Essay 3.1: 21 Works

To the National Youth Rights Association:

I am writing this letter in response to your statements and actions reflecting the belief to lower the minimum drinking age in the U.S. from 21 years old to 18 years old. I strongly believe that the minimum drinking age should stay at the current age of 21 years. I think we both agree that this issue is one of great importance and the factors regarding it should be carefully considered from both sides.

Let me start off by saying I wholeheartedly believe in what you stand for as an organization. The power of the younger generations is vital to the well-being of our nation and the rest of the world.  You provide the type of vigor and inspiration the youth of our country needs to take pride in our future. Not only does this type of support motivate the youth to care about issues affecting them, but it is also necessary to catapult the generation’s presence into impending conflicts affecting different types of people all over the world; your powerful influence does just this.

Being 19 years old, I am part of a younger generation of voters. It’s thrilling to know that our democracy allows us to have a say in the governing process. I hope I’m not making a vast assumption when I say that many young people tend to focus on the issues that only affect them currently. (I, for one am not too concerned with social security rights.) However, it is safe to say that this issue is extremely significant to discuss because it reaches deeper than only affecting those in the range between the current minimum drinking age and your desired minimum drinking age. You state, “The National Youth Rights Association does not feel this is an issue primarily about alcohol; rather it is an issue about equality, honesty, respect, discrimination and freedom” (Frequently, par. 9). I could not agree more with this statement. This issue generates not only a question of how old one needs to be to consume alcohol, but it brings to mind these imminent conflicts of equality, honesty, respect, discrimination and freedom. Before I go on, I would like to first thank you for making so many young people aware of impending conflicts; because without a sense of awareness, we would lose a lot of our generation in the ongoing fight for a better future.

It is very important for me to mention that I completely understand where you are coming from. I acknowledge that it does not seem fair that an 18-year-old can vote, serve on a jury, fight for his or her country, pay taxes and so on, but they are not able to consume alcohol. I am constantly hearing my peers whine about how it isn't fair that the drinking age is 21 and not 18, like it was when their parents were that age. What many of them don't acknowledge, or don't even realize, is that it is far too dangerous to allow eighteen-year-olds to access alcohol for a variety of reasons. I think we can both agree that The National Minimum Drinking Age Act has taken a major influence on the lives of America’s youth since it was signed into law on July 17, 1984. You mention, “While the 21-year-old drinking age seems imbedded in American society, it is only a recent innovation” (Legislative, par. 1). Yes, this raise in the minimum drinking age is recent in retrospect, but more important to realize is that it was changed for a reason. The 18 drinking age was not working for many reasons.

 As part of the war protests of the 1960’s, youths started urging a lowered drinking age. The 26^th amendment was soon after adopted in 1971 and many states reduced the drinking age to 18, while some reduced it to 19 or 20. Soon after, these states started seeing a drastic increase in the number of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities among teens; most frequent among these were traffic injuries and fatalities. During this time, the problem of “blood borders” resulted in teens getting injured or dying in car accidents while travelling between their home states to neighboring states that had lower drinking ages. (Top, par. 4) According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, during the years where the states had lower drinking ages “the lives of 555 youths per year would have been saved if the drinking age had been 21 in all states of the U.S” (Beer, par. 1). The studies performed by NBER reveal that “the death rate of 18 through 20 year olds is inversely related to the minimum legal age for the purchase of beer” (Beer, par. 1). It’s safe to say that the lower drinking age did not work. I don’t think we disagree on the fact that saving lives and preventing suffering among a generation which holds the fate of our nation is a good thing. Clearly, the current drinking age has proved to save lives. It’s such a shame that so many lives had to be lost before we realized that the lower drinking age was not working. However, this only strengthens the resolve today to keep fighting for what’s really important- which is protecting the lives of our youth. It's more important to be alive then to be entitled to get drunk.

