"huck finn" edited...despicable!

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kiki1982]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In neither. It is in his biography.

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

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

[Serena03]

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

[Baking Caesar]

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

[stlukesguild]

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

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

[Jozanny]

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

[Jozanny]

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

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

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

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...m_medium=email

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

I share your outrage completely. It is a travesty.

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

[billl]

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

[JCamilo]

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