blog post I linked to above, there were at least two negative incidents in AP classes involving Huck Finn. So AP students might not necessarily produce better results. I just think it's always going to be a tough read for some people, especially people of color.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Interesting. I'll have to browse those comments (just not tonight, I'm getting sleepy). Of course, an AP class can be taught just as ineptly as a regular track class :nod:.

[mortalterror]

I don't think we give our high school students enough credit. These are for all intents and purposes little adults, who are already drinking, smoking, and having sex like adults. They watch R rated movies and listen to rap. Children generally develop a swearing vocabulary by the time they are five, and they use the words in the same manner as adults; so what are we protecting them from? We aren't. We are merely protecting our own image of them as innocent darlings.

In history class, my teacher passed around photos of mass graves to explain the Holocaust to us, and when we came to the Kennedy assassination she showed the Zapruder film. Having those unsanitized documents of the era really informed how I view those events.

Let's also not loose track in all of this rhetoric about racism just how good a book Huckleberry Finn is. It's so good that you can't deny it's importance to American literature, and since haters can't ban it they try to censor it instead. We've been down this road before with Thomas Bowdler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler) and Daniele da Volterra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniele_da_Volterra).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think we give our high school students enough credit. These are for all intents and purposes little adults, who are already drinking, smoking, and having sex like adults. They watch R rated movies and listen to rap. Children generally develop a swearing vocabulary by the time they are five, and they use the words in the same manner as adults; so what are we protecting them from? We aren't. We are merely protecting our own image of them as innocent darlings.


Completely agreed about not giving students enough credit. But, all the same, they aren't adults. They are, as you say yourself, little adults, so they are by no means fully matured, not even seniors. Yes, they swear, do drugs, and have sex, but that doesn't mean they fully understand what they're doing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's just not as simple as that.

[stlukesguild]

So at what point do they become adults? At 12:00 midnight of their 18th birthday POOF! the child is suddenly mature? It's quite arguable that many remain immature at 30 or 40 while others are quite as mature as most adults by the time they reach 12. Are we to assume that some arbitrary age established by law as the age that one is legally an adult has any bearing on reality? A 16-year old can drive, hold a job, listen to rap music where every other word is an obscenity, get married (without parental consent in many states) but Huck Finn is going to traumatize their delicate psyches?

[JCamilo]

Forget students, they think teachers or the school grade cannt deal with it. And instead of reforming education, they edit a book.

[mortalterror]

Even if I were to teach the book, I don't think I would give more than a cursory reference to the racial aspects, as the people in Drkshadows' link suggest. That kind of thing is more appropriate to an ethnic studies class, and doesn't really belong in the purview of English literature. The more time you spend talking about equality, and about racism, the less you are actually talking about the book itself. While we are on the subject, I don't believe that a study of Moby Dick can benefit greatly from a discussion about racism or homosexuality either.

Bottom line: This is Mark Twain's masterpiece. Mark Twain was one of the funniest writers who ever lived and his opus deserves the same kind of reverence we reserve for his peers Cervantes, Rabelais, Aristophanes, and Moliere.

[JCamilo]

Yet, reverence never helped works to be intact, thank god.

The funny thing is the word itself would not be a problem if there isnt a bad writting. Which make people ask: Why Mark Twain?

[OrphanPip]

So at what point do they become adults? At 12:00 midnight of their 18th birthday POOF! the child is suddenly mature? It's quite arguable that many remain immature at 30 or 40 while others are quite as mature as most adults by the time they reach 12. Are we to assume that some arbitrary age established by law as the age that one is legally an adult has any bearing on reality? A 16-year old can drive, hold a job, listen to rap music where every other word is an obscenity, get married (without parental consent in many states) but Huck Finn is going to traumatize their delicate psyches?

This is deflecting from the main issue, and really shows the major issue with the attitude of teachers. Who are they to decide they have the right to offend the students that are coerced into being in their presence. It's not as if it would be acceptable to take adults and force them to sit through reading a book that reminds them of a history that oppressed them and that singles them out from the rest of a group.

The teachers should be trying to engage their students to want to study the material in the class, not fighting an uphill battle that makes it more difficult to teach certain students just because they think Huck Finn is special. Huck Finn isn't special, it's a ****ing book, books aren't special. If people feel unnecessarily cut out and ridiculed by the teaching of the book, that's more important than the any arbitrary value one wants to place on literature.

The book simply isn't suitable for high school English classes.

[JCamilo]

Perhaps, the high school english classes are those not acceptable for kids.

