The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are widely viewed as an American classic. However, the editors of NewSouth Books have decided that they need to do some editing. The editors have decided to remove the “n” word from the book and replace it with “slave.” The editing of a classic raises very troubling questions from the right of an author to have his works remain unchanged to the integrity of literary and historical works. Like all great works, the book must be read with an understanding of the mores and lexicon of its time.
This offense against the original work is being lead by Alan Gribben, who insists that he is merely updating the work. Classic works, however, do not need updating. Gribben decision to improve on Twain’s work for contemporary readers is a breathtaking act of hubris. A vast array of classic and contemporary works use the n-word and other offensive language. If Gribben wants a work without offensive language, he should write The Adventures of Alan Gribben.
Gribben appears to think the following quote from Huckleberry Finn was something of an invitation by Twain:
“Please take it,” says I, “and don’t ask me nothing – then I won’t have to tell no lies.”
Replacing this word with “slave” can change the meaning and certainly the intent of Twain. Consider the following line:
“Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger slave there from Ohio – a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see…
The difference may be subtle but Twain clearly could have used slave. The word existed at the time. Twain chose the n-word to convey something beyond captive status. It was a word used widely. It is still used in literary works to say something about the people who use it.
Other authors like William Faulkner used this word in capturing the culture of the South. Consider the following passage from Go Down, Moses (1940):
This delta, he thought: This Delta. This land which man has deswamped and denuded and derivered in two generations so that white men can own plantations and commute every night to Memphis and black men own plantations and ride in jim crow cars to Chicago to live in millionaires’ mansions on Lakeshore Drive, where white men rent farms and live like niggers and niggers crop on shares and live like animals, where cotton is planted and grows man-tall in the very cracks of the sidewalks, and ursury and mortgage and bankcruptcy and measureless wealth, Chinese and African and Aryan and Jew, all breed and spawn together until no man has time to say which is which nor cares…. No wonder the ruined woods I used to know don’t cry for retribution! He thought: The people who have destroyed it will accomplish its revenge.
Would we rewrite Faulkner as well? How about all of the modern movies and books using this term as part of modern urban speech? Authors write to capture characters who are often racist or living in racist times. This publisher may billed itself as the “NewSouth” but this book was written about the Old South. To sanitize history or literature is an act of violence against the artistic work of these authors.
I find the editing of a great literary work to be nothing short of shameful and shocking, but views can differ on such a question. I would be interested in the views of others on the blog.
Jonathan Turley
eniobo,
““Race matters in these books,” Gribben told PW. “It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”
I’d say its a tad late.
======================================================
And you’d be right.
I’m sure you’ve noticed that it’s never too late for a racist cover-up.
““Race matters in these books,” Gribben told PW. “It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”
I’d say its a tad late.
Jo – I think you are right about the rap music. I posted the song “Golddigger” on here last week, and I chose the clean version in order not to offend some on here.
Agree with all that Prof. Turley and Rich Ottenstoer have to say upthread. It becomes even more interesting if the same filter is applied to something like rap music, which is essentially the music of an entire generation thrown aside by middle America. If you want to see how “editing” affects the music, listen to an “explicit” and “clean” version of a rap song on iTunes, even the sample if you don’t feel the need to purchase the song and you’ll see how just the removal of “offensive” words not only changes the art, but the meaning. Maybe “cleaned-up” rap is not the best analogy, but it seems apt here.
I think Twain would have words for “Professor” Gribben, many with four letters and most likely sarcastically humorous.
Is such editting legally any different than someone other than me altering a painting I’ve done by applying his own paint to change the way something looks in my painting? Or is even that kind of editting permitted?
I agree with Buddha that the name Gribben is offensive and must be “updated”, but not revised. I wonder if Justice Scalia’s originialism extends to classic literature?
