The Political Fate/State of Huckleberry Finn

[desiresjab]

How is Huckleberry doing these days? I know there have been various assaults upon his character and attempts to oust him from curricula and school libraries. It is is hard to keep track of the state of Huckleberry. I am willing to wager there are some areas of the country where the political correctness squad has made progress in removing him from sight. The thought of them cleaning up Huckleberry's language to suit them is a sickening thought, too. We know for sure that Huckleberry Finn would not be published today. The editors would sanitize it to mollify the activists masquerading as literates.

Is there any recent news on Huckleberry anyone is aware of?

[Danik 2016]

I'm very surprised to read that. Huckleberry Finn´s character is 1000%! Generations of Mark Twain fans are grateful that he didn´t turn Huck into Tom Sawyer II
One of the most beautiful passages of the book is when he decides that he prefers to go to hell than tell on his friend Jim.

If there is any petition in his favour making the rounds count on me.

[ennison]

Mr Huck? Why, he dead.

[Ecurb]

Huckleberry Finn is a great novel, but I have no objection to teachers who decide not to assign it in schools because African American students might (or would) be offended by the language. There's a clear distinction between banning a book (for example, removing it from school libraries) and making choices about what might (or might not) appeal to or offend secondary school children. Teachers make choices about what books to assign all the time, for a number of different reasons. Even if it is unreasonable for children to be offended by Huck, if they are, and if that turns them away from literature, the teachers' decisions might be wise ones. There are plenty of other books to read.

[desiresjab]

Huckleberry Finn is a great novel, but I have no objection to teachers who decide not to assign it in schools because African American students might (or would) be offended by the language. There's a clear distinction between banning a book (for example, removing it from school libraries) and making choices about what might (or might not) appeal to or offend secondary school children. Teachers make choices about what books to assign all the time, for a number of different reasons. Even if it is unreasonable for children to be offended by Huck, if they are, and if that turns them away from literature, the teachers' decisions might be wise ones. There are plenty of other books to read.

It is sickening to me that revised versions of the book are being printed for those unable to read literature as it is. A generation of 180 lbs. babies both black and white are offended if a great author from 150 years ago uses a word blacks use constantly. Sorry, they may not comandeer the language, not one word of it. In a few generations the antiseptic versions printed for the politically correct robots may be the prevailing document. I am not comforted that the original one will still be available.

Keeping it out of grade school is okay, I suppose, to shoo tears out of the eyes of delicate parents. But that is the thin edge of the wedge, as Joyce said. Keep the antiseptic versions away from them as well, then. I do not want the public exposed to weaker versions of a classic promoted by weak minds. By highschool if a student cannot bear to read that word from a dead white man, then a field hand is what they are worthy of, black, white, yellow, red, brown or blue. On their lunch breaks in the field they can read aloud from those they permit to write the tabooed word. That is what they all do on their lunch breaks--get together to read, of course. They read Eldridge Cleaver and BLM dispatches, peaceful stuff. You will hear that word 8,000 times in an afternnon at a highschool in the halls. But in a book it is terrible.

[Ecurb]

It is sickening to me that revised versions of the book are being printed for those unable to read literature as it is. A generation of 180 lbs. babies both black and white are offended if a great author from 150 years ago uses a word blacks use constantly. Sorry, they may not comandeer the language, not one word of it. In a few generations the antiseptic versions printed for the politically correct robots may be the prevailing document. I am not comforted that the original one will still be available.

Keeping it out of grade school is okay, I suppose, to shoo tears out of the eyes of delicate parents. But that is the thin edge of the wedge, as Joyce said. Keep the antiseptic versions away from them as well, then. I do not want the public exposed to weaker versions of a classic promoted by weak minds. By highschool if a student cannot bear to read that word from a dead white man, then a field hand is what they are worthy of, black, white, yellow, red, brown or blue. On their lunch breaks in the field they can read aloud from those they permit to write the tabooed word. That is what they all do on their lunch breaks--get together to read, of course. They read Eldridge Cleaver and BLM dispatches, peaceful stuff. You will hear that word 8,000 times in an afternnon at a highschool in the halls. But in a book it is terrible.

