# Huck Finn publisher removes some offensive language - Thoughts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 5, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441 "2011-01-05T01:45:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/81 "2011-01-05T19:12:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Who said they wanted to ban it? No one has posted an objection to any school or individual choosing to use this book. They are reacting to the fact that a publisher has made this book available. They appear unhappy about this. Besides, there’s no antecedent to your “they.” I said “People who want to ban [the book].” Those people want to ban the book by definition. If you want to say that no such people appear in this thread, then say so. Don’t be disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/82 "2011-01-05T19:16:22Z")
> [@](#): > > But people who want to ban the censored version, who object to its very existence, and who want to deny that choice to readers and teachers, well they’re hypocritical idiots. **And that’s the worst kind of idiot there is.** Most people in this thread have said they are opposed to altering the book. Regardless of whether that counts as a “ban” or not, don’t call them idiots while you are posting in Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/83 "2011-01-05T19:17:06Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > But people who want to ban the censored version, who object to its very existence, and who want to deny that choice to readers and teachers, well they’re hypocritical idiots. **And that’s the worst kind of idiot there is.** Didn’t Twain originally implicitly deny that choice by writing the actual book that he did? Yes, I know, abridged, bowdlerized and expurgated versions of published works have existed for years but we’re talking about excising key words in a work of literary significance, words that were chosen to emphasize the authori’s message and intent in creating that work. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/84 "2011-01-05T19:23:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Johnny Angel](#): > > > > Yes. The symbols are comical. The black bars call attention to the very things they censor. It’s so clear now that you have explained it to me. > > Twain wasn’t using “nigger” to be silly, so I don’t think this does what you want it to. I think \*\*Johnny \*\*was being ironic with his initial suggestion, and whooshed both you and me. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/85 "2011-01-05T19:31:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What? I said the suggestion is embarrassing. If this is an objection to doing it, when the alternative is banning the book altogether, then the implication is that it is better to ban the book than be embarrassed. No one has suggested that reading and teaching the original isn’t preferable when that’s possible. Were talking about what to do when that _isn’t_ possible. > [@](#): > > _Most?_ Since when? It’s one of the most challenged books in the country, but this is the first time I’ve heard anybody say it’s banned from most school districts. I read it in high school, not that that proves anything. You are correct, and I apologize for being careless. Replace “most” with “some.” I have no idea how widely used _Huckleberry Finn_ is, nor how widely used it would be without the squeamishness about its language. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say you should have read a different book. Again, we’re discussing an edition of _Huckleberry Finn_ that was designed to meet the needs of teachers who feel _unable_ to use the original in the classroom. Either using a redacted version of a controversial text is worse than not using it at all, or it is preferable to not using it at all. If the latter, your objection to the availability of a redacted edition is misplaced. If the former, then you should equally object to the availability of a redacted version of _Summer of My German Soldier._ If we shouldn’t have used those copies, we might have had to read copies of something else the school had. > [@](#): > > This is what we’re talking about: changing the word or blacking it out. We’re not talking about what you should have done with a book that was already defaced. But surely you see that the issues are the same. Either a censored version is better than nothing or it’s worse than nothing. Where the censored copies come from is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > We’re talking about what censors and school districts do, not what people do in their own homes. People can do what they want with their own books. That’s not the same as censoring or rewriting them for other people. Then you support the publisher making the new edition available for people to purchase or not? The publisher isn’t promoting this as a superior version everyone should read instead of the original. They are promoting it as an _alternative_ that should be _made available_ for people to choose. There is nothing preventing a classroom from making both versions of the text available, and the simple ability to do so might make it possible to teach the novel _at all_, even if no one chooses to use it. The school districts that want to censor books are a suitable target of opprobrium. The publisher who wants to make it possible for students in those school districts to read some version of _Huck Finn_ is not. And the publisher is the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/86 "2011-01-05T19:46:12Z")
