Reading a book depicting a certain period of time becomes pointless if the time cannot be accurately depicted. Part of the book was the issue with terms of this nature. Removing them removes that part. I can only imagine what'd happen if these geniuses ever get a hold of a Faulkner novel or two. You cannot put modern ideals on time past. There's a reason we need to read these things the way they were written - to see the time and place as they were. Seeing these nasty terms used for the figures they describe instills a feeling of conflict. Of sadness. Of regret that because of things outside control of the people involved certain things can never truly be as they should be. The awakening that was happening was in no small part because of these feelings of conflict. These horrible terms people used to describe people you love because they simply chose not to see them in any other way. How that makes it impossible not to see that as a terrible injustice. Without that, you miss so much. All to make 'us' more comfortable. Well, the point is that we aren't supposed to be comfortable when we read books that challenge the past in this way. We're not. We don't learn anything that way. And it's painfully obvious to me that these morons will never understand any of it. The world can be made perfect, by their estimation, if we simply forget where it came from.
So while I agree that I'd rather Clemen's work not be... adjusted... in this way, I can see it being a "greater good" that they get read (in part) in schools then not being read at all (but remaining complete).
________
1Just how many people do you think recognize the name "Samuel Clemens"?
Just how many people do you think recognize the name "Samuel Clemens"?
Dunno. How many not-stupid people do you reckon there are?
Doubleplusungood.
That's a rather excellent way of putting it.
IIRC, the people that are making this censored version of Mark Twain's work1 aren't doing it because they think it should be censored, but because the books weren't getting read in schools because of the words. That is, so that the books are read at all (even if after a bit of censorship) they're cutting the parts that were getting them cut out of schools.
So while I agree that I'd rather Clemen's work not be... adjusted... in this way, I can see it being a "greater good" that they get read (in part) in schools then not being read at all (but remaining complete).
To me, reading it in its altered state isn't really reading it at all. Clemens was against what those words stood for. How is the reader gonna get that if the words aren't even there? Meh, I'm hard line on this stuff and I'll admit that. More people should read good things, yes. But if you're not ready for American Psycho you'd be better off waiting until you are rather than reading that he liked nose spray too much and enjoyed saying mean things to girls.
1Just how many people do you think recognize the name "Samuel Clemens"?
I'd estimate more than a few. Even if not, as this thread has a literary focus, I felt it only proper to use the man's true name to add an air of intelligence to it.
To me, reading it in its altered state isn't really reading it at all. Clemens was against what those words stood for. How is the reader gonna get that if the words aren't even there?
The same way people "get that" when the words are there. By, after reading it, reading about it.
The same way people "get that" when the words are there. By, after reading it, reading about it.
That's a vastly different experience, dontchathink? If it's there, you can use it and the context of the story itself to understand it. Reading is a layered experience. Removing these terms - even if the information they help show is available elsewhere - removes a layer. That, IMO, cripples the work. But, like I said, I'm fairly extreme when it comes to this stuff.
Have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange? That movie was not what the author had in mind. Burgess, you see, had written an entire chapter that was left out of the book. At the time he was simply trying to get published and was at the whim of whoever decided to go ahead with it. So, when it was finally set to go, the final chapter was excised despite his protest. This version is what the film was based on and ends, IIRC, where that version ends - not at the actual end. Burgess believed the work suffered from this loss (a thought I share). In the end, what's relevant here is that when we see the film or read the first printing, it's not Burgess' vision we see. It's not Burgess behind it. So what do we learn? All works are edited but I believe the process can be taken too far. In something of Huck Finn's nature, removing authentic terms of the time will cause the work to become something different entirely. And that, IMO, is a tragedy.
That a middle or high school student might read an edited version, learn that it was edited (part of the classroom discussion) and go on to read an unedited version...
or...
It isn't read at all.
Public schools are getting more and more paranoid about toeing the line, and more willing then ever to just nix something slightly problematic because they just don't have the budgets to fight parents.
They won't miss something because of acts like this, they'll miss everything if acts like this don't happen.
Public schools are getting more and more paranoid about toeing the line, and more willing then ever to just nix something slightly problematic because they just don't have the budgets to fight parents.
Then it just shouldn't be offered, IMO. If you're that afraid, don't butcher a book - just don't allow it to be used in class. I'd be fine with that, to be honest. I'd rather no student see David than every student see him with a black bar across his lower abdomen.
