Censored Huck Finn to be published: Pub. Weekly

[J.T.B.]

That's a good point, but I would argue that publishing an altered version of something someone else wrote is a bit different from publishing something you wrote and standing by whatever your intentions were when you wrote and published it.

Sure, but it happens all the time. There are no end of abridged or edited or childrens' versions of "classic" books available. I can remember learning to look for the word "unabridged" at a fairly early age. As long as the consumer is informed of that modifications have been made, I don't really see a big issue.

--Justin

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Sure. But it's also my business, like yours, to say it's stupid.

Yeah, but at some point somebody's gotta say that the outrage over this is even dumber than the actual censorship. You know, screaming about political correctness and about whitewashing the past and weeping for the future and saying society is in decline just because ONE publisher decides to put out an altered version of ONE book.

Sure. It's your right to do so. Just like it's other's right to continue saying it's the end of the world. Whatta gonna do?



I think it's possible to be outraged by more than one thing.

AND, I would argue, the essential difference: the owners of the copyright of the film (the film company) ok'd any sort of editing of the film.

Twain doesn't have the opportunity.

Jane Austen didn't get the opportunity to sign off on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. There wasn't much outrage over that.

Come on. Seriously? This is how you're arguing your position?

Well, there's a REASON why there's no outrage about that.

It's a parody. No one will mistake Pride and Prejudice for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

And parody is protected free speech. So, the author wouldn't need Jane Austen's permission.

No one would need Jane Austen's permission (or that of her estate) in the first place, as Pride and Prejudice is in the public domain.

Parody is a fair use of copyrighted material. Anything in the public domain, you can really do whatever you please with.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I really have to wonder who the intended audience is for this.

School districts where the censored version isn't used, one imagines (Huck is one of the most frequently-challenged books in the US).

Which, in fact, may be part of the rationale for this (acknowledged or not). A market exists for it.

BTW, if you were to quote some of the "unexpurgated passages" of Huckleberry Finn here in this topic you would be in violation of board rules and issued a warning.

I find it unlikely that any mod around here would be so stupid as to issue a warning for simply quoting a few passages from Huck Finn. Being a gambling man however I'll take that bet.

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio – a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane – the awful- est old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me – I'll never vote agin as long as I live. And to see the cool way of that nigger – why, he wouldn't a give me the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way. I says to the people, why ain't this nigger put up at auction and sold? – that's what I want to know. And what do you reckon they said? Why, they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the State six months, and he hadn't been there that long yet. There, now – that's a specimen. They call that a govment that can't sell a free nigger till he's been in the State six months. Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock-still for six whole months before it can take a hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free nigger"

Warn away and reveal your ignorance.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, but at some point somebody's gotta say that the outrage over this is even dumber than the actual censorship. You know, screaming about political correctness and about whitewashing the past and weeping for the future and saying society is in decline just because ONE publisher decides to put out an altered version of ONE book.

Sure. It's your right to do so. Just like it's other's right to continue saying it's the end of the world. Whatta gonna do?



I think it's possible to be outraged by more than one thing.

Jane Austen didn't get the opportunity to sign off on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. There wasn't much outrage over that.

Come on. Seriously? This is how you're arguing your position?

Well, there's a REASON why there's no outrage about that.

It's a parody. No one will mistake Pride and Prejudice for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

And parody is protected free speech. So, the author wouldn't need Jane Austen's permission.

No one would need Jane Austen's permission (or that of her estate) in the first place, as Pride and Prejudice is in the public domain.

Parody is a fair use of copyrighted material. Anything in the public domain, you can really do whatever you please with.

Exactly. You could change it to "Robot Jim" and publish your own edition for Kindle by the end of the day, if you were so inclined.

The funny thing is, making that change would protect your edition under copyright, if I recall correctly. Come to think of it, that might be one of reasons behind this edition, as cynical as it sounds.

 

[Count Zero]

Dennis, it doesn't matter if there are any books that ARE banned. The point is that they once were. If books could be banned back then, that could happen again.

And with the advent of the internet, that ban would be meaningless. How do you think I got to see a bunch of infamous Nazi propaganda films? (Though, to be fair, they aren't really banned, just never shown without context and someone explaining the errors and such.) So, people would have no problem getting their hands on this book in the extremely unlikely event it got banned in the USA, which would be against the constitution, anyway.

 

[Professor Zoom]

No one would need Jane Austen's permission (or that of her estate) in the first place, as Pride and Prejudice is in the public domain.

Parody is a fair use of copyrighted material. Anything in the public domain, you can really do whatever you please with.

Exactly. That's why I suggested, in a later post, they chose to use Austen in the first place, just in case of lawsuits. (Though, it's probably because Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a WAY funny idea.)

I could do a parody of Twilight. I might risk a lawsuit or two, but ultimately, I would win. I just might be broke from the legal fees.

 

[ancientone51]

Te major dofference between and abridged or children's version of a book and this as I see it is, the others are clearly NOT intended to replace, but to lead into the eventual reading of the whole book when the reader is mature enough to deal with it.

This book looks to be a substitue for the real thing as it has everything Twain wrote EXCEPT a handful of words. You would have to know exactly what you are getting to kow the difference or compare two copies.

