Should Classic Literature Be Altered for Modern Sensibilities?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the new edition of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will remove all instances of the N-word and replace it with slave. The book will also remove usage of the word Injun.
  • #106
DaveC426913 said:
They're doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing. You have to counter that by showing it's the wrong thing, not by agreeing to what could be done "without affecting other people" (i.e. harmless).


It;s far more simple and effective to run them in the ground by manipulating ppl's feeling on the issue and forcing them to take attitude against PC Utopians and other creatures with social engineering pretensions similar to what has been done by Komrades, SS whateverfuhrers, and Maoists. (i.e literature censorship)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
turbo-1 said:
I knew exactly what "cool person" meant. As a child, my family and I were called "dumb frogs" too. I knew what pigeonholing and insults were intended to do.

I seriously doubt that there is a 10-year-old in the US that has not heard the word "cool person" over and over again in a variety of contexts. I don't think that it would be such a bad thing to read it in the words of an uneducated southern boy who is coming to realize that he is becoming friends with a black man. Clemens treated Jim with respect, and Jim's humanity would be diminished if the contrast between his friendship with Huck and his treatment by society at large was diminished.

Don't want your child to be exposed to "bad" words? It's your prerogative as a parent to protect them. Want to censor American classics so that other children can't be exposed? That's not so harmless, IMO.

I agree completely.
 
  • #108
How much is there to age appropriateness anyway? Which part are we waiting for them to become mature enough to understand?

Regardless of the slur or insult, I think a 10-year-old that's spent anytime on a playground will understand what it means to be called names or to call someone names for no good reason. The essential truth of what's going on is there, even if the historical context isn't.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why slaves were referred to in insulting terms (with the slave part being an important part of the sentence - not just a PC term)? Depreciating the human value of blacks made it feel more acceptable to use them as slaves.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why blacks actually are less human and should be referred to in degrading terms?

I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
 
  • #109
BobG said:
How much is there to age appropriateness anyway? Which part are we waiting for them to become mature enough to understand?

Regardless of the slur or insult, I think a 10-year-old that's spent anytime on a playground will understand what it means to be called names or to call someone names for no good reason. The essential truth of what's going on is there, even if the historical context isn't.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why slaves were referred to in insulting terms (with the slave part being an important part of the sentence - not just a PC term)? Depreciating the human value of blacks made it feel more acceptable to use them as slaves.

Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why blacks actually are less human and should be referred to in degrading terms?

I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.

I think a younger child is going to have a more difficult time explaining their subject matter at home.
 
  • #110
BobG said:
I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.

For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.

It took me a couple of years to plow through the books stored in my (walk-in closet) bedroom. Verne, Twain, Austen, Dickens, Hawthorne, etc, etc. I had my own private library! It was great. Never had to check out a book or return it or renew. I had a huge collection of books and they were all classics. The widower that sold my parents that house left some "fancy" furniture and china in there, but the greatest treasure was the library.
 
  • #111
Are Uncle Remus stories allowed back in schools? Twain was supposedly a great fan of the stories.
 
  • #112
the intellectual average of the classroom is one consideration.

another consideration is the maturity average.

maybe it's not appropriate for some high school classrooms, either. add in the social strife of any local geography, and i think you're left with a decision that has to be made at a local level.
 
  • #113
I just need to ask... what's the supposed trauma 10 year olds are supposed to experience as a result of this? I read Moby Dick when I was 7... I wasn't traumatized... just really bored and confused. Later readings erased the confusion, but the boredom remains.

Videogames are the devil, words are evil, blah blah... meanwhile a statistically significant portion of any given group of 10 year olds will already have been molested by someone they know! That same group will have a statistically significant number of people with a range of mental illness ranging from 'dysphoria' (oh DSM... you prick) to 1% roughly being schizophrenic, and a lower percentage being psychopaths.

So... clearly the first issue to tackle are the evils of unredacted literature.
 
  • #114
Proton Soup said:
the intellectual average of the classroom is one consideration.

another consideration is the maturity average.

maybe it's not appropriate for some high school classrooms, either. add in the social strife of any local geography, and i think you're left with a decision that has to be made at a local level.

Heh, yeah, and then we have kids in Kansas thinking that The Flintstones was a documentary. I'm willing to risk the minds of those too pathetically unfit that they can't read a book without lasting damage. Oh, and that last sentence... yes, it's hyperbole.
 
  • #115
Ivan Seeking said:
I am always opposed to revisionist history. I don't care why they are doing it. Huck Finn is an American classic that is above tampering by bureaucrats.

Ivan, I agree with you 100%. What is, is.
 
  • #116
turbo-1 said:
I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.
As I pointed out earlier, replace 'you' with 'any other child'. Your personal experience is not a compelling argument.
 
  • #117
Emotions have been running too high. Thread closed.
 
Back
Top