Who are you to mandate what someone else finds offensive? Huckleberry Finn is not only filled with the dreaded "N" word, but it is also written in a vernacular which may be difficult for non-native-English speakers or lousy readers. I agree that it's silly to bowdlerize Huckleberry Finn. But the notion that "they" (African Americans?) cannot "comandeer the language" is ridiculous. Why not? Why don't "they" have as much right as anybody to object to offensive language?

I'm certain African American high school students can "bear" reading the "N" word. But perhaps they'd prefer not to. They might find it offensive that Tom Sawyer (the hero of another Twain novel) thinks it's fine to imprison and practically torture Jim for his own amusement.

Personally, I find your "field hand" wise crack (mildly) offensive, although I can "bear" to read it. First of all, what's wrong with being a field hand? Second, since when does reading Huckleberry Finn provide someone with any education remotely helpful in performing labor more remunerative than working in fields?

I don't think any reasonable person should find Huckleberry Finn offensive. But most of them would find your post offensive. Nobody is forcing you to read revised versions of Huck Finn -- I suppose you are "sickened" at the thought of them because, although you object to other people trying to repress free speech in the name of "political correctness" you fail to see that you are doing the exact same thing by hating on bowdlerizations. It's OK for you to be "sickened" by bowdlerizations, but not for the descendants of slaves to be offended by racist language.

[Danik 2016]

The children would learn much more about racism, if the teachers took the trouble to explain in what way it reflected on literature. For example what about Gone with the Wind?
In Brazil we had a similar issue with voices for and against, involving our first author of children books.

[Ecurb]

Of course, Danik. I have no idea if high school kids find Huckleberry Finn offensive, or if those inveighing against teaching it to black kids simply think they SHOULD find it offensive. However, I find the notion that freedom of speech (which includes bowdlerizing books that are no longer in copyright) "sickens" some people strange. If the "N" word sickens you, don't read Huckleberry Finn, and if bowdlerizations of Huck nauseate you, don't read them. Neither sickens me, but if I actually read a bowdlerization, who knows what nauseating ague might ensue?

[Danik 2016]

Ecurb,
I didn´t know all this issues about Huckleberry Finn. Racism is never an matter to be treated lightly. But I think it is possible to show the children how Mark Twain tried to come to terms with it.Trying to modernise or bowdlerize books would take them out of context.
But probably North American children today read Harry Potter and Tolkien sagas.

[desiresjab]

Who are you to mandate what someone else finds offensive? Huckleberry Finn is not only filled with the dreaded "N" word, but it is also written in a vernacular which may be difficult for non-native-English speakers or lousy readers. I agree that it's silly to bowdlerize Huckleberry Finn. But the notion that "they" (African Americans?) cannot "comandeer the language" is ridiculous. Why not? Why don't "they" have as much right as anybody to object to offensive language?

I'm certain African American high school students can "bear" reading the "N" word. But perhaps they'd prefer not to. They might find it offensive that Tom Sawyer (the hero of another Twain novel) thinks it's fine to imprison and practically torture Jim for his own amusement.

Personally, I find your "field hand" wise crack (mildly) offensive, although I can "bear" to read it. First of all, what's wrong with being a field hand? Second, since when does reading Huckleberry Finn provide someone with any education remotely helpful in performing labor more remunerative than working in fields?

I don't think any reasonable person should find Huckleberry Finn offensive. But most of them would find your post offensive. Nobody is forcing you to read revised versions of Huck Finn -- I suppose you are "sickened" at the thought of them because, although you object to other people trying to repress free speech in the name of "political correctness" you fail to see that you are doing the exact same thing by hating on bowdlerizations. It's OK for you to be "sickened" by bowdlerizations, but not for the descendants of slaves to be offended by racist language.

No, no, no , no , no. I am arguing against ignorance and you are arguing for it, you are condoning it and permitting it in the name of political correctness by attacking my right to express opinions which are not the popular ones of the day. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not greatly concerned about offending people with my words in an age when it is so easy because any contrary opinion is offensive to them and the bearer deserves labeling.

Like I said, my dear, no movement, cultural, political or so-called artistic, is allowed to comandeer my language for their dreamed up agendas. I must use any word I want any time. If they must use it freely, I must use it freely. It is that simple.