[OrphanPip]

Perhaps, the high school english classes are those not acceptable for kids.

Exactly why should it be acceptable to use a book which is offensive to a group of students, which mind you are already largely disadvantaged. If we take the goal of teaching these students as instilling in them the ability to write and form cogent arguments, then why pick a text that is going to be especially difficult for a group of students that are already facing an uphill battle.

Is there a perverse pleasure being taken in punishing these students for their reaction to the book? Why exactly should the value of Huck Finn trump the right of those children to be educated without being insulted and ostracized in the process.

[stlukesguild]

This is deflecting from the main issue, and really shows the major issue with the attitude of teachers. Who are they to decide they have the right to offend the students that are coerced into being in their presence. It's not as if it would be acceptable to take adults and force them to sit through reading a book that reminds them of a history that oppressed them and that singles them out from the rest of a group.

The teachers should be trying to engage their students to want to study the material in the class, not fighting an uphill battle that makes it more difficult to teach certain students just because they think Huck Finn is special. Huck Finn isn't special, it's a ****ing book, books aren't special. If people feel unnecessarily cut out and ridiculed by the teaching of the book, that's more important than the any arbitrary value one wants to place on literature.

The book simply isn't suitable for high school English classes.

There are people who feel uncomfortable dealing with Evolution yet I would presume that you would have no problem sweeping away these concerns. As Mortal suggests, Moby Dick and other works of Melville (among other writers) deal with homosexuality. Obviously this issue will make some students uncomfortable, so we need to eliminate that as well. Ultimately there are students (and more often their parents) who will find almost anything offensive (Harry Potter, Catcher in the Rye, Alice in Wonderland, Animal Farm, The Diary of Anne Frank, Candide, Leaves of Grass, To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath, The Color Purple, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, As I lay Dying, A Farewell to Arms, The Heart of Darkness, Invisible Man, Native Son, Lord of the Rings, The Jungle, Awakening, Rabbit Run, etc... these are but a few of the frequently challenged and banned books from the ALA list of challenged and banned books).

Ultimately the state and local school boards, and not the teachers, decide which books will or will not be taught. These school boards frequently cave in to pressure from parents or even outside parties who challenge the curriculum with threats of legal action and negative publicity. Is it any wonder our education system has become increasingly watered down when it is assumed that nothing should be taught that might challenge a student's preconceptions and prejudices or make him or her uncomfortable in dealing with complex and difficult issues? As an art teacher I am expected to teach art history... but must avoid the least little suggestion of nudity... not even a bare bottom on the Christ-child... lest someone be offended. Thus fully half of art history is swept under the rug.

I read Anne Frank's diary as a high-school student and in spite of being of German ancestry, I survived and wasn't overly traumatized. I also read Animal Farm, 1984, Invisible Man, A Raisin in the Sun, and a lot of other frequently challenged and banned books. One year out of high-school, I read the Inferno, sections of the Bible as literature, the Lysistrata, Petronius, etc... but then again I guess I suddenly matured over that summer from high-school to college.

Returning to Huck Finn, my feeling is that if it cannot be read as it stands then it shouldn't be read at all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So at what point do they become adults? At 12:00 midnight of their 18th birthday POOF! the child is suddenly mature? It's quite arguable that many remain immature at 30 or 40 while others are quite as mature as most adults by the time they reach 12. Are we to assume that some arbitrary age established by law as the age that one is legally an adult has any bearing on reality? A 16-year old can drive, hold a job, listen to rap music where every other word is an obscenity, get married (without parental consent in many states) but Huck Finn is going to traumatize their delicate psyches?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, StLukes. Of course all kids mature differently, so you're always going to have some students who will have a harder time handling the material and some who won't. Plus, I would argue that there's more immature teenagers out there than immature.

Anyways, I was commenting on the physiological aspect of the brain, which isn't fully matured until a person's early twenties (so I've heard/read), but I should have made that clear.


Even if I were to teach the book, I don't think I would give more than a cursory reference to the racial aspects, as the people in Drkshadows' link suggest. That kind of thing is more appropriate to an ethnic studies class, and doesn't really belong in the purview of English literature. The more time you spend talking about equality, and about racism, the less you are actually talking about the book itself. While we are on the subject, I don't believe that a study of Moby Dick can benefit greatly from a discussion about racism or homosexuality either.

How can you only give a cursory glance to racism when teaching HF? It's a book commenting on racism.

