125 years ago, Mark Twain wrote the book Huckleberry Finn which has become a classic, now a new edition is to be released but with two words replaced. I know one word used most frequently, the n-word is to be replace with 'slave' but not the other word, which is injun.
Is this censorship gone mad?
It sounds like they are doing to Twain what they did to Enid Blyton...replacing names and words of that era with new ones so as not to offend people who probably wouldn't have minded because they know it is of an older origin when those words were the norm.
True
and at least 'they' are not banning the original version.
read it
here but what about copy-write...can they change what the author originally said?
I believe that works are turned over into the public domain 50 or so years after the authors death...so they may be able to...if the descendants/owners have protection on the works then it might not be allowed...not entirely sure!
what about copy-write...can they change what the author originally said?
The book is long out of copyright and into the public domain as bexter asserts.
I have seen this posted on a number of words-related forums. I wonder why the term fig-leaf edition was used instead of bowdlerized edition. This is a perennial topic. People have been changing words in books or outright banning them all in the name of preserving the next generation from the great unpleasantnesses of the last ones.
Ah but how is the next generation supposed to move on and not make the same mistakes if the mistakes are removed? (see also: who writes the history books? ans: the victors moral: if you win, you can change whatever you want)
It is the nonsense we have in this country called
Political Correctness, perpetuated by the media.
funny thing about that: political correctness is itself politically incorrect
It is the nonsense we have in this country called
Political Correctness, perpetuated by the media.
It's only called political correctness when the person disagrees with the change. If they agree, it's usually called common sense. I just call it politeness. If somebody does not want to be called chief or injun or Indian, who am I to continue calling them that. If they want to be called First Nations or Native Americans or people or what-have-you, it's little bother to me.
Bringing it back to language, I have noticed that peevers usually get all hot and bothered by language change, whether it is unconsciously or consciously applied.
It is the nonsense we have in this country called
Political Correctness, perpetuated by the media.
It's only called political correctness when the person disagrees with the change. If they agree, it's usually called common sense. I just call it politeness. If somebody does not want to be called chief or injun or Indian, who am I to continue calling them that. If they want to be called First Nations or Native Americans or people or what-have-you, it's little bother to me.
Bringing it back to language, I have noticed that peevers usually get all hot and bothered by language change, whether it is unconsciously or consciously applied.
hear, hear.
hear, hear.
Their "they're there".
I don't mind if it is those people (say the Indians/Native Americans) who want to change what they are called, what annoys me is when the other people (the non Indians/Native Americans) who think that those people (Indians/Native Americans) don't want to be called that/feel bad about calling them that and so change it without their views - imposing their embarrassed correction on people who may not mind it...
what annoys me is when the other people (the non Indians/Native Americans) who think that those people (Indians/Native Americans) don't want to be called that/feel bad about calling them that and so change it without their views - imposing their embarrassed correction on people who may not mind it...
If only things were so simple. Almost everybody I have had this discussion with objects to the very people themselves wishing for offensive terms not to be used. For example, I've had more than one Brit try to explain to me (both of us being white) that nigger brown as a color (of fabrics, etc.) is not really offensive to black people. Or even better, how homosexuals have ruined the word gay for the heterosexual linguaphile community. Back to American Indians. It depends on whom you talk to and what your attitude is, but Native American, as a term, was not coined by guilty white folks hoping to make repressed indigenous people feel better. I've been tracking this phenomenon for a while, and it's usually pissed-off white people, disgruntled that "minority" groups are telling them how to use "their" language. Of course, YMMV.
My grandmother preferred "Indian" to Native American.
Canada calls them "First Nations" when speaking of the
aboriginal peoples of their country.
....I wonder why the term fig-leaf edition was used instead of bowdlerized edition.
expurgate is another word I could have used, but I liked the 'fig leaf' image, as in 'cover up they nakedness' in the garden of Eden and how 'the statue of David' was given a fig leaf, so as to not offend 'our senses'.
Pardon my asking, please, but I don't text, and thus
if it is indeed texting, what does YMMV stand for?
you need the Urban Dictionary, Luke.
YMMV
Perhaps, but I think I'll pass.