Who am I to challenge anarchistic halfwits who might have a piece of paper but no education, who want to change the name of buildings and monuments to suit themselves? The George Washington bridge is next. It will not be long. Let's call it the Marion Barry bridge for an appropriate role model. Let's the just call it the Marion Barry Crack Cocaine bridge.

Who am I? Who am I to do this or that? We have freedom of speech here. You may get used to such a thing and even become a defender of Mark Twain's right to free speech. I defend Eldridge Cleaver's. Anyone who cannot get used to free speech should pack a bag.

These idiotic agendas trickle down into curricula real fast. The idiotic agendas of the creationists did, and there is no reason to believe that today's idiotic agendas will not do the same and have not already done so in a big way. Some of our robot anarchists were bright enough to obtain a degree in gender studies or omsbudsmanship. Wow, what priceless educations those are. Most graduates of soft fields like this baloney are suited for nothing but activism upon graduation. We now have thousands of activists roaming the streets like zombies in search of a cause. They flock to any cause like the smell of fresh blood. Who am I? Let them be offended, I am not offended by their being offended, only their offensive actions afterwards. They should not ever be empowered to take the likes of Mark Twain off shelves.

Nor, for example, should a black janitor at Yale get off Scot free and keep his job after breaking a valuable and historical stained glass window with his broom handle because its depiction of slavery offended him. Not only will he keep his job, as the university has already proudly announced, but I think we can look for a promotion. This man is now fit to teach humanities.

He will surely lend his new academic clout to the effort against Twain, perhaps personally burning copies of Huckleberry Finn on the lawn of Yale library, once he learns there is such a book.

No one can prevent watered down versions from appearing, indicative as they are of illness. They are for a sick system to promote and read, my dear, and there are many sick people to work with.

Sometimes it is necessary to defend freedom against the senseless bull rushes of freedom of speech.

It works like this. No black or white can tell me what word I better not use, because I do not have any words that someone may not use. Likewise, no moslem can tell me what I had better not draw a picture of, because the only thing I tell him he cannot draw a picture of is the floor plans for the White House.

And I do not know what makes you so certain, my dear, that African American high school students can "bear" reading the dreaded N-word, when black college students at Yale cannot even bear walking by a building with the name of Woodrow Wison on it. You have no leg to stand on there. They cannot bear even for Mark Twain to use the word, let alone my using it, which they use constantly. Oh, excuse me, did I use the four letter they instead of the sixteen letter African Americans? I am not going to use sixteen letters to keep you happy when four will do. Moslems, Mexicans, Mongols, Slavs, Skinheads--they are all theys in the right part of a sentence and perfectly understood, so do not pull that cheap stunt, my dear.

When I say "May not," I mean "May not with my permission." No one had my permission to commandeer the word gay for the homosexuals, but it was commandeered anyway, much to my chagrin, I might add. The word is now almost unusable in its traditional sense. Soon, though, the gays themselves will throw it back like an undersized trout, for gay brings up from its natural past unpleasant associations with flitting fairies and other demeaning imagery which could make homsexuals seem less than full, serious-minded citizens, or some bull like that. They took it but they will soon give it back, which only amounts to borrowing.

We cannot be a nation of fringe groups. That is not going to work. Some groups are intent on depicting themselves as fringe, no matter what they are given. The hidden and unrealized tragedy which ensures its perpetuation is a so-called higher education system which now pumps out useless activists with useless degrees by the tens of thousands every year. They got extra credit in college for attending protests. That is what they know how to do. They do not know literature, but they do know how to form a flash mob like old hands.

Now, please stop attacking and disparaging my right to hold and express opinions you do not like.

[ennison]

Whoa! Where are these ombudsmen when you need one eh? Keep that up and the Donald'll hire you as a script/ speech writer.

[Ecurb]

N

Now, please stop attacking and disparaging my right to hold and express opinions you do not like.

I support your right to hold and express any opinion. However, I am free to call such opinions illogical, ill-informed, and ill-considered, and your expression of them ill-mannered and ill-tempered.

