the "N" word to be removed from Huck Finn

or this;

This was a man who lived by his words... he used them as any skilled craftsman uses their tools...

To edit his work after his death in order to please people, is an insult to him and everything he was.

 

No there weren't. Nothing in that video suggests that people died during the Holocaust.
Thanks for the help in illustrating my point.

 

No. The point was you don't have too show death to make a point.
I'm sure you appreciated that point. If you missed it, oops, never mind.

 

"It sucked" was the point I got from that clip. The systematic killing of millions of people deserves a bit more detail than that.

 

another good one...

It just doesn't seem to follow that this is a guy who would want his words to be altered by others, after his death.

He didn't just toss words out with no thought to what they meant.... What they meant, is the very reason he chose them.

 

Tom...

Does he mean: "I'm a bit of a pretentious prick" ?

To be fair, none of us know if he would have minded if given the real reason for this new version and a knowledge of the world we are in today (saying that, it sounds like not a lot has changed).

 

Really?

Hmmmm....

 

Odon, I have one question: do you think the Passion of the Christ would have been as effective without any blood?

 

If body parts being blown across the battle field does it for you, or you think it makes a more powerful point, fair enough.

 

I don't know. I'm not trying to answer the question for him.

I've not seen it. Not a big fan of Jesus. You might be right.

 

That sorta the point of me quoting him all these times...

He has already answered these questions...

He knew the value and cost of the words he chose, and he chose them with purpose and reason.

These are his works of art, his creations... How can anyone argue that it is okay to first change them, and then to make it worse, use his name to sell them?

 

Perhaps he was like many authors and just wished to sell his books.

I personally do not think it should be edited. It is not a book that is mandatory reading for young children. I feel that it should be read at an age that is appropriate for debating the use of those terms and why they were used in that way. That is not something that young children would/could/should be doing.

I read this in school in grade 8 and understood the usage.


Source of quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn

 

Did he chose to edit it an publish it in a clean version?

 

Not to my knowledge or this would not be a topic we are now discussing.

While I appreciate it as a classic in literature, I also think it is a book that is also age appropriate for understanding the usage of that language.

If it was a modern book that was being introduced into the curriculum and used the same language it would never be allowed to be used.

So while it is a classic and I would choose not to edit it, I also think that it is an age appropriate book to read.

I would not have read it to my kids when they were 6.

 

He hasn't. He's been dead 100 years. You've attempted to.

 

Well, of course age has something to do with it....

All of the intent and meaning-related reasons that this should not happen aside, I don't give a fuck if this is now considered NC17 material, twain wrote twains book how twain wanted, and there is no excuse for fucking with it. If you want to read his book, read his book, if you don't like his book, there's more books in existance that don't make mention of ****** jim ONCE than you could read in your whole lifetime, so ya better get to readin'.... If his book is a classic and worth reading, it's wroth reading, and if it has issues that need special discussion, so be it. These issues will still exist and be addressed with the edited version, if children are not mature enough to read about this with a few words still in place, they're not mature enough, period.

 

There is nothing wrong with not teaching or reading a book to a child because you don't think it is appropriate for them.

However, by the time a kid can read it on their own, it is appropriate, because that is how they grow and learn.

They come across concepts and ideas that they are unfamiliar with and they explore them with those around them, which would be parents, teachers and peers, to find out where those concepts fit (or don't) into their own view of the world.

That is what makes well rounded adults... not oppression, censorship and denial of reality.

 

According to the facts that term is not in the book, it was used by critics.

I am not saying it should be edited.

 

I think that was my point. That when they are of an age to read and debate/understand then it is classic literature that is appropriate.

The irony is that if you debate this book and analyze it, it was about oppression, censorship and denial of reality during the time period.

 

I wasn't arguing against you... lol

The book is a reflection of a lot of issues in society, regardless of the time... That is what makes it a classic.