In an editorial in The Lufkin Daily News, the author of “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted” supports the decision to produce copies of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that replace the N-word with the word “slave.” In sum, the author believes that censoring the works of Twain is acceptable because using a word which is associated with violence and hate will have negative results. In the editorial, this claim is not backed up with any sufficient evidence and refers to false assumptions throughout the text. After reading the editorial and taking into consideration the author’s point of view, it is still clear that censorship is without a doubt unnecessary.
Since the development of language, censorship has taken a front seat in the process of communication. Many believe that censorship acts as a shield to fortify the fundamental right to be protected by dangerous words, thoughts and ideas. However, it is important to recognize that censorship is essentially the suppression of our first amendment. We don’t need to be protected by these “dangerous” words, thoughts and ideas; we can take our own meaning from them. However, in time, it has become much more than that; in the issue of censoring literature, one’s freedom of speech is not only tampered with, but so is their individuality.
One reason why the author supports the publishing of a censored “Huckleberry Finn” is because it is now being banned or not assigned at schools because of its incorporation of the N-word. The author acknowledges the fact that Twain did not use the word to promote its use, but he reiterates that it still evokes a sense of that hatred. His assumption is that this sense of hatred evoked by the N-word (only used by Twain to stay true to Huck’s dialect and the culture of the South at that time) will either offend the readers or perhaps for some, prompt them to adopt this hateful outlook or think that using the word is acceptable. However this is a false assumption based on what the author believes can be the response to the exposure of the word. There is no mention of cases where this book was read in schools and students soon after adopted the new word into everyday use.
One reason used for censoring the books goes along with the author’s claim that that kids will start to use the word comfortably, even if warned that it is taboo to say. The author says, “The surest way to make kids use the word inappropriately is to tell them not to use it inappropriately” (Huck, par. 3). Yet, the author does not use valid evidence to back up this claim that kids in the past have begun to incorporate the word into their vocabulary after reading uncensored versions of the books. Exposing the word’s hateful origin will not make kids want to use it if the context is truly understood the students are being deprived of the raw work of a subject that they perhaps have not yet been introduced to thoroughly, such as racism. If the true meaning of these novels were understood, one would see that the context of the N-word was in fact used to show the “dirty culture of the South at the time of the story,” as the author of this editorial refers to it (Huck, par. 2). Twain used the N-word for a reason. It is a strong word, and Twain was aware of that; he did not want to sugarcoat the story because that would defeat its purpose and its effect on its readers to discourage racism.
Showing kids the true nature of this word in context from the vile culture of the setting will make kids less likely to use it versus kids who are uneducated about it. . In his article, “What the Huck?” author Matt Blum questions “how can we expect children to learn real history if we sanitize it for them? Should we pretend the n-word never existed? Why stop there – why not pretend the KKK is and always has been fictional?” (What, par. 5). Simply telling your kids not to use a word and not giving them any more information or background will just make them more curious about it and more likely to experiment in using it around friends. It is more likely that they will not use a taboo word if they are aware of the reasons it is wrong to use- especially if that reason is attached to a story which they can connect with, such as Adventures of Huck Finn. According to American Anthropologist, Mary Ellen Goodman, “[Racial] attitudes constitute an aspect of the culture transmitted to the young during the process of socialization” (Evidence, par. 1). In other words, a lot of what a child will take out of a situation with a racial context depends on what social circumstance they are in. Just words on a paper will not create beliefs or practices. It is how the words are analyzed (and as seen in Goodman’s case study- with whom those words are analyzed) that affects their interpretation of the meaning. Thus, the N-word itself is not dangerous. In fact, its presence, such as in Huck Finn, can put a lesson on top of the word’s definition. Twain takes a word filled with hate and molds it into a meaningful message that actually condemns its common use.
This is where the action of the teachers becomes truly substantial; Huck Finn must be taught with its original intent to expose the racist culture of the South. The reaction will be to not give control to such racist power versus allowing the word to be commonly thrown around without understanding its origin; Twain has given so much significant attention to the hate from which the word originates to do just that. Laura Korobkin, a CAS associate professor of English says that the novel should “never be taught in a version that alters its text. Instead, teachers should use the occasion of reading Huck Finn to discuss the power of racist language as a dehumanizing force” (Removing, par. 5). This point is extremely valid. Instead of fearing the word and the hateful context it is associated with, teachers should embrace this effective power of its presence in the novel to influence students to avoid using this type of language.
Another claim the author of the editorial makes supporting censoring Twain is that movies are an example where censorship works. The author’s main point is that you can see the uncensored movie if you want, but if you prefer the cleaner version, you should be able to have the option to refer to that instead. "Many of us prefer the version of those movies that are edited for television. If you want all those F-bombs in you r home, you can buy the DVD” (Huck, par. 4). Sure, many movies that use F-bombs still manage to sustain their main “message” even when its profanity is censored. However, there are many movies where the incorporation of profanity and other deemed inappropriate language in fact helps convey its message. For example, in The Laramie Project, a movie that was adapted from a play, many derogatory words were used in reference to homosexuals. However, in order to comprehend the movie’s message, one needs to understand where this word is coming from. It was said by and in reference to the intolerable people against homosexuals. Without the presence of these words in The Laramie Project, the significance of the need to recognize the existence of such hatred would not be as substantial. It is important to recognize that if a subject matter is relevant and pressing, exposing all different kinds of points of view is extremely necessary to teach the theme and lessons in their entirety.
Furthermore, the author claims, "If you prefer the unpolitically correct version of 'Huckleberry Finn,' for the historical value or another reason, the original will always be there" (Huck, par. 4). Here, the author is making the assumption that the uncensored version of Twain’s books is not politically correct. The next question one should ask in this case is, “What classifies something as politically incorrect?” It is really a matter of taste, so this answer is different for everyone. What the author of the editorial considers politically incorrect may be deemed perfectly acceptable by someone else, as in this case.
Another claim the author makes in supporting censorship is that it will still keep its meaning. He refers to the fact that new releases of the Bible are published to keep up with the change in language, but the message still stays the same. However, part of the allure of Twain’s books is in the language itself. His language style is part of the literature and if that is altered then it compromises the books’ literary merit. Huck Finn is a story about a gritty boy with barely any education at all in Missouri in the late 1830s or 40’s- a setting where racism flourished. Twain purposely used Huck’s language to convey the true reality of the time period, where the N-word was commonly used. Blum mentions in his article, “It’s not only appropriate for Huck to use the word; it’s completely inappropriate for him to use any other word in its place” (What, par. 2). Part of what makes this novel so appealing and riveting is that Twain is not afraid to expose the language of the South during that time to ensure the setting’s authenticity. If he avoided using the word, he would have been cheating the readers out of completely stepping into the world of the book.
If Mark Twain were alive today, he most likely would not be happy about people messing around with his literature. He flawlessly captured the voice of Huck in his novel and the culture of the setting. Censoring certain words would defeat the whole purpose of the first-person narrative which helps the reader to truly experience the story for himself. Mark Twain consciously used the N-word, along with many other language techniques to convey the terminology of the South in the mid 1800’s. Inarguably, the effects censorship of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn would go way past the change of what words are in the book. Allowing such an effective literary work to be tampered with and altered would not only completely compromise its worth, but also instill a sense of demoralization among writers who dare to take risks.
[SEE NEXT POST FOR WORKS CITED]
No comments:
Post a Comment