Leonard Pitts: "Censoring 'Huck Finn' is Wrong, wrong, wrong" Editorial

[Mira]

=====

"It is never a good idea to sugarcoat the past.
The past is what it is, immutable and non-negotiable" Leonard Pitts


Leonard Pitts Jr.: Censoring 'Huck Finn' — Wrong, wrong, wrong

It is, perhaps, the seminal moment in American literature.

Young Huck Finn, trying to get right with God and save his soul from a forever of fire, sits there with the freshly written note in hand. "Miss Watson," it says, "your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send."
Huck knows it is a sin to steal, and he is whipped by guilt for the role he has played in helping the slave Jim steal himself from a poor old woman who never did Huck any harm. But see, Jim has become Huck's friend, has sacrificed for him, worried about him, laughed and sung with him, depended upon him. So what, really, is the right thing to do?

"I was a-trembling," says Huck, "because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: 'All right, then, I'll go to hell' — and tore it up."

When NewSouth Books releases its new version of Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" next month, that revelatory moment will contain one troubling change. Publishers Weekly reported last week that in this edition, edited by Twain scholar Alan Gribben of Auburn University, all 219 occurrences of the so-called "N-word" will be cut. Huck's note will now call Jim a "runaway SLAVE." Twain's use of the word "Injun" will also be struck.

<snip>

... it is troubling to think the state of reading comprehension in this country has become this wretched, that we have tweeted, PlayStationed and Fox News'd so much of our intellectual capacity away that not only can our children not divine the nuances of a masterpiece, but that we will now protect them from having to even try.

Huck Finn is a funny, subversive story about a runaway white boy who comes to locate the humanity in a runaway black man and, in the process, vindicates his own. It has always, until now, been regarded as a timeless tale.

But that was before America became an intellectual backwater that would deem it necessary to censor its most celebrated author.
The one consolation is that somewhere, Mark Twain is laughing his head off.

Excerpted from Leonard Pitts Jr.: Censoring 'Huck Finn' — Wrong, wrong, wrong - Postbulletin.com: Rochester, MN
http://postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1440570



Leonard Pitts is a Pulitzer prize winning columnist
www.leonardpittsjr.com

[robcon]

1. It's not "wrong" Let anyone who wants to buy that book buy it.

I'd rather have the original - but opinions differ.

[FSogol]

2. Pretty funny reply for someone with a "Redskins" Avatar.

:shrug:

[robcon]

6. Is it 'funny' to disagree with the OP?

I think it's funny that someone would call a book "wrong, wrong, wrong."

Let people decide for themselves.

[FSogol]

9. You missed the point. You are taking the "don't use racist terms in a book" while using the

avatar of a racist image. :shrug:

[Zoeisright]

13. [phone]

Excellent, EXCELLENT point.

[robcon]

17. No I think you got it wrong.

In a survey of indigenous people the Redskins name and avatar was found to be non-offensive.

It always is better if you first find out if it is offensive... that way, if you are offended "on behalf of someone else" you won't be ridiculed. In this case, you've make an assclown of yourself.

In addition, I did not argue the "don't use racist terms in a book" position. I suggested that if anyone didn't want to to see racist terms in a book, they might want to buy the new book, but I preferred the original.

Another assclown move.

[FSogol]

18. Whatever, I point out an inconsistency in your position and resort to name calling. Pretty weak.

Who are the "Skins" playing this week? :shrug:

[robcon]

22. No inconsistency whatsoever. My first post, and every post, took the same position.

But you knew that.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. What survey had that finding?

If you can't link to it, please list the name of the organization that conducted the survey. Thanks.

[FSogol]

20. Sports Illustrated. Sometime in the early 90s, IIRC. I believe Dan Snyder,

midget RW owner of the Redskins did one also.

[Mira]

11. You can critizise me if you wish. Though I did not WRITE it (wish I could have

with the perspective of a black person, like the writer) I only POSTED it to share his thoughts on an issue that is too silly to be controversial.
Now, be assured, the last part is my opinion.

[RZM]

7. It is wrong

Literature and art are more than just entertainment -- they are valuable documents of their place and time. Writing our PC sensibilities into Twain's era, when they simply did not exist, is not only interfering with the artist's vision, but in effect rewriting history.

[Goblinmonger]

16. As the Badgers cheer when they play the UND Fighting Sioux

Ra-cist Mas-cot!

[Schema Thing]

3. I think it's just.plain.wrong.

It's not what he wrote.

It's not necessary.

It's not helpful.

[FSogol]

4. Censorship is wrong. Here's Huck Finn corrected for Modern Sensibilities:

[Jim__]

5. I don't think I've read anyone who thinks this re-write is a good idea.

Some people find it tolerable; but I haven't read anyone who thinks it's a positive move.

[Nye Bevan]

8. "Bluenoses have been after this masterpiece from the beginning".

It's just surprising to see so many of these bluenoses here on DU.

Twain probably wouldn’t be surprised, since bluenoses have been after his masterpiece from the beginning. The Concord, Mass., public library rejected the book upon its publication in 1885. It considered Twain’s handiwork “rough, coarse, and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.”

The good librarians of Concord must not have read far enough into the novel to realize that it satirizes many of the “rough and coarse” people with which it deals. Just as today’s critics of the book miss that it condemns racism, brilliantly and movingly, although much too subtly for the witless commissars of offensiveness.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256555/don-t-rewrite-mark-twain-rich-lowry

[FSogol]

10. In the early 1990s someone else published an edition that cleaned up the language.

Since it has already been forgotten, I'm sure this version will join it soon.

[ensho]

12. agree, its wrong

nt

[woo me with science]

14. Of course it's wrong.

You don't CHANGE someone's art to sanitize your version of history.

If people were really concerned about sending the wrong message to kids, they would teach it alongside Twain's writings about slavery in his contemporary life.

[FSogol]

15. Huck Finn can stand on its own as a condemnation of slavery. n/t

[woo me with science]

21. Of course it SHOULD be able to .

Clearly some people are having trouble with that, and a direct history could be a nice addition for the morons among us.

[TheKentuckian]

23. We can't have a society exclusively geared for the lowest common denominator.

but that seems increasingly the game plan. Everything has to be designed for the laziest, the most naive, the least involved, the most fearful, the most impatient, the least curious, the stupidest, the most thoughtless, the laziest, the greediest, and the most ignorant.

Anything pushing beyond that is ivory tower elitism and a insidious plot of somebody or of course "hurts the children".

[QC]

24. kick

[kath]

25. Here's the Rude Pundit's take on this:

"Regarding the De-Niggering of Huck Finn:"
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/ (see 1/7/2011 entry)