I appreciate your clear affection for me, expressed when you call me "my dear", but I'm afraid your love is unrequited. You are not gay (i.e merry and carefree) enough to be attractive. Instead, you whine about changing language (Oh no! Language evolves! Hide the women and children!), complain when other people dislike the books you like, and object to "fringe groups" (why can't everyone be a white man, like dj and Donald!?).

Getting back to Huckleberry Finn, I'm amazed that any teachers assign it in school. American public (state) schools are designed to acculturate children into mainstream, adult society. IN addition to learning how to read (and a little about literature) American school children learn to attend class regularly, to be on time, to respect authority, to follow the rules, and to avoid brawling with others. These skills are no longer taught to the tune of a hickory stick, but they are still taught, and many teachers are probably more concerned with maintaining law and order in the class room than with introducing children to great literature.

Huckleberry Finn is a subversive novel. One of its primary themes is that "natural man" is (or can be) basically good, and "civilized" man is essentially wicked. American schools attempt to civilize children. This is anathema to Huck:



...so there ain't nothing more to write about, and I am rotten glad of it, because if I'd a knowed what a trouble it was to make a book I wouldn't a tackled it, and ain't a-going to no more. But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.

Why would a teacher (whatever his opinion of the "N" word) assign a novel so clearly in conflict with his or her role of civilizing children?

[Clopin]

Getting back to Huckleberry Finn, I'm amazed that any teachers assign it in school. American public (state) schools are designed to acculturate children into mainstream, adult society. IN addition to learning how to read (and a little about literature) American school children learn to attend class regularly, to be on time, to respect authority, to follow the rules, and to avoid brawling with others. These skills are no longer taught to the tune of a hickory stick, but they are still taught, and many teachers are probably more concerned with maintaining law and order in the class room than with introducing children to great literature.

Huckleberry Finn is a subversive novel. One of its primary themes is that "natural man" is (or can be) basically good, and "civilized" man is essentially wicked. American schools attempt to civilize children. This is anathema to Huck:

I'm a little surprised by that too. Orwell makes sense for the anti communist themes but there are some other relatively subversive staples which are apparently common core, such as Brave New World and The Catcher in the Rye.

And I agree with Desirejab of course. There is no valid justification for refusing to teach our classics in our schools. Anyone who dislikes it can **** off to whatever corner of the globe they would prefer to inhabit, where Mark Twain will hopefully never have the opportunity to offend their sensibilities. Imagine the reaction someone might get if they went and tried to update the Japanese curriculum in order to limit the works by 'Japanese men' and avoid offending other groups of people. It would be a complete joke there and it's a complete joke here.

[Clopin]

These idiotic agendas trickle down into curricula real fast. The idiotic agendas of the creationists did, and there is no reason to believe that today's idiotic agendas will not do the same and have not already done so in a big way. Some of our robot anarchists were bright enough to obtain a degree in gender studies or omsbudsmanship. Wow, what priceless educations those are. Most graduates of soft fields like this baloney are suited for nothing but activism upon graduation. We now have thousands of activists roaming the streets like zombies in search of a cause. They flock to any cause like the smell of fresh blood. Who am I? Let them be offended, I am not offended by their being offended, only their offensive actions afterwards. They should not ever be empowered to take the likes of Mark Twain off shelves.

Unfortunately some of them get money from the government to teach their BS to other dumb kids.

[Danik 2016]

"But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before."

That´s exactly what is refreshing about Huck and, of course, about Mark Twain. There is the suggestion here that civilization can be interpreted in more then one way. Aunt Sally´s concept of civilization is very narrow minded, because she is a kind lady who was brought up in a narrow enviroment and learned to conform to its rules. The life she is offering Huck Finn is not more neither less than she herself has got. It is not her fault if the boy is stifled by it.
But Huck who has got sound morals, needs something broader. He is not a little sauvage and probably would have made an interesting adult if his story had had a sequel.

[desiresjab]

I support your right to hold and express any opinion. However, I am free to call such opinions illogical, ill-informed, and ill-considered, and your expression of them ill-mannered and ill-tempered.

