RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn

RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 7:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No it isn't. The point of a book is what the author feels it is important to say, nothing more and nothing less. If the readers find value in it, so be it. If they don't, then it's their prerogative not to read it. It is nobody's prerogative to rewrite it so that the readers won't find it offensive. I don't agree. The point of having a language and using it is to enable communication between two parties. If someone speaks in a language I can't understand, there's no point in his speaking to me. In the UK, at one time, there was such an arrogance about this point that the Bible was only read in Latin, despite the fact that most of any congregation couldn't understand Latin. Less extreme - if I use language that winds up the listener to the point where he won't listen to me, it's on me that my points won't get through to him. In the case of Huck Finn, though, there's something else that comes between talker and listener: politics. The kids don't get to hear Mark Twain because the educators have got too frightened to teach him.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 7:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveRMneeded Luckily, most children have parents, teachers, or nuns that run the orphanage who are willing to explain historical, cultural and artistic contexts. Hopefully, whomever is not willing to explain them to the children will be silent and let the explanations commence, sink in, and stop all this foolish political correctness that leads to the banning of Uncle Tom's Cabin, as a racist book, when, in fact, it was anti-slavery. Also, we all read Huckleberry Finn in school, when I was a kid in Elementary school and all the children were aware that the reason the words, dialect, etc. were as they were is that someone took a lot of time and care to write out a very beautiful story that was historically accurate in it's language. We were all also aware of the words, outside of the context of the book, before we read the story, and we were all aware that certain words were considered too rude to say in public. Some used them anyway, most didn't. No one died from either course of action, though, occasionally, some people got punched in the face on the playground. It's called growing up and being human. Political correctness only breeds hypocrisy. It needs to stop breeding, altogether. I think you're talking about the sort of educational culture that I had. For me, it was a better one, too. I trained as a teacher, but never went into it (not as a teacher of schoolkids, anyway). When I read about teachers a few years ago being pressured to teach creationism in parts of the USA, I thought, 'Hell, how can those teachers even remain in their jobs?' Yep, that was political correctness beyond what I could ever put up with.

RapierFugue -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 7:49:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue I know I must sound like I'm 200 years old, but this stuff matters to me. You old fuddyduddy. [;)] And, also: you young anarchist rebel. [;)] I do take your points. The first thing I ever got published (as a letter, in The Guardian), was a letter railing against 'political correctness'. That was in the early 1990s. Back then, 'PC' meant something more exclusively about anally-retentive language than, basically, anything that the right wing doesn't like (as it seems nearly to have become, now). I still have the fury about that subject as I had then. Then why do the enemy's work for them? This is actually the worst kind of "PC"; it's destroying something good, and talented, in the name of "progress" that's anything but. An example. Is the language anachronistic? I.e. does no-one in the US use the N-word anymore? I don't mean the "black culture re-taking" of the word, and its transformation to "nigga", I mean as it was originally coined, as a pejorative? Logic and experience tells us yes, it is still used. Then, in that case, why not have kids exposed to it in the cultural and educational environment of the English Lit class, where someone educated and hopefully passionate about the use of the English language can walk them through why it is such an abhorrent term? If it's just something they hear in the playground then it's wallpaper, or a "bad word" (and we all know how inviting they are when you're a kid); if we focus on its context then we both educate and enlighten, as well as leading some towards making a stand against its further inclusion in the everyday vocabulary. If it's just a "bad word" then who cares? If it's something that's rooted in an evil trade and a denial of a race's humanity then maybe I, little Bert/Bertha Smith, Caucasian and aged 12, can take a stand the next time I hear someone in the street use it, or my parents (god forbid, but let's not pretend all households are enlightened), or my school friends, etc ... "Bad" words thrive on ignorance, and shrink from the harsh light of knowledge and context. T'was ever thus, and ever will be. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer As a by the way: I heard once that Marx's Das Kapital was never banned in many countries because, even after translation into the local language, it was considered by the relevant authorities to be too difficult for the masses to understand. I still haven't worked out my conclusions on that. My understanding was that the utopia it promised was so dissimilar to the actual conditions of those likely to listen to it, that those in power felt it would be ignored or mocked by the masses. Although, thinking about it, that's probably the same thing as your point :)

RapierFugue -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 7:54:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer In the case of Huck Finn, though, there's something else that comes between talker and listener: politics. The kids don't get to hear Mark Twain because the educators have got too frightened to teach him. Then the answer is not to alter Huckleberry Finn (because fear tends to grow, so if it's this word this year it'll be that one next), but instead to empower teachers to enable them to teach, rather than spew bland platitudes by rote. As it stands we've got a burst pipe and we're blaming the water for gushing out, not the pipe for giving way.