[Drkshadow03]

Even if I were to teach the book, I don't think I would give more than a cursory reference to the racial aspects, as the people in Drkshadows' link suggest. That kind of thing is more appropriate to an ethnic studies class, and doesn't really belong in the purview of English literature. The more time you spend talking about equality, and about racism, the less you are actually talking about the book itself. While we are on the subject, I don't believe that a study of Moby Dick can benefit greatly from a discussion about racism or homosexuality either.

Bottom line: This is Mark Twain's masterpiece. Mark Twain was one of the funniest writers who ever lived and his opus deserves the same kind of reverence we reserve for his peers Cervantes, Rabelais, Aristophanes, and Moliere.

Hmm, well since the book is in part about slavery and racism I don't really see how such discussions could be avoided.

I think an honest discussion about the n-word and the perceived questionable portrayal of Jim will go a long way to soothing some of the issues and letting them be more open to understanding why many do consider it a masterpiece.

This is what one teacher in the comments thread says that she does with her class:


" I teach Huck Finn in the context of a class that focuses on race in America during and after slavery (the other two texts we read are Beloved and Invisible Man). On the first or second day of class, we sit down to talk about the "n-word." I tell my students my own experience with it. And my (mostly white) students talk about their experiences with the word—how it is taboo for them. That conversation then branches off in several other directions, but is always both uncomfortable and liberating. We certainly don't solve racism in a 70-minute class period, but we do get a sense of where we are as individuals and as a class re: race on the table. These students later raise the question the portrayal of Jim and whether Huck really grows much at all over the course of the novel. We get to talk about why this text is controversial and reflect on our experiences as we read the text. We watch a documentary ("Born to Trouble") about teaching Huck Finn, and we discuss what the best way to approach this text might be. There are plenty of great ways to teach and discuss this text. It seems to me that the best way to teach texts like Huck Finn or TKAM is with attention to, and a calling out of, the ways they might make people uncomfortable. But, given that discomfort, we then have to ask: what is the author trying to say? Does the message come across clearly? Is it effective/persuasive? To whom? Or is it lost because of the way s/he conveys it?"

I think having them read the first essay at this link (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~acareywe/huck.html) that outlines black objections to the book and responses focusing on Mark Twain's irony can also be useful.

Reading through the comments of that thread, which raise a number of bad experiences with these books, essentially here are four or fives ways to mitigate (not solve) some of the issues that continually came up as part of the problem:

1) Huck Finn should not be taught freshman year. I read Huck Finn when I was a Junior (older, maturer). If it is being kept in a high school curriculum, Junior or Senior year seems best. More mature students presumably and more time to have developed reading skills to approach a fairly complicated text.

2) If there are black students in the class, etc., they shouldn't be forced to read out loud passages of the N-word if they find it offensive, nor should they be singled out to share the "black perspective" or be treated any differently than the white students in class.

3) A lot of the people of color complained that they feel frustrated that their aren't writers of color included in the curriculum. If Huck Finn is taught, I think including a couple of black authors (Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, etc.) would go a long way in showing other portrayals of blacks and their experiences, and of course, teaching literature.

4) Discussing the N-word and its history (that includes students discussing their feelings and experiences with it), talking about the controversy, as well as the other issues that bothers people about the book before actually reading it, can go a long way in preparing students to handling these issues.

[OrphanPip]

Ultimately the state and local school boards, and not the teachers, decide which books will or will not be taught. These school boards frequently cave in to pressure from parents or even outside parties who challenge the curriculum with threats of legal action and negative publicity. Is it any wonder our education system has become increasingly watered down when it is assumed that nothing should be taught that might challenge a student's preconceptions and prejudices or make him or her uncomfortable in dealing with complex and difficult issues? As an art teacher I am expected to teach art history... but must avoid the least little suggestion of nudity... not even a bare bottom on the Christ-child... lest someone be offended. Thus fully half of art history is swept under the rug.


I think it's a false analogy, is Huck Finn challenging the preconception and prejudices of Black students that are offended by having to read a book that parrots and reinforces countless racial stereotypes and then are expected to appreciate it for it's somewhat paternalistic liberalism? What are they learning, that racism is bad, that racism exists? I'm pretty sure most of them are quite aware of that. This book doesn't challenge preconceptions, it heightens and worsens the effects of alienation and stigmatization suffered by black students in the classroom.

[stlukesguild]

1) Huck Finn should not be taught freshman year. I read Huck Finn when I was a Junior (older, maturer). If it is being kept in a high school curriculum, Junior or Senior year seems best. More mature students presumably and more time to have developed reading skills to approach a fairly complicated text.

