Click here to edit contents of this page.
Click here to toggle editing of individual sections of the page (if possible). Watch headings for an "edit" link when available.
Append content without editing the whole page source.
Check out how this page has evolved in the past.
If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it.
View and manage file attachments for this page.
A few useful tools to manage this Site.
See pages that link to and include this page.
Change the name (also URL address, possibly the category) of the page.
View wiki source for this page without editing.
View/set parent page (used for creating breadcrumbs and structured layout).
Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page.
Something does not work as expected? Find out what you can do.
General Wikidot.com documentation and help section.
Wikidot.com Terms of Service - what you can, what you should not etc.
Wikidot.com Privacy Policy.
As emotionally charged and offensive the n-word can be, I don't believe it should be removed from Huck Finn. As modern readers, we recognize the significance and history behind the n-word, and I think that Twain's use of such an offensive word in Huck Finn makes the depth and breadth of racist thinking in the South (at the time) clearer in the text. Huck's use of the n-word sharply contrasts to his generally anti-slavery ideas, as he obviously considers Jim to be much more than a piece of property, but still uses the n-word with abandon. Without the n-word, the starkness of Huck's conflicting ideologies just wouldn't be the same. Slavery and racism were incredibly pervasive in the South, as entire economies and really the society were built around the "peculiar institution," and as modern readers separated by a decades of less racist ideology, I think the n-word might even be more significant, as it's such a powerful reminder of what times were like.
As far as reaching a broader audience, it does make sense to edit out the n-word for those who really don't care to read it 219 times (understandably), but I think over-editing runs the risk of sanitizing the text altogether. Context is important, and while the n-word is unacceptable for modern usage, in Twain's text it serves as an important reminder of how things used to be.
We should have a "like" button.
I agree completely.
Mark Twain used the n-word to teach readers about the point of view people had in the South on race, not to be derogatory or insulting. To get rid of the n-word would be to get rid of a lesson to be learned.
Even though the N word does add [debatably] a lot to the text, replacing it with a word that generally means the same thing isnt a huge deal. Its true that the word "slave" doesnt reflect on the culture as much as the N word, and keeping the N word in the text does constantly remind the reader of what a socially acceptable norm it is to refer to a slave in that way, but overall, it doesnt really change the meaning. If I were to here "slave" in the context of Huck Finn, I would still be reminded of the same institution that I would be if it were the N word instead. Personally, I dont think I would lose anything by reading a "censored" edition apposed to the unabridged.
That said, it is kind of silly and immature to want to change it in the first place. Its not like Huck goes out of his way to swear that much in the text, and because of this, the N word kind of blends in with the rest of the story and becomes just another word. But I also recognize that we live in marin county and go to a pretty mature high school, and that other schools and kids around the country could not realize these same things and take the N word as either an insult, or use it more in society because of reading it in the book. If this really is the case, then yeah, I can see why an edited edition should be published.
I agree with Graham. I think that taking out the n-word would sensor the complete racism of the south and hypocrisy of parts of the north. Even though Huck finds Jim to be more of his family than anyone else (up to where we've read) he still refers to Jim with the n-word. This pervasive use, even by Huck and abolitionists, shows how racism wasn't an isolated thing that can be forgotten and rewritten out of books and history but must be remembered to fully understand the time period.
Something a little off topic but similar that I read this morning were two articles from the nytimes. This first one is about the reading of the constitution in the House (for the first time) sparked by the teaparty- but instead of reading the whole thing, they left out all that has been changed: all mentions of slavery (3/5ths), blacks and women's inability to vote, and prohibition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07constitution.html?ref=todayspaper
My opinion on this is basically the same as with Huck Finn. You shouldn't just sensor history to leave out injustices that some people would prefer to forget just because they are shocking. And to read it written in an eloquent way here is the nyt editorial about the sensored reading of the constitution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07fri2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Maya,
Thanks for adding this topic to the debate. An interesting op-ed was published today in the New York Times on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/opinion/08kirsch.html?_r=1
Best,
Dr. W