Perhaps, but I think I'll pass.
Okay then, it means "your mileage may vary".
Thanks, Candy! One of the comic strips today had YGG in it. I should have been able to figure it out, but the U.D. gave me it. (I don't text either.)
YMMV = your mileage may vary. It means that what I have experienced my not natch what you have experienced.
It's one thing to complain about modern usages of objectionable language but another to change the language of an earlier age to clean it up for the modern sensibilities. At least we don't have to worry about reading something like:
Oh, how terrible. Was anyone hurt?
No, ma'am. Four African-Americans wuz kilt.
YMMV = your mileage may vary. It means that what I have experienced my not natch what you have experienced.
See, it must be the fact that we all come from varying parts
of the country, or world for that matter. But that really
makes no sense to me. True, our experiences vary and
thus affect our choices and environment. Even the topic
of "Political Correctness", for that matter. But I truly
agree with you on the cleaning up of literature of an earlier age to make it 'comfortable' for modern sensibilities. I am totally against the cleaning up of
Huck Finn. I like your African American analogy, thanks.
Thanks for the explanation of the ymmv. As I said I don't
text, if that is texting.
Thanks Jackie
I need it too....
The word nigger is still in use....I hear it in movies, usually said by 'black Americans' and also in the music industry.... the artist 50cent has recorded it without comment. So I don't understand why a great classic has to be changed. Especially when it effects the meaning. The synonym used, slave, just doesn't fit.
If anything, by changing it to slave they are being more derogatory
(I don't text either.)
That's funny: I do text, but rarely use acronyms.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the fuss is all about. The book is in the public domain, and folks are free to do whatever they want with it. Students are often subjected to altered versions of famous books. Sometimes for supposed morals, i.e., bowdlerized Shakesperean plays, and other times simply abridged works. The original versions are still available. The simple truth of the matter is that most students exposed to the classics couldn't care less what condition the book is in. Having said that, I do not believe that expurgating books has any benefits or deficits, and so it is a useless and thankless endeavor.
Of course, you are free to call certain groups of people by derogatory terms if you so wish, and to do so to their faces or behind their backs. But, speaking of backs you might want to watch yours.
I wonder when was the last time any of the complainers read Huckleberry Finn or any of Twain's other works.
hehe I know the answer to this one. At this very moment in time I am about two thirds of the way through Tom Sawyer
p.s. why are we the Senate and People of Rome?
....I wonder why the term fig-leaf edition was used instead of bowdlerized edition.
expurgate is another word I could have used, but I liked the 'fig leaf' image, as in 'cover up they nakedness' in the garden of Eden and how 'the statue of David' was given a fig leaf, so as to not offend 'our senses'.
Does anyone consider the offense to Jews by showing David as being uncircumcised?
why are we the Senate and People of Rome?I was thinking about how txting caused Rome to fall (
link and
link).
good points there zm......and as a Latin teacher half
a century ago, I am surprised I did not think of those
links.
I have just finished another viewing of Huck Finn, with
Patrick Day as Huck. I have a number of the versions
and find this the best. The word is in the movie, and
one hardly pays attention to it at all. At the last
school where I taught the word was found in the halls
and classrooms constantly. Not very appetizing, but
there nonetheless.
oh well....time will tell, which edition will be lasting favourite!
It will indeed...I only have the non bowdlerised edition
When one hears it so much in the school, one becomes immune
or numb to the term. Who cares about the political
correct folks, life moves on. They remind me of the
Inquisition.
The problem with the word, and this is a good example of YMMV, is that for some people the word is associated in their minds with vicious and very hurtful racism and they can't get this out of their minds when they hear or read the word.
Very true, that, and that is a positive shame.
The book is in the public domain, and folks are free to do whatever they want with it.
This may be true in a legal sense, but I don't see how it's different from daubing over something you find offensive in a painting, particularly if you then try to sell it as the original artist's work. Change Twain's words, it's not Twain.
Peter
This may be true in a legal sense
That's all I was talking about. Somebody brought up copyright, and that's a legal thang. I, personally, think that bowdlerized editions of any works are pretty silly, but I still don't see what all the fuss is about.