I read Huck Finn in Junior High (7th or 8th grade) but I was attending an all-white school at the time. Even so, I remember the teacher exploring Twain's use of the colloquial language in portraying his characters and how the use of the word "nigger" revealed the inherent racism of the time.

2) If there are black students in the class, etc., they shouldn't be forced to read out loud passages of the N-word if they find it offensive, nor should they be singled out to share the "black perspective" or be treated any differently than the white students in class.

That would seem obvious. I wouldn't single out the homosexual child to share his or her perspective while reading Melville, nor the Jewish child while discussing Anne Frank.

3) A lot of the people of color complained that they feel frustrated that their aren't writers of color included in the curriculum. If Huck Finn is taught, I think including a couple of black authors (Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, etc.) would go a long way in showing other portrayals of blacks and their experiences, and of course, teaching literature.

I don't go in for choosing to read any work of literature for political as opposed to artistic reasons, but in the context of teaching I agree that such an effort should be made. The problem we face there is that there are few black writers of real merit until recently (for obvious reasons) and public school curriculum rarely get into contemporary literature. I remember reading Langston Hughes, Invisible Man, and Raisin in the Sun. The danger there becomes reinforcing the image of black contribution to American culture as little more than something token. I would suggest a multi-disciplinary approach that simultaneously explored the black contributions in politics and definitely music.

4) Discussing the N-word and its history (that includes students discussing their feelings and experiences with it), talking about the controversy, as well as the other issues that bothers people about the book before actually reading it, can go a long way in preparing students to handling these issues.

In a way I feel this is part of the value of reading an unexpurgated Huck Finn and confronting the issues of racism and racial slurs.

[stlukesguild]

I think it's a false analogy, is Huck Finn challenging the preconception and prejudices of Black students that are offended by having to read a book that parrots and reinforces countless racial stereotypes and then are expected to appreciate it for it's somewhat paternalistic liberalism? What are they learning, that racism is bad, that racism exists? I'm pretty sure most of them are quite aware of that. This book doesn't challenge preconceptions, it heightens and worsens the effects of alienation and stigmatization suffered by black students in the classroom.

Get off you high horse with your college-learned PC speech. Your college sensitivity teachers would surely be proud. Twain's novel confronts and rails against racism rather than reinforcing it just as Goya's Disasters of War rails against the horrors of war through his use of horrific imagery. But of course the simpleton might interpret the work as sadistic and glorifying war. Your criticism seems to present a no-win situation. If Twain simply never dealt with the issue, he is sweeping historical reality under the rug... or simply ignoring it... like every good racist. By confronting it he is accused of being the paternalistic white man.

A quick question: What exactly experience is your imagined expertise in teaching black children based upon? Perhaps you live in a city where the population is over 50% black... or perhaps you have taught in a school system that is over 90% black for more than 15 years... or perhaps the majority of your co-workers are actually black. Or perhaps you are simply making it all up based on your personal feelings and experiences with cultural sensitivity training classes that have become de rigeur at most universities.

Paul Simon was right: "A man sees what he wants to see an disregards the rest."

[OrphanPip]

Get off you high horse with your college-learned PC speech. Your college sensitivity teachers would surely be proud. Twain's novel confronts and rails against racism rather than reinforcing it just as Goya's Disasters of War rails against the horrors of war through his use of horrific imagery. But of course the simpleton might interpret the work as sadistic and glorifying war. Your criticism seems to present a no-win situation. If Twain simply never dealt with the issue, he is sweeping historical reality under the rug... or simply ignoring it... like every good racist. By confronting it he is accused of being the paternalistic white man.

Paul Simon was right: "A man sees what he wants to see an disregards the rest."

All I see here is more deflection.

Just look back to Drkshadow's post, black students report feeling ostracized and stigmatized as a result of the teaching of the text.

The college learned bull**** here is the notion that any sort of artistic integrity or endeavor should trump the best interests of the students. English teachers have a hard enough time getting minorities engaged with any work of literature, should they really be teaching something which makes it even more difficult and may even offend? Twain's efforts resisting the racism of his day are irrelevant. If I say a racist joke with the intention of ridiculing racist, it doesn't mean any possible sting or harm from that joke is immediately removed. Twain's honorable intentions, and the racism that is largely a product of paternalistic attitudes of his time, do not mean that his book somehow has no capacity to offend. In fact, it is a great feat of arrogance to suggest that anyone who is offended by it is somehow just not getting it. It is entirely possible to understand the intentions and still recognize how certain stereotypes are still being reinforced, and that the book can have negative effects on the potential for Black students to be engaged in the classroom.