In lowering the drinking age to 18, even more high school students and middle school students will be able to access alcohol more easily. This introduces the conflicts of the “forbidden fruit” versus the “low-hanging fruit.” (Top, par. 8). A lot of the allure of alcohol is believed to originate with the idea of the forbidden fruit. Kids know they are not allowed to drink alcohol, which makes them want to try it out even more. However, lowering the drinking age will replace this concept with the threat that more of these curious students will enlist the help of their 18-year-old friend or sibling to provide them with alcohol. Although many kids get access to alcohol through 21-year-olds now, the opportunity to obtain alcohol will be easier with more contacts closer in age. Also, these younger teens seeing even more 18-year-olds drinking will have the inevitable influence to experiment with alcohol as well. The 1978 National Study of Adolescent Drinking Behavior found discouraging information:

“10^th – 12^th graders in states with lower drinking ages drank significantly more, were drunk more often, and were less likely to abstain from alcohol. Additionally, national data show that high school seniors who could not legally drink until age 21 drank less before age 21 and between ages 21 – 25 than did students in states with lower drinking ages” (Top, par. 8).

In relation to this threat, another conflict is introduced with the concern of future effects alcohol has on one’s adult life if alcohol is familiarized earlier in life. With the vast amount of alcoholics in our nation, it is unfortunately easy to admit that dependence on alcohol is not too hard to become succumbed to. Even more vulnerable to alcoholism are those who are introduced to alcohol at a young age. The assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, Arpana Agrawa, Ph.D. says “From a biological perspective, early AFD [a.k.a age at first drink] may induce changes in the highly sensitive adolescent brain, which may also modify an individual’s subsequent genetic vulnerability to AD [a.k.a alcohol dependence]” (Early, par. 3). Seemingly, the relationship between an early age at first drink and a vulnerability to alcohol dependence shows a strong connection. “We know that alcohol use affects an adolescent brain differently than it does an adult. We know that because of this addiction, onset can occur much sooner in a teenager (6-18 months) than an adult (5 years)” (Top, par. 7) Therefore, the longer we delay the onset of drinking of teens, the easier we can avoid their vulnerability to alcohol dependency. Alcoholism is a serious issue effecting both young and old. Unfortunately, vulnerability to alcohol dependency is not ideally controlled today. However, it is imperative that we help more members of the younger generation avoid such a fate by delaying their introduction to casual use of alcohol.

Although I probably can’t change your opinion in just one letter, I hope that you keep in mind the dangers lowering the drinking age can bring. I think we both can agree that knowledge of alcohol and its effects should be taught to kids at a young age. I think that this knowledge should be introduced to students in high school and even in middle school when alcohol is often first introduced. Perhaps if alcohol education is incorporated into the curriculum more heavily, then these threats of misuse at a young age will not pose a danger to those who are aware of alcohol’s consequences. I will not deny that alcohol is frequently used by those who are underage. However, because of the current minimum drinking age, underage offenders are forced to be more careful where and when they consume alcohol. Lowering the drinking age will break any sense of control these teens have, causing even more danger than what ensued in the 70’s. I would hope that eventually, a new generation will be able to understand the true repercussions of misuse of alcohol, but unfortunately I strongly believe that the current youth does not. You have so much influence on our future generation as an organization. My request is that you take the immense power you are using to motivate a younger drinking age and instead focus that energy on educating youth on the dangers of alcohol. This paves the path to a better future so that eventually teens will be knowledgeable enough to take responsibility in alcohol consumption at younger ages.

There current drinking age was put into law for many reasons. Whether it’s to save lives, or to avoid early access to alcohol and a fate of alcoholism, the reasons behind the law are extremely valid. The drinking age of 21 is established to protect America’s youth. We can both agree that the younger generation controls the future. That idea of power amongst my generation is truly empowering. I would not want to give that up just so that teens from the ages of 18-20 can legally have a drink, risking a demise of such hope in the youth. In the 1970’s when the legal drinking age was 18, we saw what destruction was caused in emotional damage and in losing lives. Like I said before, I truly respect the cause of your organization. I know it comes from a root of morality and justice. So, I beg you to channel that foundation and ask yourself, are we really willing to risk the future of our youth for this?

