Mark Twain’s book, Huckleberry Finn is one of those literary works that is perpetually under attack for being racially offensive. Despite its acclaim as a literary classic, demands for its removal from school reading lists are so common as to not even be newsworthy anymore.
But, forget all that. Publisher NewSouth Books now intends to improve the book by printing an edition that will purge the word “nigger” and replace it with “slave”.
The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun. The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it.
Alan Gribben is an Auburn University (Montgomery) professor and the author of several books about Twain.
There have been numerous complaints that this amounts to censorship and all the internet polls that I’ve seen show that 85-93% of people oppose the alteration. To me it smacks of revisionism and reminds me of Winston Smith’s job at the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s book, “Nineteen Eighty-Four“. His job was to review historical records and alter them to fit the government’s preferred version of events. Of course, NewSouth Books is not the government, but they are responding to social pressures which can be even more powerful than government. From the public response, it would seem they missed the mark, but there is no doubt that the word “nigger” has become so taboo that you would be hard pressed to find it mentioned in mainstream news articles covering this story even though the story is, in fact, about that very word. In other words, they won’t even print the word they’re discussing for fear of offending someone. That parnoid approach to journalism is reminiscent of the media’s fear of printing cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed and underscores the need for nontraditional news outlets (now provided by the internet).
On the other hand, if this puts the book into the hands of kids who would not otherwise be allowed to read it due to forces beyond their control (overprotective parents and the school boards they frighten), then maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge.
Actually, nothing makes a book more appealing that banning it. Censorship almost always results in increased exposure and interest in uncensored versions of books, movies, and the arts.
The real problem here is that we are raising a generation of children who are being inculcated with the idea that a mere arrangement of letters is something to be feared independent of the context. Of course, that fits in quite nicely with the belief that it’s perfectly permissible to outlaw imagery that portrays verboten sexual fantasies. And these children will grow up with a view that freedom of expression should be restricted because of the potential for harm.
There is no such thing as a little censorship.
The original film (and original video cassette) of “Pretty Baby” includes a scene showing Brooke Shields (then 10-11) apparently nude but actually wearing a body suit. According to a reviewer on Amazon, the new DVD version has been “edited,” i.e. the apparently nude scene has been cut.
As I pointed out in my article about The Happy Hooker, its newest edition has been bowdlerized as well to remove several episodes which are no longer politically correct.
I had to look up bowdlerized.
The comparison with Winston Smith’s work is quite accurate. It’s funny: many people get angry at the kind of censorship in 1984 because it was done for the ‘wrong’ reasons — keep a totalitarian party in power — but feel OK with the same thing being done for the ‘right’ reasons — not offending a certain group of people (especially if historically this group did suffer quite a lot).
It’s the same thing, of course. Still people will want to classify these cases differently. Like those who think it’s OK to torture when we’re the ones doing it, but not when they’re the ones doing it to us.
I have never watched pretty baby,but from what I have heard in internet discussions she was actually totally nude in some scenes of the film.They say that while some nude scenes create doubts,in some others she is quite clearly nude with even her genitals visible.
I don’t think it even matters whether she was wearing a body suit or not,my question is -what is wrong with the naked human body,whatever the age?With sex- yes ,I can see some problems -there is a risk of pregnancy and I suppose there is also a risk of injury,but what is the problem with just a naked human body?
And I don’t like many things.I don’t like violence,I don’t like some words with f in it,I also don’t like the sound of “nigger”.But my question is what is the point of censoring it?A story depicts an idea and by censoring it,you hide that idea.An idea can never be dangerous,it’s what you do with that idea that matters.Civilization only progresses with ideas and that’s why they should be never hidden.