Edit: Also, while I fully accept that Twain's intentions were to attack racism, it is also entirely debatable whether the book actually succeeds in its attack.

Edit2: And I didn't go to a racially homogenous suburban high school either.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z241/i_feel_tiredsleepy/school.jpg

[stlukesguild]

The college learned bull**** here is the notion that any sort of artistic integrity or endeavor should trump the best interests of the students.

And you with your years of teaching experience are no doubt best in the position to decide what is best for the students?

English teachers have a hard enough time getting minorities engaged with any work of literature, should they really be teaching something which makes it even more difficult and may even offend?

And again... your grasp of the challenges of teaching reading to the minorities is again based on...? One of the biggest challenges over the years has been engaging the students with a body of literature that does not appropriately challenge the students... that doesn't deal with the issues that they confront on a day to day basis. I deal with racism on a day to day basis: darker students calling lighter-skinned students "white", lighter-skinned students calling darker skinned students "black" or charcoal", and the term "nigger" bantered about by students (appalling to the older generation parents) who have no concept of the historical use of the term.

Twain's efforts resisting the racism of his day are irrelevant. If I say a racist joke with the intention of ridiculing racist, it doesn't mean any possible sting or harm from that joke is immediately removed.

So we then take this to mean that the intentions of all art is irrelevant... all that matters is personal interpretation?

Twain's honorable intentions, and the racism that is largely a product of paternalistic attitudes of his time, do not mean that his book somehow has no capacity to offend.

Yes, it has the capacity to offend... obviously it has the capacity to offend the white audience afraid of appearing "insensitive" and desiring nothing more than to sweep any difficult issues under the rug.

In fact, it is a great feat of arrogance to suggest that anyone who is offended by it is somehow just not getting it.

Is it? So if I am offending by the homosexual content of Whitman or Melville it is arrogance on your part to suggest that I just don't get it?

It is entirely possible to understand the intentions and still recognize how certain stereotypes are still being reinforced, and that the book can have negative effects on the potential for Black students to be engaged in the classroom.

How exactly do we go about dealing with the racism and stereotypes that are a reality without confronting these? Do we just erase them from our collective memory and hope that we can all just get along?

Also, while I fully accept that Twain's intentions were to attack racism, it is also entirely debatable whether the book actually succeeds in its attack.

That would seem to be a logical point of discussion or critique.

And I didn't go to a racially homogenous suburban high school either.

"Some of my best friends are black"?:rolleyes:

[OrphanPip]

And you with your years of teaching experience are no doubt best in the position to decide what is best for the students?

It's a fact though, there are countless studies looking at how African American dialects and the preference for General American English create issues in teaching English to minorities, especially when we consider those who are English as a second language learner. Do you contend that minority students do not have lower rates of success in school, that there aren't issues in public school systems in reaching large groups of students?



And again... your grasp of the challenges of teaching reading to the minorities is again based on...? One of the biggest challenges over the years has been engaging the students with a body of literature that does not appropriately challenge the students... that doesn't deal with the issues that they confront on a day to day basis. I deal with racism on a day to day basis: darker students calling lighter-skinned students "white", lighter-skinned students calling darker skinned students "black" or charcoal", and the term "nigger" bantered about by students (appalling to the older generation parents) who have no concept of the historical use of the term.

So the issues they should be confronted with are those that aggravate divides and make them feel bad. What do you say about the students who are offended by the work, why do they have to be forced through something personally offensive to them.



So we then take this to mean that the intentions of all art is irrelevant... all that matters is personal interpretation?

No, but is the interpretation not more important. If all autobiographies of Mark Twain were to disappear tomorrow would it change how we read the text? Does it follow from the proposition that someone didn't intend to be racist that they cannot be racist?



Yes, it has the capacity to offend... obviously it has the capacity to offend the white audience afraid of appearing "insensitive" and desiring nothing more than to sweep any difficult issues under the rug.

Hardly in the same way though, is it isolating them, reminding them of institutional abuses they may still encounter.



Is it? So if I am offending by the homosexual content of Whitman or Melville it is arrogance on your part to suggest that I just don't get it?

Yes, your capacity to be offended by homosexuality in Whitman has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you understand the poetry. Where exactly is the logical link there?