_________________
For the record, since it was brought up in another post, I didn't particularly like Huck Finn either. It still should stand on its own as-is, though.
It's Twains works today, perhaps the history books tomorrow.
This is setting a bad precedent.
There are actually some good reasons for this book not to be required curriculum for students, especially younger ones. A lot of the objectionable content would be difficult to understand, and could lead some to feel pretty uncomfortable in the classroom.
I like Mark Twain, but I do feel that some of his writing shows racist tendencies. Also, there is a lot of historical context that needs to be addressed when going over his work, something that is best suited to more advanced literature classes. A younger audience would have some difficulties wading through that kind of material. Just my 2 cents.
But what's the greater tragedy?
That a middle or high school student might read an edited version, learn that it was edited (part of the classroom discussion) and go on to read an unedited version...
or...
It isn't read at all.
The greatest tragedy is that these are seen as the only two options.
The greatest tragedy is that these are seen as the only two options.
No argument, but that's the world we've got.
I've read a few other books about the same basic topic and set in the same basic time, and they wouldn't be the same experience if you'd censor them. Part of the experience of reading the book is in projecting yourself into the main character, and he's a lot less believable if he's acting out-of-era because of censorships.
In the article I read Twain was quoted about choosing his words very carefully and deliberately. By altering that one word, which now has more complicated and problematic baggage attached to it than in Clemens day, the editor hopes to get the book more widely read and taught in schools where it would otherwise simply be unread and unavailable without a dedicated effort to seek it out elsewhere.
To be honest, the book was pretty boring. I didn't like it at all. If I want a history about how people are racist, I'll go to history class. If I want to hear people being racist, I know people like that too. I'd rather that schools start using books that mean something to their audience. If you make reading an unenjoyable experience, then kids just won't read unless if they have to.
I know this is off topic a bit, but what are you talking about? It's a story about a kid who escapes from his abusive and dead end life to raft down a river with a black man and have awesome adventures. How is that not interesting? When I was a kid I ate that stuff up.
And "slave" has a different connotation than the word it's intended to replace ever did. I probably would have gone with "negro" if I were to attempt a project like this.
I probably would have gone with "negro" if I were to attempt a project like this.
... which probably means the project would have failed. Replacing one word that gets the book banned with another word that would get the book banned would really defeat the purpose of the project, yes?
I have no respect at all for any person who has banned, voted to ban, or supported the banning of a book.
I recommend this book (assuming it is not yet banned) to anyone who really want's to get incensed about the issue of book banning/editing and education.
"Fahrenheit 451"
Could a book about censorship really be banned?
Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship, it's about society dumbing itself down. I've only read a tiny excerpt of it in one of my school textbooks and it was immediately apparent.
I see the irony
Yeah, we really need to work on the people banning books over one word. That'd fix the problem. 'Course that's what's known as dreaming the impossible dream, but whatever.
Previous "impossible dreams" have included the wheel, agriculture, women's rights, the space program, the abolition of slavery, the lightbulb and antibiotics. What took away the "impossible" part was people actually working to make them come true.
Previous "impossible dreams" have included the wheel, agriculture, women's rights, the space program, the abolition of slavery, the lightbulb and antibiotics. What took away the "impossible" part was people actually working to make them come true.
Fair 'nuff. I'm short on faith today, what can I say? ;)
Apparently I had pretty good taste as a kid or something
Censoring books is wrong, no matter the "justification".
It's Twains works today, perhaps the history books tomorrow.
This is setting a bad precedent.
I don't think you have to wait until tomorrow. I think the Texas schoolboard is or was trying to do that with their own history books, by replacing things that seem unpleasant as far as the tea partier worldview with things that are (ie. replacing references to Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers known for their stances on church-state seperation with references to people like John Calvin).
Censoring books is wrong, no matter the "justification".
It's Twains works today, perhaps the history books tomorrow.
This is setting a bad precedent.
I don't think you have to wait until tomorrow. I think the Texas schoolboard is or was trying to do that with their own history books, by replacing things that seem unpleasant as far as the tea partier worldview with things that are (ie. replacing references to Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers known for their stances on church-state seperation with references to people like John Calvin).
The worst part about that is that whatever books Texas gets, the rest of the U.S. schools get.