I appreciate your clear affection for me, expressed when you call me "my dear", but I'm afraid your love is unrequited. You are not gay (i.e merry and carefree) enough to be attractive. Instead, you whine about changing language (Oh no! Language evolves! Hide the women and children!), complain when other people dislike the books you like, and object to "fringe groups" (why can't everyone be a white man, like dj and Donald!?).

Getting back to Huckleberry Finn, I'm amazed that any teachers assign it in school. American public (state) schools are designed to acculturate children into mainstream, adult society. IN addition to learning how to read (and a little about literature) American school children learn to attend class regularly, to be on time, to respect authority, to follow the rules, and to avoid brawling with others. These skills are no longer taught to the tune of a hickory stick, but they are still taught, and many teachers are probably more concerned with maintaining law and order in the class room than with introducing children to great literature.

Huckleberry Finn is a subversive novel. One of its primary themes is that "natural man" is (or can be) basically good, and "civilized" man is essentially wicked. American schools attempt to civilize children. This is anathema to Huck:


Why would a teacher (whatever his opinion of the "N" word) assign a novel so clearly in conflict with his or her role of civilizing children?

Fair enough, my dear, but for a few exceptions. First, I am not against language evolving, so please make sense. What I am against is any ersatz political or cultural movement claiming exclusivity for certain words. It does not really matter if the word is chink, nigger, injun or honky. I am betting the sensorship machine on this site disguises the first two words and leaves the second two undisturbed. They must be racists around here.

I am not going to argue too hard, my dear, to teach Huck to high schoolers in this country, for the simple reason that they cannot take it. For a fact, I do not believe even the majority of college students can take it anymore. Grammar school kids used to take it just fine, but now it is too much for even college students to endure. This is what we have come to.

When the gays commandeered the word gay for their movement there was no tacit warning and understanding that no one else had better use that word. I feel I am allowed to use any word that members of some cultural group use frequently. No exclusivity of words. That is one of my points you fail to acknowledge.

Every other cultural group with their own agendas should look at what the gays accomplished and how they did it. I do not remember them burning any neighborhoods. Am I forgetting something? No, they did it right, that is all. Now they have their rights and are well on the way to what they wish for. Had they been burning neighborhoods and shooting police, they would not have those rights yet. Look at the time frame, too. Once they began in earnest, things happened relatively quickly in their favor, as political time frames go. Sure, there was plenty of resistance, but it was gently swept aside. Sometimes maybe not so gently did the opponents of equality go into their good night, but they went anyway. Now, for all practical purposes, it is done.

Back to Huck. Bowdlerization, my dear, is an awfully polite euphemism for censorship. Of course anyone has the right to make one, and I could not stop them and would not try any means other than persuasion. These already extant bowdlerizations of Huck are in the service of a cultural movement whose insistence on sanitary language I find an offense against literature. It is not likely that someone who finishes a watered down version will have enough interest to then pursue the original text. That is not how the generation of instant gratification works. They are lucky to finish the watered down version at all, let alone move on to the real one. So they miss it entirely, don't they, except for some crappy diluted version? Oh, I read that in the sixth grade for class, I will not have to read it again. Now that sounds more like the people I know from all over this country. And if knowing in advance everything that is going to happen does not kill the joy of reading, I don't know what does.

[desiresjab]

They left all the bad words.

[desiresjab]

Now those are not four words I am dying to use. It is not like the N-word, the C-word, the I-word or the H-word are on the tip of my tongue at all times. Each one is quite a beautiful word, in my view, however, for they are very expressive.

Whereas Chinese is a piss poor word for singing value in our language, chinaman is beautiful and graceful.

What's that Chinese up to? No poetic value.

What's that chinaman up to? Rolls out of the mouth smoothly.

It is a shame that we kept the ugly word that rhymes with cheese and got rid of the good one that feels so graceful in the mouth.

Hardly anyone shares my idiosyncratic notions on language. An anonymous author did, though, who said: Sticks and stones may break my bones... , well, (It seems like a month since I kissed my baby goodbye) you know the rest of the nursery rhyme.

Of course, if a word like chink did not disturb or hurt someone, it would not be as effective when used for effect in literature, would it, my dears? What a catch-22 that is. These words are great tools for the right job. Not only do they offend some, but because they offend some they make points and suggestions the sanitized versions cannot. As poets we like it when a word brings lots of baggage with it. Yeah, we love baggage.