How exactly do we go about dealing with the racism and stereotypes that are a reality without confronting these? Do we just erase them from our collective memory and hope that we can all just get along?

In ways that don't also involve the glorification of the source of the racism, and that doesn't force students to endure depictions of stereotypes. Why is an English class the appropriate place to have that discussion either.



"Some of my best friends are black"?:rolleyes:

I'm afraid you're forgetting your statement earlier in the thread that the only people who would object to the book are those raised in suburban areas never exposed to black people.

Edit: Just to add to that, I didn't have much discussion of anything to do with PC in my immunology classes in university.

[JCamilo]

I do not believe this. That is when I say that focusing in chaging the text as a problem is wrong. Kids are not ostracized by the book. The word nigger is a commun usage slang. Mafia Wars, Eminen, South Park, GTA, all use the word.

Something else is wrong. Why is Twain book in schools? Why not? How teachers are doing when the conflict caused appears? What is happened in history, philosophy and liguistic classes to not prepeare the readers for this conflicts? What is the objective of giving books in class?

How someone thinks that re-word a single word will solve those problems?

[OrphanPip]

How someone thinks that re-word a single word will solve those problems?

It doesn't, I was of the opinion the book shouldn't be taught in high schools.

[stlukesguild]

It's a fact though, there are countless studies looking at how African American dialects and the preference for General American English create issues in teaching English to minorities, especially when we consider those who are English as a second language learner. Do you contend that minority students do not have lower rates of success in school, that there aren't issues in public school systems in reaching large groups of students?

The primary problem in teaching minorities has nothing to do with dialects and everything to do with poverty and all that entails: malnutrition, lack of a stable home environment, poorly educated and often illiterate parents who exhibit little support for education, mistrust of the institutions, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, etc... These same difficulties confront the White and Hispanic children under similar poverty conditions.

So the issues they should be confronted with are those that aggravate divides and make them feel bad.

How do you confront this or any such issue without the possibility of offending or making someone feel uncomfortable? Is the point of education no more than a new age "feel-good" therapy? Again, do we simply avoid any book that might have the potential of making someone feel uncomfortable: the Bible, The Heart of Darkness, 1984, Billy Budd, Brave New World,etc...? Do we also avoid the very issues of racism, sexism, nationalistic prejudice, homophobia, xenophobia, etc...?

Does it follow from the proposition that someone didn't intend to be racist that they cannot be racist?

And even if the book had intended racism elements we might ask does this nullify its being worth reading? A good deal of art and literature conveys prejudices of the time and provides a means of confronting or critiquing these. Obviously I don't think that this is something that can be approached at the middle-school level in spite of my own experience... but neither do I think that we can establish a set age at which all students will be mature enough to deal with such issues. A good many students will never be ready... even at the college level. As I noted, most of the works which I read in high-school that raised a similar possibility of offending someone were read as part of an elective advanced literature course. The curriculum was presented for parent perusal prior to students taking the course... and students had the option of reading an alternative book if a specific text proved too offensive. If I recall correctly it was Catcher in the Rye and Clockwork Orange that resulted in the most students opting for alternatives.

In ways that don't also involve the glorification of the source of the racism, and that doesn't force students to endure depictions of stereotypes. Why is an English class the appropriate place to have that discussion either.

Twain glorifies racism? I surely don't read him that way. As for reading Twain for political rather than artistic reasons, it is surely obvious that art and aesthetics are the last thoughts when speaking of public education. Art is but a means to an end. I personally don't agree with using art simply to reinforce other lessons and it is for this reason that I stated that if Huck Finn cannot be read without drastic editing, it shouldn't be read at all.

[JCamilo]

It doesn't, I was of the opinion the book shouldn't be taught in high schools.


An equal futile placebo who does not deal with the ethical problems not caused by the book, but by other social factors.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why is an English class the appropriate place to have that discussion either.


This is a really good question, but as far as I'm aware, there are no mandatory ethics/sensitivity classes in high schools. So, where else will it be discussed? Science? Math? English and History seem to be the only two choices, history probably being the more appropriate.

Also, StLukes, have you ever taught English?

[Drkshadow03]

This is a really good question, but as far as I'm aware, there are no mandatory ethics/sensitivity classes in high schools. So, where else will it be discussed? Science? Math? English and History seem to be the only two choices, history probably being the more appropriate.

Also, StLukes, have you ever taught English?