I think Frank has raised a valid point as to why something like this could be a good idea. Although I would not be interested in reading a Bowdlerized version of Twain, I see no good reason to stop a publisher from doing so for works that are in the public domain. There are of course “moral rights” theories that say a work of art can never be changed, but I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about those theories to give an informed opinion. (Actually, I have no desire to read Twain at all, because the books I’ve started are written in dialect that I find off-putting. Would people object if I rewrote these books using formal English?)
There are modern cases where publishers have attempted to alter movies to remove (perceived) objectionable content (e.g., a sexual encounter), but to my knowledge the publishers have been prevented from doing so. These cases differ from the Twain issue because the movies are not in the public domain.
Not to defend what the guy wants to do but I do see one place where this might be of some value. The book really should be taught in school as it is very subversive and liberating when it is understood. But a lot of schools are afraid of it simply because of that one awful word. Some black activists have called for the book to be banned & teachers and school admins are rightfully worried about the possible offense or controversy.
Now the right thing to do would be to teach the book and discuss the power of that word & why Twain used it specifically (since he is not on record as having used it himself), how it was used then and now. But that would require everyone to be rational and adult and one thing we should have learned over the last few years is that rational adults rarely control the discussion anymore.
If it would at least get the book read by a new generation of kids it might be a fair trade. Certainly better than the hatchet job my school did on “Death Of A Salesman”
Well. I think we are mostly in agreement. I knew there was common ground btwn us all. One thing I have to bring up. I doubt NewSouth is the ONLY publisher for the work but I could be wrong. If this is merely one publisher doing this … don’t buy this edition. It would be analogous to reading a “Reader’s Digest” version it that entity still exists. Or summary works as in the Cliff’s Notes versions. Outside of that this is bogusiousness.
What a fool.
Agree with Rich Ottenstroer. As far as “Hustler” goes, I wish its audience could evolve.
Agree with Rich Ottenstroer. As far as “Hustler” goes, I wish its audience could evolve.
For whom does Prof Gribben believe he is “updating” this classic? Is it for the (riffing off Rich Ottenstroer’s observation) Haley Barbour crowd of history deniers and revisionists or to attact today’s kids who would surely be offended by such language in this age is gangsta rap lyrics?
This is just so wrong period. The story was set in the times that it was and has endured since then and now because some sensibilities are being up set they want to change it to suite them. Writing, art, photography, especially writing should be left alone, its the signature of the man and the times, its a guide post to how things were and to change it to fit modern times is wrong. Give your silly heads a shake and leave it be as it is. Dare we tamper with ” Catcher in the Rye”?? I think not.
Will they next remove the editorials from Penthouse….will the Forum still be available…(is it still published) will Hustler have to seek a new audience….will Madonna’s book have to come off of the shelves….
Hell, I always thought “War and Peace” was too long to read…maybe they will edit that one too…How about taking Ray….no more Sheiks…. off of the air…Will the lady be able to sing her camel to bed….
Then again…may I select the Scifi’s for the local library…..
“You leave the author’s words alone.” -Rich Ottenstroer
Yep. That’s it, in a nutshell.
I wonder what Mr. Gribben would do with Twain’s “Life on the Mississippi”; where the word “nigger” is used when quoting someone else, but when Twain is speaking in the narrative he uses “negro”?
I agree with Prof. Turley. Rewriting history is never a good idea.
Sounds like this fellow would be more comfortable burning books than publishing them. You leave the author’s words alone. If the content makes you uncomfortable, then don’t publish it. Someone else will.
Needless to say, if I’m in the market for a copy, I’ll be looking for an “original” version not this re-imagining.
Looks like this publisher and Haley Barbour both have a revisionist view of the “Old South”.
I hear their next project is removing the word “Jew” from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.
Since we’re in an editing frenzy, I find the name Alan Gribben offensive and suggest it be edited to read “Busybody Philistine”. In addition, the name “NewSouth Books” is offensive and I suggest it be changed to “RevisionistRelflexiveJackass Books”.