Thank you for considering my position and thank you for continuing to do your influential and inspiring work.

Sincerely, 

Molly Podell

Works Cited

Arnold-Burger, Karen. "The Top Five Reasons We Should Keep the Drinking Age at 21." 4prevention.wordpress.com. Regional Prevention Center, 06 Aug. 2008. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

"Early Age At First Drink May Modify Tween/Teen Risk For Alcohol Dependence." Www.medicalnewstoday.com. Medical News Today, 21 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Www.youthrights.org. National Youth Rights Association. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Koroknay, Alex. "Legislative Analysis of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act." Www.youthrights.org. National Youth Rights Association. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Saffer, Henry, and Henry Grossman. "Beer Taxes, the Legal Drinking Age, and Youth Motor Vehicle Fatalities." Www.nber.org. The National Bureau of Economic Research, June 1987. Web. 29 Mar. 2011.

Reflection 2.2

The revision process for this paper was very different compared to my last one. I feel like I made a lot more changes to the second draft of this paper compared to the second draft of the rhetorical analysis. Not only did I work on changes in paragraph structure, language, and other non-context related techniques, but I also developed my ideas much more in the second draft. I knew that my first draft for the rebuttal was not a strong one, so I was afraid that my second draft would reflect that. However, I think I made many necessary changes to make this paper into something I can be proud of. The conflict of freedom of speech is very important to me and I'm very glad I chose the Huck Finn paper to rebut. I think I probably could have used more concrete evidence to back up my claims such as statistics, but I hope that my arguments are strong enough to clearly convey my overall idea. It was very difficult to find recent scholarly sources for this issue but when looking through my other sources, I was very compelled in what I found. This issue of publishing a censored version of Mark Twain's work is stirring up much controversy and I see that in the many articles I found during research. I'm glad that this essay brought me aware to such an issue.

Prewriting Essay 3

I'm not quite sure what topic I want to write about. I want to pick a topic that is not only relevant to me, but relevant to my peers as well. A few hot topics among my age group is legalizing marijuana and lowering the drinking age to 18. As for the legalization of marijuana, I support it for a variety of reasons. However, I think that this topic may be a bit over-used. When it comes to lowering the drinking age to 18, I disagree with those supporting that. A few months ago, I came over an article that thoughtfully analyzes why 21 is the right minimum age to buy alcohol. It was backed up by clear, strong reasons and evidence. I do acknowledge that it does not seem fair that an 18 year old can serve on a jury, fight for his or her country, get married, and pay taxes but they are not able to buy alcohol. However, when it comes to saving lives, sometimes one has to reiterate what their parents have always told them- "sometimes, life isn't fair". It's more important to be alive then to be entitled to get drunk. I'm constantly hearing my peers whine about how it isn't fair that the drinking age is 21 and not 18, like it was when their parents were that age. What many of them don't acknowledge, or don't even realize, is that it is far too dangerous to allow eighteen-year-olds to access alcohol for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons I will touch upon is that:
1) There is substantial evidence that shows that after the drinking age was raised back to 21 the amount of alcohol-related car accidents  and fatalities has decreased
2) When alcohol is introduced at a young age, there is more time for someone to develop a dependency on it.
3) It is proven that the brain does not fully develop until the age of 21.
4) The idea of the desire of "tasting the forbidden fruit" vs. "low-hanging fruit" (If it's there- people are going to use it, and for many, overuse it)

Essay 2.1 Works Cited

Barlow, Rich. "Removing the N-Word from Mark Twain’s Work." BU.edu. BU Today, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.                         

Blum, Matt. "What the Huck?" Wired.com. 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. 

             Goodman, Mary E. "Evidence Concerning the Genesis of Interracial Attitudes.” OnlineLibrary. American Anthropological Association, 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. 

