http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700

So, some bright spark has decided to replace all the 'offensive' words in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, so 'nigger' is replaced with 'slave'.


Am I the only one who finds this insulting to both the book and author? I always thought, having read the book, one of the main points was 'racism is bad, mkay?', and to me, replacing these words is as blasphemous, even as an atheist, as replacing the word 'God' in the bible because some people don't believe in God.

The professor who has done this has said "When I give readings and replace the word, the audience is more comfortable"... surely the point of the word being in there, even at the time the book was written, was to make the audience uncomfortable.
[Reply]

You are not alone. In the USA, we are way too PC. Everyone gets an A, there are no winners as that make the other group losers... All this makes the air stale and the tummy upset.
[Reply]

This is only one step away from book burning and should be considered just as insidiously evil. Isn't this what George Orwell warned us about?
[Reply]

In addition to being insulting to the original work and Twain him, I feel like this is an insult to the entire American black community, particularly those who can trace their roots back to the slave era. Twain wrote this book as a criticism of racism in post-slavery America. While his vision was perhaps limited due to his surroundings and the time period, the overall theme was very progressive. Removing "nigger" severely dilutes the anti-racism message. Also, Twain wrote Huck Finn in the style of the time, and keeping words like "nigger" protects an important historical period in the development of modern-day black culture. Twain wrote in a way that humanized Jim, and today it gives modern-day readers a look at Jim as a post-slavery black both on private level (through Jim) and a public level (through others' perceptions of Jim).
[Reply]

One word: "unabridged". There are already many abridged editions of Twain classics to clean up the language and to make them easier for kids to read. I was amazed the first time I read an unabridged version, how much better it all fit together. I could almost start talking in the accents as they were written. Twain spelled a lot of words phonetically to convey the accents in the quotes. I started looking inside of covers to find "unabridged" so that I knew I was getting what the author wanted to write.
[Reply]

Ridiculous. It is the equivalent of altering a Dali or Picasso painting :-)
[Reply]

Well, I don't think I've read an abridged version of the book!

Yep, another of the changes is 'Indian' in for 'Injun'...
[Reply]

Another situation when "context" is left out of the equation. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
[Reply]

I disagree with it as well.
[Reply]

Just wrong!
[Reply]

We need to get over this PC crap and start being authentic!
[Reply]

:-)
It really is an insult to peoples' intelligence. The word SHOULD be making people uncomfortable, and if it didn't we would be in trouble as a society. That's the whole point of why we read it in High School, to promote awareness. In my class we had to read some of those parts out loud and invariably the student would pause on that word, wondering if they should say it or not. That gives the teacher the opportunity to call attention to the fact that things were cruel and unfair back then and the students learn a valuable lesson, it brings up valuable discussion. To alter the words takes the teeth out of his anti-slavery, anti-racist message. It's just wrong to soften the language in the book so that a bunch of idiots can pretend that ugly things don't exist, and it doesn't help anybody or get us any closer to ending discriminatin by erasing the word in classroom, in fact it probably makes things worse.
[Reply]

Why stop with Twain? Aren't there hundreds of examples throughout literature that might make someone "uncomfortable"? Hell, let's give Chaucer a look.

So freakin' stupid.
[Reply]

People are going to do what they want, even if others think it is misplaced. It isn't like the original is being removed and we are prevented from reading it by civic minded library censors. Oh wait, that will probably happen if it hasn't already.

Mind you, I have the complete works of Samuel Clemmens already, so I'm not going to worry.
[Reply]

Instead of "slave," maybe this guy should have gone with "unwhite" and taken us another step closer to the brink...
[Reply]

I don't agree with this comment. I do think this book, and others. should be left alone. That doesn't mean that trying to be politically correct is wrong. It is wrong if it's taken to far. Not calling someone "N*****" in the street is polite and moral. It will also avoid problems. Same gos for a lot of acts of PC. Sometimes it is taken way too far, though.
[Reply]

From the link:

This editing/sanitising crap is for people who think uttering the word makes you a racist. For example if you said: "I don't think anyone should call another person a n_____." then you're racist for the simple fact you uttered it, even though you were condemning it. It's called CONTEXT. It's should not be a difficult concept.
[Reply]

My point was that this is nothing new. I was reading these books and others forty years ago and the word "'nigger" and "injun" were left out even then. Also the accented quotes were altered and some of the violence lessened. The unabridged text will still be available.
[Reply]

What would Twain say???

I guess they shouldn't be smokin' cigars as well:
Image
[Reply]

I'm positive he already said it.
[Reply]