"huck finn" edited...despicable!

[AuntShecky]

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...mann/#40917922

[JCamilo]

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

[BienvenuJDC]

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

Are you being serious?

[kiki1982]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But of course. It is not about that though.

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently the current culture is thinking to change the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AuntShecky]

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

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


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

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

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

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

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

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

[AuntShecky]

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

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

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

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

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

[billl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

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

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

[billl]

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

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

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

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