Censored Huck Finn to be published: Pub. Weekly
- Thread starter 23skidoo
- Start date
I am vaguely curious how they censored it. Is he just Jim now? N-word Jim? Black person Jim? African-American person Jim?
I think I read that they're changing it to "Slave Jim." That's arguably more offensive, but whatever. They're going to sell more copies due to the "controversy" than they would have normally, but it's hardly going to be the new standard text.
Some other publisher (or even the same one) is probably already planning an edition declaring itself "THE ORIGINAL, UNCENSORED TEXT."
Some other publisher (or even the same one) is probably already planning an edition declaring itself "THE ORIGINAL, UNCENSORED TEXT."
The word genitalia may offend people so Moby Dick will be renamed Moby Richard.
I doubt that all of the preexisting copies of the original version are going to magically disappear once this censored version come out. I also doubt that this censored version will be very popular in academic circles. Most (most, not necessarily all) literature teachers became teachers because they love literaure and the thought of teaching a censored version of a classic would not be very appealing to them.
This PC version of Huckleberry Finn will be forgotten a few months after it is released. I really have to wonder who the intended audience is for this.
This PC version of Huckleberry Finn will be forgotten a few months after it is released. 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).
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.
If people want to be outraged about the whitewashing of history, there are far more worthy targets, including our new Congress which is in the middle of reciting the Constitution minus all references to slavery.
Jane Austen didn't get the opportunity to sign off on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. There wasn't much outrage over that.
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.
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.
Are you sure about that? If I take 85% of the text of Twilight and insert ninjas and publish it as Twilight with Ninjas and credit Stephenie Meyer as "co-author", you think I wouldn't get my ass sued? Maybe the courts would rule in my favor, but that would only be after I bankrupt myself fighting Meyer's attorneys.
Give me a list of the books currently banned from sale in the United States.
Not books pulled off the shelves at the Podunk public library or a school somewhere. Books banned from sale in the United States.
I'll simplify things for you - you can start here.
Precisely. One can be annoyed - offended, even - without resort to hyperbole and hysteria.
Really, the worst that can be said of this is maybe that it's tacky.
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.
Some of the books in that list *were* banned in the US, in fact. Maybe not now, but they once were.
Perhaps that's why they chose Jane Austen. Why risk legal fees? Like the woman did in the link that I posted.
But, that's all beside the point.
There was no outcry because no one would mistake Austen and the guy who wrote the zombie Austen book.
This is taking something an altering, while still putting the same author's name on it, without the author's permission.
Well, since I can read I know that. If you're under the impression that the article supports your anxieties, you're mistaken.
Come on - where's your list of books that are banned from sale in the United States?
I'm waiting.
Dude, even Mein Kampf hasn't been banned in the US. If that's still allowed to be on the shelves, why wouldn't Huckleberry Finn?
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.
The Moon could fall out of the sky.
In other words, you've got nuthin', here.
The publication of an edition of a book that is in the public domain in which a couple of words have been altered has absolutely bupkis to do with the "banning of books."
Not a bloody thing.
What's knee-slapping funny here is that the basis of all of this "oh god, we have to fight censorship/book banning" is that someone is publishing a book that you find objectionable and you can't accept their right to do so.
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.