|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 14, 2011 16:49:00 GMT -5
I wonder if they will edit To Kill a Mockingbird next.
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jan 14, 2011 19:49:19 GMT -5
OK, the Twilight one made me lol. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jan 14, 2011 21:07:51 GMT -5
See, I understand the point of the Huckleberry Finn edition - it is a version that can be read in schools without controversy. School systems or parents that have an issue with the period appropriate, modernly offensive language can now make the book available when they otherwise would not have.
It is kind of like cancer treatment. Injecting poison into your body or bombarding it with radiation is always a bad idea, but it is still better than letting cancer kill you.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jan 14, 2011 21:20:41 GMT -5
See, I understand the point of the Huckleberry Finn edition - it is a version that can be read in schools without controversy. School systems or parents that have an issue with the period appropriate, modernly offensive language can now make the book available when they otherwise would not have. It is kind of like cancer treatment. Injecting poison into your body or bombarding it with radiation is always a bad idea, but it is still better than letting cancer kill you. It defeats the purpose of the story to remove it. One of the points in Huckleberry Finn is that Twain was writing against racism. To write against something, it has to be included in the book. "Nigger" as a title for Jim was one such example, by removing it the edit also removes some of the book's core message.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 14, 2011 21:21:43 GMT -5
See, I understand the point of the Huckleberry Finn edition - it is a version that can be read in schools without controversy. School systems or parents that have an issue with the period appropriate, modernly offensive language can now make the book available when they otherwise would not have. It is kind of like cancer treatment. Injecting poison into your body or bombarding it with radiation is always a bad idea, but it is still better than letting cancer kill you. I can understand the offense, but I totally disagree with it. If you think the students are too young to handle the word "nigger", then don't assign the book. To bowdlerize such a powerful anti-racist book is to completely miss the point it's trying to make. If Mark Twain meant to say "slave" he would have said it instead of "nigger."
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jan 14, 2011 21:51:04 GMT -5
I agree with both of you. However, there are people who would see the book completely removed from curriculum at any age level because they either misunderstand the context of the slur or don't care what context it is used in (or both). Whether or not you agree with the point of bowdlerized edition or not comes down to whether you feel the book's historical and literary value can survive the process, and if it is better to teach the resulting version than not teach it all.
A somewhat subjective proposition, but not a stupid one. The fact is we live in a world with highly oversensitive race relations, at least in some areas. The book will be challenged, and a "clean" edition offers a third option for educators.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 14, 2011 22:57:06 GMT -5
Hence why I'm asking about To Kill A Mockingbird. Same anti-racist message.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jan 14, 2011 23:05:22 GMT -5
I agree with both of you. However, there are people who would see the book completely removed from curriculum at any age level because they either misunderstand the context of the slur or don't care what context it is used in (or both). Whether or not you agree with the point of bowdlerized edition or not comes down to whether you feel the book's historical and literary value can survive the process, and if it is better to teach the resulting version than not teach it all. A somewhat subjective proposition, but not a stupid one. The fact is we live in a world with highly oversensitive race relations, at least in some areas. The book will be challenged, and a "clean" edition offers a third option for educators. Which raises two questions: First, how many schools who wouldn't accept the original version accept the censored one? Two, are we willing to sacrifice that number of schools in exchange for setting precedent that you don't fucking mess with books? Is there a term for the trade-off between the damage caused by not giving in to blackmail and the damage caused by showing potential blackmailers that you'll give in?
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jan 14, 2011 23:32:41 GMT -5
Two, are we willing to sacrifice that number of schools in exchange for setting precedent that you don't fucking mess with books? For a precedent like this one? Oh, gee, let me think... *beat*YES.First of all, no one--not little Johnny's parents, not a teacher, not the superintendent of the entire friggin' school district--has the right not to be offended by anything. NO. ONE.Secondly, when did simply being a parent (oh, goody, your penis or uterus works; would you like a cookie? ), allow people to become qualified authorities on what is or isn't right to teach in public schools?