Yeah, I don't agree with Orphanpip on that point either. English would be the appropriate place to have such a discussion precisely because the nature of literature is that it deals with those seminal issues at the heart of our society (such as racism), while also being a reflection of the cultural mores of the time, and hopefully telling an entertaining and pleasing story in the process.

You can't discuss literature without delving into those issues that relate most fundamentally to our experiences. It seems a bit ignorant for someone to comment that English class isn't the right place to discuss issues like that.

Not to mention reading all those posts by various people of color who hated the experiences of reading Huck and To Kill a Mockingbird, as a whole the problem didn't seem to be the issue of discussing racism in English class. It had far more to do with how those specific books make them feel. Plenty of those same commenters said they would've loved to have read books by various black authors, which also deal with race.

[JCamilo]

Well, lets rationalize.

People do not need to read Twain for living. Even for having a great experience in America Lit. Not to learn about racism or the civil war.
Either, he is not the only canonical author of this time.

Why do people need to read him?

Lets be factual: he loves irony. Humor has those things, there is people who will only laugh because they saw other people laughing. Twain walks in the edge. Melville for example, is clearly racist (not only the language, but the opinion he said, he is clearly a man of his time). Twain in other hand, has a clear idea of what he is doing. So it is not surprising he causes such misreading (I still remember once someone claiming the whole point of Voltaire's Candide was that ignorance is a bliss).

What surprises me is not the editing, which is an attempt to avoid the banishment of Twain. This banishment is quite old now and while started with students feeling uneasy, but it was the parents the actual power behind it. Those parents are addults (not kids) and had education... Didnt they knew Twain literary technique? Apparently, no.

And the teachers? Couldnt them find a single expert to send an essay? Couldnt they say : it is like when South Park says it is fine to make jokes with the holocaust? We are not talking about a unknow feature of america or a word never used.

And the Civil rights movement? Arent them aware of Twain historical role? Seems that some complainst are assuming that all old timer writers were poor racists without know it? The american president is a slave too, he write books for kids!

And parents, students, specialists, and the rest of addults who work with reading? Linguistists? Writers? Librarians? Pedagogues? Educatioan secretaries?

It is not the book the responsable, it is just the vetor of all this. And you have a silly, innocuous change (which seems more offensive than not) who do not deal with the problem, discussion about the holiness of classics (Stukles, the original is t unfaithfull), and not the simple problem of reading habits, incentive and education. It is not even racism. It is people who cannt even grasp a simple context.

[JuniperWoolf]

Wow, I don't know what kind of high school you went to, but if you had attended mine, you would have stopped calling black guys that unless you were one yourself. I'm not saying you are lying, or that you all weren't a great bunch of friends, but that situation wasn't and isn't the norm in a lot of places, including the Washington D.C. metro area.

I'm digressing a bit, but I just wanted to say that I agree with Bill. In my town, if you had used the words "nigger" or "faggot" (or as it actually is with our town, "squaw" or "indian" since we have such a high native population) you would have been beaten to a wimpering pulp by those groups and their friends. More reason not to want to say "nigger" eight times in the span of five minutes. No one wants to read Twain out loud.

[Alexander III]

This thread reminded me of an excellent stand up piece by chris rock, essentially when the word nigger is used in a modern context it is used as an insult to what Chris Rock labels them, not as to the entire African-American community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzFTLKWvfE0


Oh and another great one by Chris Rock, "Can white people say Nigger?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0&feature=related

[mortalterror]

How can you only give a cursory glance to racism when teaching HF? It's a book commenting on racism.

No, it's not. It is a comedy about a lot of things, slavery being just one of them. It's maybe 10% about racism, and the rest is history, America, culture, religion, friendship, hypocrisy, and literature.

Let's look at the first chapter. You have a first person narrative by a young boy who doesn't necessarily understand what it is he's seeing and the obvious disconnect and complications that entails. He mentions Mark Twain and the previous book, so there you have meta-narrative. What follows is mostly Twain's satirizing of Christianity represented in the character of the Widow Douglas. We take notice of her hypocrisy in denying Huck his own vices but having many of her own. She is ignorant and judgmental of other people. For instance, she tells him about Hell and how Tom Sawyer will be going there, and Huck resolves to go there himself. Huck knocks a spider into a candle and considers it an ill omen just before Tom arrives. Thus we have a juxtaposition of the Widow Douglas' Christianity and Huck's primitive homespun superstitions.