> [@descamisado](#): > > Didn’t Twain originally implicitly deny that choice by writing the actual book that he did? > > Yes, I know, abridged, bowdlerized and expurgated versions of published works have existed for years but we’re talking about excising key words in a work of literary significance, words that were chosen to emphasize the authori’s message and intent in creating that work. I would strongly object to anyone attempting to replace the original, but that’s not what’s going on here. It is being offered as an alternative to meet a specified need. There is also the argument that changing the language makes it more closely match the author’s intentions. I may not agree with that, but it is a reasonable argument, and I don’t have a problem with people updating classic texts, as long as it is clear to the reader what is being done. I think there is a stronger argument (though perhaps a less compelling one) that even if changing the words doesn’t restore the original meaning, that it is what Twain would do if he were alive today. Others have noted that he was an avariciously commercial author, and modified his writings based on the reaction of people he read them to. If he were writing today, he wouldn’t use the word the way he did. That doesn’t mean we _should_ change it, but if someone wants to try, more power to them. Again, it’s not replacing the original. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/87 "2011-01-05T19:55:55Z")
Are rap lyrics next on their list? I would guess the answer would be no. Of course, altering either are unacceptable. Once you open that door, where do you stop? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/88 "2011-01-05T19:56:44Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I think \*\*Johnny \*\*was being ironic with his initial suggestion, and whooshed both you and me. Sort of. I think they should really do it, but for ironic reasons. It’s not a thumbs-up to censorship. It’s a thumb-in-the-eye. The fact that Marley23 finds the idea repulsive and I find it constructively smart-assed is well within the desired range of responses. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/89 "2011-01-05T20:01:56Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > If this is an objection to doing it, when the alternative is banning the book altogether, then the implication is that it is better to ban the book than be embarrassed. What I was saying is that the proposal is embarrassing because it’s an insult to people’s intelligence. I’m thinking **bup** was correct that the post was a joke anyway, so I’m going to drop this. > [@](#): > > But surely you see that the issues are the same. Either a censored version is better than nothing or it’s worse than nothing. That’s not the only issue being discussed here. Most of the discussion has been about Gribben’s idea to censor the book, and I think we’re agreed that it’s not necessary. I haven’t read _Summer of My German Soldier_, but I think you lost a lot less in reading a blacked-out version than a student is going to lose from reading a version of _Huck Finn_ where the words have been changed or deleted. People already know the Nazis were racists; America in the 1840s is less familiar territory and the racism is something Twain brought up intentionally. > [@](#): > > Then you support the publisher making the new edition available for people to purchase or not? I think the publisher is trying to make money. Gribben, on the other hand, is a nitwit. Making the book available to more people is a noble goal, but he’s chosen a stupid way to achieve his goal. Last year was the centennial of Twain’s death and his autobiography is being rereleased. That sounds like a perfect time to try to start a conversation about why this book should not be banned or excluded from schools on sensitivity grounds. Instead he’s changing the book to cater to the sensibility of people who don’t know what it’s about. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/90 "2011-01-05T20:56:41Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > The school districts that want to censor books are a suitable target of opprobrium. The publisher who wants to make it possible for students in those school districts to read some version of _Huck Finn_ is not. And the publisher is the topic of this thread. My opinion is exactly the opposite of this. A school district may freely choose which books to teach in its English courses. I don’t feel that _not_ choosing any particular book is tantamount to censorship. Any students who wish to seek out the book on their own are similarly free to do so. On the other hand, presenting a work of literature as _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ when it is actually NOT _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ (not the one Twain wrote, at least) is intellectually dishonest. For any school to have the altered version on the curriculum is exponentially worse than not having it at all. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/91 "2011-01-05T21:35:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I also think a discussion of that word, along with Twain’s intentions and historical context, should be had before the book is even cracked. This is the point. The word exists. It is out there, and nothing will bring it back, but it is only offensive when used as a pejorative, not when discussed in a dispassionate, academic setting. _Huckleberry Finn_ is a perfect opportunity to explore the historical context and etymology of the word without having to question the user’s intent. Bowdlerizing the text eliminates that. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/92 "2011-01-05T21:40:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What I was saying is that the proposal is embarrassing because it’s an insult to people’s intelligence. I’m thinking **bup** was correct that the post was a joke anyway, so I’m going to drop this. That’s funny, because I was going to propose it as a (rhetorically) serious suggestion before I saw **Johnny Angel** ’s post. Like I said, that’s what they did in my school, and it was only a minor annoyance. > [@](#): > > That’s not the only issue being discussed here. Most of the discussion has been about Gribben’s idea to censor the book, and I think we’re agreed that it’s not necessary. I haven’t read _Summer of My German Soldier_, but I think you lost a lot less in reading a blacked-out version than a student is going to lose from reading a version of _Huck Finn_ where the words have been changed or deleted. People already know the Nazis were racists; America in the 1840s is less familiar territory and the racism is something Twain brought up intentionally. I’m afraid you’re wrong. _Summer of My German Soldier_ is about the relationship between an Arkansan farm girl and a German POW in WWII. The American characters are the ones who use the word “nigger.” The girl’s father especially, as I recall. It is central to the book in demonstrating that the Americans are just as racist as the Germans and that both the racist girl and the Nazi boy are in possession of “a sound heart and a deformed conscience,” as Twain described Huck. > [@](#): > > I think the publisher is trying to make money. Gribben, on the other hand, is a nitwit. Making the book available to more people is a noble goal, but he’s chosen a stupid way to achieve his goal. Last year was the centennial of Twain’s death and his autobiography is being rereleased. That sounds like a perfect time to try to start a conversation about why this book should not be banned or excluded from schools on sensitivity grounds. Instead he’s changing the book to cater to the sensibility of people who don’t know what it’s about. Maybe, maybe not. I understand NewSouth is a small, independent, academically-oriented press that regularly publishes works at a loss if they believe them to be important. Whether they expect this book to be one of the losses or one of the commercial successes that subsidize the losses, I have no idea. For Gribben’s part, he is not catering to the sensibility of people who don’t know what the book is about, but to middle-school and high-school teachers who told him they love the book and want to teach it, but cannot because of the language used. The conversation you suggest (which I think this book has done more to cause than anything else Gribben could have said or done) doesn’t, by itself, meet the needs of those teachers. Is it really better that they continue not to teach the book they believe best serves their students rather than to teach it with some modification _which the students are made aware of and capable of circumventing_? To me, that’s the only relevant issue. And if it is better that they continue not to teach the book, why would it not also have been better for my 7th grade teacher to teach something other than the book that she chose, which was modified in very similar fashion. My life was improved by reading a censored version of the text in a way that reading a lesser book that had no cause to be censored would not have. My teacher had no problem with the unexpurgated text, but someone clearly did. And if that person hadn’t been given the opportunity to censor the book, my class as well might have had to read _Green Eggs and Ham_ or _Johnathan Livingstone Seagull_ or whatever pablum the school district could find for cheap. Instead, we _did_ talk about racism, and about the N-word, and about how society can warp our consciences. > [@Wheelz](#): > > My opinion is exactly the opposite of this. > A school district may freely choose which books to teach in its English courses. I don’t feel that _not_ choosing any particular book is tantamount to censorship. Any students who wish to seek out the book on their own are similarly free to do so. > > On the other hand, presenting a work of literature as _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ when it is actually NOT _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ (not the one Twain wrote, at least) is intellectually dishonest. For any school to have the altered version on the curriculum is exponentially worse than not having it at all. At least someone is willing to admit to the logical implication of opposing this book. But see what I wrote above. As long as the students are made aware of the changes, it may be cowardly, but isn’t intellectually dishonest, and it certainly isn’t worse than allowing schools to avoid any work that might raise controversy, which is cowardly _and_ intellectually dishonest _and_ harmful. It isn’t as simple as saying that not choosing controversial books isn’t actually censorship, so it must be OK. Whatever it is, it is _worse_ than censorship that allows itself to be seen. It is insidious, and teaches children that there are no controversies. It hides from them the fact that there are words other people don’t want them to read. It chills the discussion not only on the controversial topic, but on what works _should_ be controversial and why. Works that are incapable of inspiring controversy are pablum, they are junk food for the mind. And while, they are fine as an indulgence, they cannot replace the real intellectual meat of literature. Public schools are the only way most people are exposed to literature, and they are also the most vulnerable to the mob. Closing down the public schools wouldn’t be censorship either, but it also wouldn’t solve the problem. Eliminating Biology class isn’t teaching creationism, but it’s no better. Society _needs_ a system that will give real meat to the minds of growing students. The one we have is badly flawed, and one of the biggest flaws is that small, starved minds can try to limit what is taught. We have to fight those people tooth and nail, but you can’t save the village by destroying it and you can’t save literature by taking it out of the classroom and telling students that if they want it they can go to the library after class, but right now they have to read _“My Little Pony” Goes to the Zoo_. ---