[Eiseabhal]

Cathartic rants are a tree mendous release ain't they. Teachers have to make sensible judgements based on who sits in front of them and the population served by the school. It's ok for me to call myself a Teuchter but you - no way. And the reason is simple. But the brain dead reactionary will always pretend not to understand why he cannot gratuitously insult someone.

[ennison]

Speaking one Teuchter to another Eiseabhal I am giving you some warning that I may not be at the Northern Meeting next month.

[OrphanPip]

I don't think Mark Twain is particularly under attack anyway. According to the American Library Association, the ten most challenged books are the following:

Looking for Alaska, by John Green
Reasons: Offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group.

Fifty Shades of Grey, by E. L. James
Reasons: Sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, and other (“poorly written,” “concerns that a group of teenagers will want to try it”).

I Am Jazz, by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings
Reasons: Inaccurate, homosexuality, sex education, religious viewpoint, and unsuited for age group.

Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out, by Susan Kuklin
Reasons: Anti-family, offensive language, homosexuality, sex education, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, and other (“wants to remove from collection to ward off complaints”).

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon
Reasons: Offensive language, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, and other (“profanity and atheism”).

The Holy Bible
Reasons: Religious viewpoint.

Fun Home, by Alison Bechdel
Reasons: Violence and other (“graphic images”).

Habibi, by Craig Thompson
Reasons: Nudity, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group.

Nasreen’s Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan, by Jeanette Winter
Reasons: Religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and violence.

Two Boys Kissing, by David Levithan
Reasons: Homosexuality and other (“condones public displays of affection”).

Now out of those books I've read Habibi, Fun Home, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime and The Bible. They're all actually quite good but I can see why parents probably complain about Habibi and Fun Home since they assume graphic novels are for children. Anyway, it seems Americans are more concerned with censoring sex, religion and homosexuality than the N word.

Edit: From my personal experience as a teacher at college I didn't shy away from assigning controversial works that might offend. However, teaching children is another matter and there is a world of difference between asking a 20 year old to dissociate their personal experience of racism from their appreciation of a book and asking the same of a 14-15 year old.

[ennison]

Quite right OP. He is immune to fashion and trendiness. Swinburne (Of all people) praised Bowdler for placing editions of Shakespeare in thousands of homes where his works would otherwise have been absent so even a scrubbed up Huck is valuable. He'll be allowed back in his barrel soon. No decent text stands or falls on the inclusion or exclusion of a few grubby words.

[Jackson Richardson]

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon
Reasons: Offensive language, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, and other (“profanity and atheism”).



Eh? I read it a few years ago and saw the West End stage adaption. I thought it was a moving and humane work. The Christian faith is very important to me and I am very sensitive to religious issues in books. I can't remember any significant references to any religious viewpoint in the book nor any profanity or atheism. What was the problem?

[OrphanPip]

Eh? I read it a few years ago and saw the West End stage adaption. I thought it was a moving and humane work. The Christian faith is very important to me and I am very sensitive to religious issues in books. I can't remember any significant references to any religious viewpoint in the book nor any profanity or atheism. What was the problem?

I can't recall any either, but I read the book over 10 years ago I think. According to wikipedia the book is criticized by parent groups in America because of the inclusion of the F word and at some point the main character says there's no God and no afterlife.

I similarly can't recall any incidence of explicit violence in Bechdel's Fun Home, which is an autobiography about Bechdel's relationship to her father who committed suicide.

[ennison]

A good number of years ago one of my daughters came home from school with the novella, "Of Mice and Men". I had never read it. As a well-brought up girl she was a bit worried about the blasphemy. I read it aloud with her, missing out all the blasphemy. We watched three film versions and were in agreement that it was a fantastic piece of writing. Is there a lesson here? Maybe. I do not want to preach ... Not too much. I never swear in front of anyone I love, seldom in front of anyone I like but those I hate well ..

[Eiseabhal]

Now Ennison how much of THAT is tongue-in-cheek? I agree though that it is a good piece of work. He wrote best when he was succinct.