The next chapter begins with the boys playing a trick on Jim with his hat. He later spins this simple occurrence into a grand story about witches and achieves a level of notoriety among his own community for his supernatural tale. He wears the coin the boys leave behind for some candles as a charm around his neck. Thus Twain illustrates gullibility and superstition on all levels of society, from the Widow Douglas with her belief in the miracles of Moses to Jim and his witches. It also serves to show how a lie can take on a life of its own and grow out of all proportion to the facts.

This next part is obviously an homage by Twain to Cervantes, as the boys form a gang of robbers whose vows and mode of action are the stuff of pulp fiction adventure novels of the time. The boys have no notion of what real crime entails, but are swept up with notions about ransoms, kidnapping, hideouts, and making captive women fall in love with them. This is an excellent parody, and has nothing to do with racism or slavery.

Chapter 3 involves the Widow Douglas trying to teach Huck about the powers of prayer. He wishes for a fishing rod, and it doesn't come true, so he decides to forget the matter. Then the Widow and her sister both explain the Christian God to him, one using concepts taken from the Old Testament and the other from the New Testament. This confuses Huck and he decides there must be two gods. Twain rounds out this chapter with more Quixote type stuff.

In chapter 4, Huck gets wind that his father is after him for his money, so he gets rid of it. Then he goes to Jim who has a magical hair ball that can tell fortunes. Jim bilks him out of money to get the hairball to talk then tells Huck's fortune. Here we have another chance to witness Twain's contempt for all things spiritual, with the further condemnation that religion is a swindle to fool the simple minded out of their money.

The next couple chapters are about Huck's relationship with his drunken abusive father and how the law has no redress for disadvantaged children of his sort. I don't want to go through the whole book this way but the section on the "Grangerford" and "Shepherdson" families feud is clearly modeled upon the famous Hatfields and McCoys; which in turn are a symbol for the Civil War. Huck and Jim also take up with a couple of grifters who sucker people with a number of scams. My point being, there is a lot more going on in this book than just racism and slavery.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The book comments on many things, yes, but I don't see how one can think the main issue, or at least one of the main issues, is race.

Also, great links, Alexander.

[mortalterror]

The book comments on many things, yes, but I don't see how one can think the main issue, or at least one of the main issues, is race.

Race is definitely in there, but saying that Huck Finn is all about race as many posters so far have is not just inaccurate. It is demonstrably wrong. There are large sections in the novel with nothing to do with racism and slavery. And I question whether a lot of people here have actually read the book if they don't remember all the jibes at religion and superstition.

You have the judge trying to reform Huck's father. Then Huck's father attacks him in a drunken stupor thinking he's the "angel of death". Then when Huck fakes his own death Jim thinks he's a ghost come to haunt him. They run into a conman who has pretended to be a revivalist minister. The man then bilks a congregation out of money later on by claiming to be a reformed pirate who wants to spread the gospel in foreign lands. You have the two feuding families going to church together with their guns slung across their knees while they listen to the pastor preach about brotherly love. Huck Finn and Jim talk about King Solomon and Jim remarks that only a callous inhuman individual would even suggest cutting a baby in half. Yet, I haven't heard anybody talk about how students need to be prepared for the irreligious messages in Twain's work. The race issue has swallowed up everything else.

What about all of the lengthy literary parodies in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The way that Tom Sawyer is a quixotic hero who sees the world through pulp adventure novels, with Huck along as his sidekick Sancho Panza? There are a half dozen chapters just dealing with their shennanigans. Then you have the literary references Twain makes to other classic writers: the wrecked ship named the Walter Scott, the plays the con artists produce with their garbled Shakespeare. Shouldn't that be addressed, so that the references don't fly over the children's heads?

What about all of the political messages about monarchies. There are two characters who refer to themselves as a Dauphan of France and a Duke of England. Their presence and various conversations touch upon things like the Revolution in France, and the various independence movements subsequent to that. Along with the aforementioned feud between the families which signified the Civil War, we could read the novel as a commentary upon his whole age, with it's various politics and social customs. There is a lot to unpack here, and you people think you can just boil it all down to slavery.

[hanzklein]

I say keep it as it is, I mean geez If I write down the word NIGER, does just the word offend people? I mean surly people understand that it is the context or connotation of a word not the actual word which is offensive.

Besides Im sorry...in all the mtv rap videos they use that word abundantly without censor, yet for a classic book written a hundred years ago, where the word niger had a different meaning we have to censor it ?

The actual word may be considered offensive in any context, due to the painful history of it with regards to Africans and the thoughts associated with that that the mere word brings up which we can never fully understand.