**Author:** ![Walmarticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Walmarticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walmarticus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/93 "2011-01-05T22:05:25Z")
> [@Hazle\_Weatherfield](#): > > ‎"Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in." Mark Twain, 1876, from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Huh. That is weird because he also [said](http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2011/0105/The-n-word-gone-from-Huck-Finn-what-would-Mark-Twain-say): > [@](#): > > I wrote ‘Tom Sawyer’ & ‘Huck Finn’ for adults exclusively, & it always distressed me when I find that boys and girls have been allowed access to them. The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, & to this day I cherish an unappeased bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15 years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean sweet breath again on this side of the grave. Though I detect a hint of sarcasm 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/94 "2011-01-05T22:27:57Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > I’m afraid you’re wrong. OK. C’est la vie. > [@](#): > > For Gribben’s part, he is not catering to the sensibility of people who don’t know what the book is about, but to middle-school and high-school teachers who told him they love the book and want to teach it, but cannot because of the language used. Same difference. He’s trying to get the book taught by appeasing the people who can only see one word of the text. > [@](#): > > Is it really better that they continue not to teach the book they believe best serves their students rather than to teach it with some modification _which the students are made aware of and capable of circumventing_? To me, that’s the only relevant issue. I think if anybody ends up using this text, not all the teachers are going to make it clear that it’s an altered version and either way, most of the students won’t care enough to read the original. There aren’t that many kids out there who will do that kind of extra work. So the end result is much closer to a fraud and a misrepresentation of what Twain wrote. Is that better? > [@](#): > > And if it is better that they continue not to teach the book, why would it not also have been better for my 7th grade teacher to teach something other than the book that she chose, which was modified in very similar fashion. It would have been better if nobody censored your book, and failing that, if would have been better if the censored versions had been replaced. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/95 "2011-01-05T23:23:29Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > No, he doesn’t. Leaving aside the inanity of trying to predict what Twain was going for, we don’t really attempt to square modern sensibilities with past cultural zeitgeists. I’m against censoring the book, but this quote immediately brought to mind Deadwood. In it, David Milch attempted to square past sensibilities with modern cultural zeitgeist, and succeeded fantastically, IMO. Whether it could (or even should) work in the reverse I couldn’t say. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/96 "2011-01-06T00:42:52Z")
> [@Wheelz](#): > > I can’t agree with this. > One can argue that it’s _supposed_ to make people feel uncomfortable, thus forcing the reader to examine his own attitudes and prejudices. But if any school district feels it’s too much for 13 and 14 year-olds, they are free to simply choose not to include the book in their curriculum. And I have no problem with that. > > But teaching a watered-down version takes away the point of teaching it at all. I agree that there’s an argument to be made that if a book needs such editing in order for it to be appropriate for a certain age group, then the book might simply not be appropriate for said age group. But it also might, or at least it might have a lot to offer that a teacher would want at his/her disposal. I don’t agree at all that editing this one word “takes away the point of teaching it at all”. Changing details of the plot would. The thing about watching those interviews I mentioned earlier, is that I realized this is not a problem of adults trying to shield kids from things that they (adults) find inappropriate. The discomfort was coming directly from the kids. And perhaps it’s not the worst thing in the world for kids to take home an assignment that they do in the privacy of their own home, perhaps with guidance from their parents, and be made to feel uncomfortable. I would have no objection if all the reading took place silently. My sympathy though goes out to the shy kid in the class who’s forced to read passages from the book out loud and can’t absorb the meaning because he is too concentrated on the fact that he has to keep saying this word which carries so much pain and discomfort. (and to the poster in this thread who joked sarcastically about black kids not being comfortable saying the word “nigger”, c’mon do you really need the difference explained to you?). A good teacher should make it absolutely clear that the book has been edited, and that every instance of the word “slave” was originally “nigger”, and why that word is so important to the book’s meaning. Perhaps they should even be given copies of the original version to read at home, while the edited version is used only for in class reading. I dunno, but this