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jan 15, 2011 3:02:07 GMT -5
See, I understand the point of the Huckleberry Finn edition - it is a version that can be read in schools without controversy. School systems or parents that have an issue with the period appropriate, modernly offensive language can now make the book available when they otherwise would not have. It is kind of like cancer treatment. Injecting poison into your body or bombarding it with radiation is always a bad idea, but it is still better than letting cancer kill you. Norris you're rapidly earning a place on my shit list. It's not a good list to be on. You're actually advocating censorship. That's what you're doing here. You want to censor a classic piece of literature for the sake of having a few more kids read it. That's just plain wrong dude. Seriously wrong. Anyone who thinks that needs to get their head examined. Ironbite-pronto.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jan 15, 2011 12:10:27 GMT -5
Norris you're rapidly earning a place on my shit list. It's not a good list to be on. You're actually advocating censorship. That's what you're doing here. You want to censor a classic piece of literature for the sake of having a few more kids read it. That's just plain wrong dude. Seriously wrong. Anyone who thinks that needs to get their head examined. Ironbite-pronto. One -being on a total stranger's shit list on an internet message board doesn't leave me quaking with fear. No offense meant, but I don't know you and you don't know me. we've never met, and probably never will. Two - I'm not advocating it, I'm seeing the bare-ass pragmatic reasons for it. I can see where the proposition of a "clean" edition would be attractive to educators and administrators facing parental protests, and where teaching a version of the book would be more attractive than leaving an important and classic piece of American literature off the curriculum entirely. Three - Just because I can see the reasons behind a position and agree that it is not an entirely unreasonable one, it does not mean I agree with. The book should be taught in its true form because the messages of the book end up somewhat blunted if you sugarcoat the language. However, if changing that single (albeit oft repeated) word will make it easier to put that American classic into the hands of kids and teens, get them reading it, get them examining it, get them learning it....I can't say that it is a literary crime on par with altering the ending of Romeo & Juliet. I personally would hate reading a clean edition, or having it be taught to my future children, but I feel that the clean edition is more trade-off than travesty.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 15, 2011 12:12:50 GMT -5
Secondly, when did simply being a parent (oh, goody, your penis or uterus works; would you like a cookie? ), allow people to become qualified authorities on what is or isn't right to teach in public schools? ^This ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jan 15, 2011 13:14:36 GMT -5
See, I understand the point of the Huckleberry Finn edition - it is a version that can be read in schools without controversy. School systems or parents that have an issue with the period appropriate, modernly offensive language can now make the book available when they otherwise would not have. It is kind of like cancer treatment. Injecting poison into your body or bombarding it with radiation is always a bad idea, but it is still better than letting cancer kill you. Norris you're rapidly earning a place on my shit list. It's not a good list to be on. You're actually advocating censorship. That's what you're doing here. You want to censor a classic piece of literature for the sake of having a few more kids read it. That's just plain wrong dude. Seriously wrong. Anyone who thinks that needs to get their head examined. Ironbite-pronto. You say "just for the sake of having a few more kids read it" as if it was irrelevant. Newsflash, it isn't. Literature exists to be read. If it is not being read, it's just dead trees and ink. Getting people to read Huck Finn is the whole fucking point of wanting Huck Finn to exist. I don't support the censorship, partly because it would weaken the message of the text, partly out of principle. But getting kids to read it should not be dismissed out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jan 15, 2011 13:34:26 GMT -5
Norris you're rapidly earning a place on my shit list. It's not a good list to be on. You're actually advocating censorship. That's what you're doing here. You want to censor a classic piece of literature for the sake of having a few more kids read it. That's just plain wrong dude. Seriously wrong. Anyone who thinks that needs to get their head examined. Ironbite-pronto. You say "just for the sake of having a few more kids read it" as if it was irrelevant. Newsflash, it isn't. Literature exists to be read. If it is not being read, it's just dead trees and ink. Getting people to read Huck Finn is the whole fucking point of wanting Huck Finn to exist. I don't support the censorship, partly because it would weaken the message of the text, partly out of principle. But getting kids to read it should not be dismissed out of hand. But if the message is the reason for having people read the book, and censoring it to get kids to read it dilutes the message, what's the point of having them read it in the first place? I know you said you opposed the censorship, I'm just saying that the purpose for reading Huck Finn is for its message, and in getting children to read it we're destroying part of that message, which defeats the purpose of having them read the book. Hope that made sense
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jan 15, 2011 13:42:55 GMT -5
Well, just a tip about censorship.
Calling people that word is not the same as saying that people call(ed) people that word. First can be censored, the second shouldn't because it's a fact of life and hiding facts from kids is only going to cause problems.
Sorry, I have a deep subconscious hatred for that word and so much as thinking of typing it sends me into a rage.
|
|