           

             "Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, It Is, but Changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ Are Warranted."TheLufkinDailyNews.com. The Lufkin Daily News, 6 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.

Essay 2.1: *UCK Finn Censorship: A Rebuttal On “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted”

  LINK TO EDITORIAL

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]

Reflection 2.1

Writing this paper was much harder than the last. I not only had to analyze the editorial, but I had to then make my own arguments against its claims while incorporating research as support. I found it difficult to decide whether or not a source was useful and if it would add validity to my rebuttal or just confusion. For my second draft, I plan on making my paper more organized with clearer points and references to the author of the editorial. Also, I think I should look for more credible evidence including statistics and factual data rather. I mostly incorporated valid points of views eloquently spoken that added to my overall claim, however I doubt that really added any sense of authority to my credibility. I think this first draft is more rough than the other essay's first draft, but hopefully that will give me more room to add a lot more evidence to back up my argument. I tried to follow the format of the author of the editorial in addressing his points with my own refutation and/or counterargument, however once I got into the actual process of writing the paper, I found a lot of my rebutting to his points were intertwined, so I found it difficult to keep certain points separate. I'm glad I know what I need to do next, but these things are only the beginning of my process of revision.

Rebuttal 1st Draft

       http://lufkindailynews.com/opinion/editorials/article_db4061d4-193f-11e0-9991-001cc4c002e0.html

*UCK Finn Censorship

   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. 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. 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 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 in this situation.

            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 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 is the response of certain readers in reaction to the exposure of the word. There is no mention of cases where this book was read in school and students soon after adopted the new word into everyday use. The author also uses no evidence to show that the banning of these books are warranted in the first place. Instead of accepting the fact that these books are being banned requiring the alteration of the text to accommodate to school boards’ and parents’ desires, we should be fighting the practice of banning books. According to Claire Mullally, J.D, books are usually challenged by schools or parents because they contain “profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult…portrayals of rebellious children, or ‘politically incorrect,’ racist or sexist language” (Banned, par 10). Banning books in general is a troubling concept on its own, but censorship of those books is just as bad. Either way, the students are being deprived of the raw work of a subject that they perhaps have not yet been introduced to. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn would fall into this category of frequently banned books with its “profanity,” “politically incorrect, racist or sexist language,” and even “portrayals of rebellious children.” If the true meaning of these novels were understood however, 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.

 One reason used for banning 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 surest way to make kids use the word inappropriately is to tell them not to use it inappropriately” (Huck, par. 3).  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 all if the context is truly understood. 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). 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. 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 understand not to use a 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. Laura Korobkin, a CAS associate professor of English says that the novel is “an extraordinary, subtle, and sophisticated attack on American racism” (Removing, par. 5). She says that it should “never be taught in a version that alters its text. Instead, teachers should use the occasion of reading Huck Finn to discuss with students 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 in the novel, teachers should embrace this effective power 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 in referring to the hateful language of the intolerable people against homosexuals. 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. In relation to this, 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. Part of the allure of Twain’s books is in the language. His language style is part of the literature and if that is altered then it compromises the books’ literary merit. Blum mentions in his article, “Huck Finn is a first-person narrative told by Huck himself. Huck is a boy living in Missouri in the late 1830s or early 1840s, with barely any education at all. Twain was very, very careful to evoke Huck’s dialect in his writing, which is why the “n-word” is used. 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.

Effectively mentioned in Rich Barlow’s editorial in BU Today, 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 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. 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.

Works Cited

Barlow, Rich. "Removing the N-Word from Mark Twain’s Work." BU.edu. BU Today, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. 

Blum, Matt. "What the Huck?" Wired.com. 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. 

"Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, It Is, but Changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ Are Warranted."TheLufkinDailyNews.com. The Lufkin Daily News, 6 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.

Mullally, Claire. "Banned Books." FirstAmendmentCenter.org. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.