What worries me as a teacher is that some school districts will use this one due to community, parent, student offense at the original and may not make the difference clear as even mentioning the diffence could get sticky.

As for reading the preface that is supposed to cover this in the new text...yeah, kids go for the preface so fast I can't keep up and I took Evilyn Woods.

In this day of Twitter and 144 characters, text symbols (go4it, brb) and all the other short attention span garbage out there, I am worried. I teach high school kids. Some of mine now could not pass the tests I used to give as they are not being trained to think for themselves or to work that hard. Sad.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

people would have no problem getting their hands on this book in the extremely unlikely event it got banned in the USA, which would be against the constitution, anyway.

Unconstitutional? How so?

 

[Professor Zoom]

people would have no problem getting their hands on this book in the extremely unlikely event it got banned in the USA, which would be against the constitution, anyway.

Unconstitutional? How so?

Um. Maybe the First Amendment?

 

[Count Zero]

I'm pretty sure you can't just ban a book because you don't like it due to the first amendment. There has to be a really good reason for a book to be banned from sale, e.g. slander. And I'm not even sure if that would be possible in the USA. I know it's possible here, but it's very rare, and considering how much more limited free speech is in the German constitution compared to the US one, I'd say that it must be even rarer in the USA.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ If banning books is unconstitutional, how did the previous bannings occur?

 

[Count Zero]

As I said, there are limits to free speech. Slander, e.g., is a big one. I'm not familiar with what books were banned but if a book is slanderous towards a living person, it can probably be banned. However, you said yourself that those bans lay in the past. So I left room for the possibility that the laws have changed in the meantime.
Also, in the past, the Constitution wasn't always observed everywhere as it should have been, otherwise there would have been no need for the Civil Rights movement. Countries can go wrong and it's important to remain vigilant but I don't see the USA heading that way at the moment.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Constitutional law and interpretation in this country has evolved over time. There was a time when the definition of "obscenity" was quite a bit broader in the U.S. than it is now, and most book bannings in the U.S. were based on obscenity.

All of which is irrelevant and a red herring in this discussion.

Sure book banning could come back. So could Prohibition. Hell, one day there could be death camps in the U.S.

Why? Because any society can change over time, and it's impossible to predict the future especially over long periods of time.

That said, Mr. Laser Beam has yet to make a successful point or a plausible argument supporting the preposterous notion that a publisher deciding to bring out an abridged or creatively censored edition of a public domain work in any way presages the likelihood of that book - or any book - being banned.

Just saying over and over "It could happen! Prove it can't happen!" doesn't make the cut - not even close.

The suggestion is illogical, trivial, foolish and rather an hysterical one - "hysterical" in the sense of "uncontrollably and irrationally fearful or panicked" rather than funny.

 

[Gaith]

Dennis, it doesn't matter if there are any books that ARE banned. The point is that they once were. If books could be banned back then, that could happen again.

Might slavery come back, too? Because I could totally use some concubines. Been in a bit of a dry spell.

 

[barnaclelapse]

That's a good point, but I would argue that publishing an altered version of something someone else wrote is a bit different from publishing something you wrote and standing by whatever your intentions were when you wrote and published it.

Of course it is.

That doesn't mean that someone doesn't have the right to do it. The text isn't owned by anyone.

Or should we, you know, stop it? Maybe buy all the copies and burn them?

Nah. I think I'll express my distaste for this by not buying a copy of the book.

That's a good point, but I would argue that publishing an altered version of something someone else wrote is a bit different from publishing something you wrote and standing by whatever your intentions were when you wrote and published it.

Sure, but it happens all the time. There are no end of abridged or edited or childrens' versions of "classic" books available. I can remember learning to look for the word "unabridged" at a fairly early age. As long as the consumer is informed of that modifications have been made, I don't really see a big issue.

--Justin

That's absolutely true, and I agree completely with your opinion, Dennis that the most common sense course of action is to just not buy the damn book. I suppose I'm just venting frustration with the whole thing. Because it is a bit frustrating. It's a shame that this path has to be taken at all. That's just my opinion.

I guess in the end I just like a bit of debate about literature. It doesn't seem like there's enough of that these days.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm pretty sure you can't just ban a book because you don't like it due to the first amendment. There has to be a really good reason for a book to be banned from sale, e.g. slander. And I'm not even sure if that would be possible in the USA. I know it's possible here, but it's very rare, and considering how much more limited free speech is in the German constitution compared to the US one, I'd say that it must be even rarer in the USA.

A publisher choosing not to publish a book because of slander isn't banning.

It's protecting oneself from a lawsuit.

 

[Count Zero]

And I didn't mention any publishers.

 

[Professor Zoom]

And I didn't mention any publishers.

Right. But the government can ban a book even for slander.

A publisher could chose not to publish something because of slander, ie, they could be sued.

That's why I mentioned publishers.

 

[Count Zero]

But couldn't the further sale of such a book be prohibited by a court?

 

[Professor Zoom]

But couldn't the further sale of such a book be prohibited by a court?

I'm not a legal expert, but I would imagine the halting of further sale by the court is because the slandered party is asking for that. The court would just be enforcing the wishes of the slandered party.

If the slandered party didn't care or didn't take any action then the book could/would be published.

That's my understanding.

It's a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.