is one rare case where I understand the logic of something I would ordinarily find abhorrent. (I remember incidentally how utterly idiotic and wrong it was when we sang “A LIttle Help From My Friends” in 6th grade chorus but they made us sing: - I get by with a little help from my friends, oh I get by with a little help from my friends, oh I’m gonna try with a little help from my friends. \* :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_A.Robrin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sam_a.robrin/32/14497_2.png) [@Sam\_A.Robrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_A.Robrin)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/97 "2011-01-06T01:56:52Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Oh, no – I loved **SLC** , and the people there. . . . You confused me for a second. I thought you meant Samuel Langhorne Clemens! ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/98 "2011-01-06T03:16:35Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Are rap lyrics next on their list? > > I would guess the answer would be no. > > Of course, altering either are unacceptable. Once you open that door, where do you stop? But rap lyrics are already censored on the radio, which is the closest media equivalent to public school. I hate it when songs are censored on the radio, but the logic, I believe, is fairly consistent. The [FCC](http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html) bans indecency, which it defines as follows: > [@](#): > > Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test: > > • An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; > > • The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and > > • The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. lic school. Clearly those guidelines are pretty subjective, but I think one can make an argument that the language in certain books may be obscene in some people’s eyes; or rather, no more obscene than a rapper referencing drugs or guns. I am not sure radio stations ban curse words and drug references solely because they are afraid of FCC fines, but I would have to imagine that’s a large part of it. Nowadays, if the musician hasn’t recorded a clean copy, they just bleep out the words they think people might find offensive. All of this is deemed to be kosher because they operate on the public airwaves. If you can censor songs because it’s in the public interest to do so, then I don’t see why you can’t censor a book at a public school. Keep in mind that a kid can always go buy a regular copy for herself. This is not a outright ban; just a by a publisher and/or a school deciding to not use an uncensored copy. Obviously, I don’t think it’s an ideal situation, but if you aren’t going to have an opportunity to have a class discussion about the context and the historical period, then I can see why some people may be okay with censorship. Particularly if reading passages aloud (as written) makes the kids themselves uncomfortable. Additionally, people seem to be getting all up in arms when their ox is being gored, but far fewer were rallying behind Howard Stern when he was basically forced to go to satellite radio due to FCC fines. I don’t see people suggesting it’s an insult to their intelligence to have Ceelo Green singing, “forget you”, rather than “fuck you” on the radio. Yes, Twain’s work is of far more significance, but the principle is the same. More importantly, the books wouldn’t have been produced, nor will they sell, if there wasn’t/isn’t a market for it. If there are other, easily accessible and affordable options out there, then the censored copies will only sell if people want to buy them. A question for all those who are vehemently opposed to schools/publishers doing this: Are you against all forms of censorship? Should radio stations be allowed to play whatever they want? Should Hollywood movies be able to show anything they desire? If not, then what makes Mark Twain’s work (or literature in general) so special that it is not subject to our evolving sense of decency? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/99 "2011-01-06T05:01:54Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > But rap lyrics are already censored on the radio, which is the closest media equivalent to public school. IMHO, not a true comparison: In this case, Huck Finn is not being broadcast in audio or film format, so the FCC has no jurisdiction. A truer comparison to the printed media would be CDs, which of course are not censored by the FCC (nor should they be). ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441/100 "2011-01-06T05:13:40Z")
Bizarrely, when I was ten, I played Jim in a stage version of a passage from _Tom Sawyer._ Bizarrely, because I’m not even one of those _tan_ Germans like Boehner. I don’t remember how I got that role, except there were no black kids & one SE Asian kid in our class. (OK, I probably volunteered. I liked Jim.) Maybe the audience just figured I was some other Jim. I always called the character “Jim” as a kid, and just “Jim” is probably better than “Slave Jim” which seems off to me. “Nigger Jim” is weird enough a nickname, but at least a dark-skinned man is a dark-skinned man wherever he goes, whereas a slave kind of stops being a slave once he’s well away from his master (as Jim was for most of the book). That said, I now feel inclined to defend the use of the nickname “Nigger Jim” which I don’t even recall from the book, or would if I could recall Huck calling him that. Wasn’t he mostly “Jim” past the introduction? Was I reading a bowdlerized version then, or has a quarter-century confused me? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huck-finn-publisher-removes-some-offensive-language-thoughts/566441.md?page=6)