eihwaz -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Then they should wait to read it until they can appreciate it, because coming at it too soon just makes it look like a couple of lads out for some larks on a boat, if you're going to remove all the context. Noooooo, I can't go with that. Huck Finn was about a young kid. Young kids should be able to read it.... Young kids, seriously? Have you read the book? There's quite a bit more than the n-word that would have to be excised or altered to make the text suitable for young children -- for example, Huck's alcoholic father is terrifying. I agree with others that Twain's inclusion of the n-word graphically expresses the violence -- spiritual, moral, political, physical -- inherent in the view that most whites had of blacks at that time in America. That particular word is central to the narrative arc and theme of the book. Redacting it out not only vandalizes but deracinates the work. I also agree with the position that, if schools are going to teach the work, the course should provide the historical context. Richard Pryor, another (IMO) great American humorist, used the n-word liberally in his material to convey some deep, bitter, nasty truths. Substituting some other word would ruin the impact, not to mention the humor. quote: de·rac·in·ate /dih-ras-uh-neyt/ verb (used with object),-nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to pull up by the roots; uproot; extirpate; eradicate. 2. to isolate or alienate (a person) from a native or customary culture or environment. Interestingly, in today's congressional reading of the US Constitution, certain parts were omitted.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Then why do the enemy's work for them? This is actually the worst kind of "PC"; it's destroying something good, and talented, in the name of "progress" that's anything but. An example. Is the language anachronistic? I.e. does no-one in the US use the N-word anymore? I don't mean the "black culture re-taking" of the word, and its transformation to "nigga", I mean as it was originally coined, as a pejorative? I think the enemies work for them because they're fucked up. I don't know if the language is anachronistic in the USA, to be honest. I'm not tuned into American culture well enough to know. Obviously, aside from the 'nigga' usage, the N word's still pejorative - but I'd guess more so than it was a century ago. I remember a time when to describe someone as 'coloured' wasn't considered offensive - but it certainly is now. These changes - and the differences between Anglophone countries even in the present - can be quite marked. The N word here in the UK is offensive, but it doesn't have the history of slavery, of institutionalised oppression, etc, etc, etc, that it does in the USA. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to retain Huck Finn in the original here for a while longer. quote: Logic and experience tells us yes, it is still used. Then, in that case, why not have kids exposed to it in the cultural and educational environment of the English Lit class, where someone educated and hopefully passionate about the use of the English language can walk them through why it is such an abhorrent term? If it's just something they hear in the playground then it's wallpaper, or a "bad word" (and we all know how inviting they are when you're a kid); if we focus on its context then we both educate and enlighten, as well as leading some towards making a stand against its further inclusion in the everyday vocabulary. If it's just a "bad word" then who cares? If it's something that's rooted in an evil trade and a denial of a race's humanity then maybe I, little Bert/Bertha Smith, Caucasian and aged 12, can take a stand the next time I hear someone in the street use it, or my parents (god forbid, but let's not pretend all households are enlightened), or my school friends, etc ... "Bad" words thrive on ignorance, and shrink from the harsh light of knowledge and context. T'was ever thus, and ever will be. I agree! But I think most people are severely underestimating the 'political system' angle, here. What we have are educators with whom we dump our kids for six, seven hours a day. They may well be passionate - hopefully are - but they want to keep their jobs. Parents don't want to take the blame for the way their kids turn out. Governments would much rather blame educators than parents for their kids turning out to be crap. And kids, themselves, would rather blame teachers than themselves. So there's a lot of pressure on educators to take the timid option and only the passion of certain teachers, who haven't lost their souls entirely, motivating them to stand fast. This bowdlerisation of Huck Finn, for me, is mostly down to this squalid 'system dynamic'. This solution of the 're-edited' version seems to me to be more about pragmatism than anything else. I do agree that it's a shoddy one, too. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My understanding was that the utopia it promised was so dissimilar to the actual conditions of those likely to listen to it, that those in power felt it would be ignored or mocked by the masses. Although, thinking about it, that's probably the same thing as your point :) I think it was kind of the opposite. Unlike many of his contemporaries Marx was keen to be 'scientific' and quite cagey about portraying any communist Utopia in any detail. That was one reason he was considered to be 'too dry'. But, also - hell, his writing is unbelievably ponderous and heavy at times. Bouncy reading it is not.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Interestingly, in today's congressional reading of the US Constitution, certain parts were omitted. Right. The reading was amended to follow the amendments. It was a symbolic reading of the current instruction manual, not a history lesson. They left out the amendment which brought in prohibition as well. I think there is an important lesson for us today in that bit of history, but it was their ritual to conduct.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Young kids, seriously? Have you read the book? Yes, I read it at about age ten, got disturbed by it, and loved it. I didn't understand about alcoholic fathers, but I did understand about terrifying ones. There were terrifying fathers in the fairy stories I'd read by that age. :-)

FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:36:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I don't think this book should be required reading in schools, because I dislike the thought of young black children being forced to read epithets against their race. You do realize that, this book does the exact opposite right... that it is a aimed to show the bigotry present in America and that Twain's purpose was to show, that one could lift themselves up and past such bigotry... right?

eihwaz -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Young kids, seriously? Have you read the book? Yes, I read it at about age ten, got disturbed by it, and loved it. I didn't understand about alcoholic fathers, but I did understand about terrifying ones. There were terrifying fathers in the fairy stories I'd read by that age. :-) Certainly, it depends on the child. I guess I was considering the question more in terms of whether the book should be included in a school cirriculum.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 8:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No it isn't. The point of a book is what the author feels it is important to say, nothing more and nothing less. If the readers find value in it, so be it. If they don't, then it's their prerogative not to read it. It is nobody's prerogative to rewrite it so that the readers won't find it offensive. I don't agree. The point of having a language and using it is to enable communication between two parties. And Twain, the American master of the English language, was using that language to communicate exactly what he wanted to communicate. He wasn't writing a textbook, he was writing classic literature. It wasn't his job, nor his intention (thank god) to dull it down in order to make it as comfortable as possible for the greatest number of readers. It is the writer's job to say what he or she thinks is important, in the way they feel is the most effective way to communicate it, and if what they say or how they say it fails (for whatever reason) to connect with the reader, that's just the way it goes. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If someone speaks in a language I can't understand, there's no point in his speaking to me. Then I would suggest that they are probably not speaking to you. Not every work of literature is going to connect with every reader. That doesn't mean it's bad writing, or that the writer failed to do his or her job. If something doesn't speak to you, return it to the library and check out something that does. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Less extreme - if I use language that winds up the listener to the point where he won't listen to me, it's on me that my points won't get through to him. So what? It's his loss. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer In the case of Huck Finn, though, there's something else that comes between talker and listener: politics. The kids don't get to hear Mark Twain because the educators have got too frightened to teach him. And if you rewrite what he wrote, they're still not getting to hear Mark Twain, are they?

kdsub -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:21:44 PM)
How many of the so called classics are completely original and unedited? I say none… so what is the big deal about editing for the times Huckleberry Finn? Should we refuse to read all the classics because they may have been changed either on purpose or through translation. Why not let any book stand on the image it presents in the mind edited or not? As long as the original is available for those who choose to read it… and the abridged version is clearly marked what difference does it make? The outrage displayed here is beyond reason…I could understand it if the original were to be banned and burned. Or the original message of the book were changed in the name of the original author. Neither is the case unless there is more information then I’ve read in the links. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:24:00 PM)
Gotta love someone who doesnt mind a bit of "historical cleansing"

kdsub -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:40:11 PM)
I am a gentle soul and the harshness of history should be tempered for me when possible…lol But if we can change and edit our Constitution why not old Huck, Tom, and Slave Jim? Butch

Termyn8or -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:47:46 PM)
"Gotta love someone who doesnt mind a bit of "historical cleansing" " Wonder what else has been "cleansed". T

domiguy -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:49:00 PM)
Ridiculous...What in the fuck is wrong with the world today? Take the "N" word out of literature and the arts? It is a ridiculous notion and would kill the dialogue of some of our most beloved literature and films. Take Ghetto Bitches 2, for instance. In the scene where Laqueesha, authentically played by Mandy Moore, is unable to pay for her car repair bill she is forced to make good on her debt by allowing the two hillbilly greasemonkeys to repeatedly plunder everyone of her holes. It would take away from the authenticity of the moment if the one dumb whitetrash hillbilly mechanics was forced to say, "You fucking skank, wrap your fucking African American lips around my cracker cock." What kind of a world are we heading towards? If this is the future, count me out. .

tazzygirl -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:49:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I am a gentle soul and the harshness of history should be tempered for me when possible…lol But if we can change and edit our Constitution why not old Huck, Tom, and Slave Jim? Butch We do not change our Constitution, we amend it, correcting or adjusting as we go along. But, the 3/5th's count regarding slaves is still there, not cleansed away to suit someone's ideal that since it no longer applies, we can forget it happened.

kdsub -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:53:24 PM)
But again ...what is wrong with a constitution for today and the original of yesterday...both readily available and both serve a purpose Butch

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:55:59 PM)
The Constitution is not literature. It is a legal document, meant to be refined and amended. There is no comparison.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Cleansing of Huckleberry Finn (1/6/2011 9:56:24 PM)
Whats next? Anne Franks Diary? This is a way around censorship. Whats sort of amusing is that we allow sex and violence on TV where our children can view it at any time of day or night, but we suddenly feel a need to "clean up" the classics.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875