Fixing Mark Twain...

[Ansgar Seraph]

It leaves us in the position of quoting the text and making the case that the essence of the text is really altered by the replacement or is preserved despite the replacement. For example:

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Mark Twain. 1884

As soon as Tom was back we cut along the path, around the garden fence, and by and by fetched up on the steep top of the hill the other side of the house. Tom said he slipped Jim's hat off of his head and hung it on a limb right over him, and Jim stirred a little, but he didn't wake. Afterwards Jim said the witches be witched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State, and then set him under the trees again, and hung his hat on a limb to show who done it. And next time Jim told it he said they rode him down to New Orleans; and, after that, every time he told it he spread it more and more, till by and by he said they rode him all over the world, and tired him most to death, and his back was all over saddle-boils. Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other niggers. Niggers would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any nigger in that country. Strange niggers would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Niggers is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that nigger was corked up and had to take a back seat. Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying something to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. Niggers would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that five-center piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it. Jim was most ruined for a servant, because he got stuck up on account of having seen the devil and been rode by witches.

© source where applicable

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Mark Twain. 1884 *Edited to replace "nigger" with "slave"*

As soon as Tom was back we cut along the path, around the garden fence, and by and by fetched up on the steep top of the hill the other side of the house. Tom said he slipped Jim's hat off of his head and hung it on a limb right over him, and Jim stirred a little, but he didn't wake. Afterwards Jim said the witches be witched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State, and then set him under the trees again, and hung his hat on a limb to show who done it. And next time Jim told it he said they rode him down to New Orleans; and, after that, every time he told it he spread it more and more, till by and by he said they rode him all over the world, and tired him most to death, and his back was all over saddle-boils. Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other slaves. Slaves would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any slave in that country. Strange slaves would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Slaves is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that slave was corked up and had to take a back seat. Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying something to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. Slaves would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that five-center piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it. Jim was most ruined for a servant, because he got stuck up on account of having seen the devil and been rode by witches.

© source where applicable

Can we really say that even the vernacular is very much changed by replacing the "N-word" with the word "slave?"

I think the best case for keeping the word in place would be in the situations where Twain was leaning heavily on the racist elements in southern culture, as personified in Huck's father:

Ibid

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio--a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane--the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me--I'll never vote agin as long as I live. And to see the cool way of that nigger--why, he wouldn't a give me the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way. I says to the people, why ain't this nigger put up at auction and sold?--that's what I want to know. And what do you reckon they said? Why, they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the State six months, and he hadn't been there that long yet. There, now--that's a specimen. They call that a govment that can't sell a free nigger till he's been in the State six months. Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock- till for six whole months before it can take a hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free nigger, and--"

© source where applicable

It will be interesting to see what happens with this particular paragraph, as the man Huck's pap is talking about is a free man and not a slave. The question then becomes whether the term “black man” (or something equally unoffensive outside of context) takes away a great deal of the virulence that Huck's father demonstrates. I would argue that a grade school student will definitely capture the essence of this paragraph in edited form.



That's true about “Romeo and Juliet” — as far as I know, Shakespeare didn't have a nipple slip in the original production. The idea is that censorship of certain elements of art is not uncommon, nor is it necessarily bad. Perhaps a better analogy: if "Harry Potter" ever finds its way into a public school curriculum, school officials will have to deal with one character in the final book yelling the "B-word" at a particular villain. Is this singular instance of swearing worthy of damning the entire series? Can it be easily exchanged for a different word that retains the raw emotion of the character?

—Sam

[NeilUnreal]

I was raised on Classics Illustrated comics. When I was young, we lived for a while in a third-world country without television, and mother read them to me (among other things). Even though modified, the comic versions gave me a taste for classic literature without spoiling the real versions when I later did read them.

So I think it's OK to make age-appropriate changes to great literature, as long as it is documented and acknowledged as such.

-Neil

[Epoetker]

I am not in favor of the changes; then again, I'm not much in favor of using Huckeberry Finn as reading material outside of the seventh grade or higher.

Also the word 'nigger' is not in the same category as the F word or other such. For instance, removing the F word from that recent Ce Lo Green song that had the F word as its title doesn't change the meaning of the song much. But removing the word 'nigga' from it messes up both the rhyme and the flow, a far graver sin against Art, to my mind.

Not only that, changing the word 'nigger' to 'slave' de-contextualizes both words. Or worse, identifies all black people as slaves far too easily. Mark Twain's vernacular is not only a more correct use of the term, but could have been an extemperaneous conversation in a majority of the black community today. It showed how Twain closely and accurately followed the Southern vernacular-to the point where anyone with a passing familiarity with ghetto Ebonics and their rapid-fire overuse of the word 'nigger' can instantly recognize the Southern roots. Actually, it's a very, very, good education for young black ghetto kids-Ohmigod, you mean racist white Southern people used to talk like me? Making history personal ensures that people might actually learn something about it.

To the point where you edit the works for not being polite, you remove their ability to be educational, though I suspect the primary purpose of such edit is to ensure the kids get only the education the teacher approves of or feels comfortable dealing with. These edits are almost universally made for the sake of the teacher, not the students.

Also, no black person in living memory has ever said 'what's up, my slave' to their homies at any point I know of.

The only good stricture against using the word was made by Atticus Finch to Scout: "Don't say nigger, Scout. That's common."


(Pictured: Common.)

But few liberal white people these days are serving as arbiters of taste for the black community. Not even our President (who, I must continually stress, is half-white and has yet to have a Bill Cosby moment.)

[Pilgrim]

It leaves us in the position of quoting the text and making the case that the essence of the text is really altered by the replacement or is preserved despite the replacement. For example:

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Mark Twain. 1884

As soon as Tom was back we cut along the path, around the garden fence, and by and by fetched up on the steep top of the hill the other side of the house. Tom said he slipped Jim's hat off of his head and hung it on a limb right over him, and Jim stirred a little, but he didn't wake. Afterwards Jim said the witches be witched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State, and then set him under the trees again, and hung his hat on a limb to show who done it. And next time Jim told it he said they rode him down to New Orleans; and, after that, every time he told it he spread it more and more, till by and by he said they rode him all over the world, and tired him most to death, and his back was all over saddle-boils. Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other niggers. Niggers would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any nigger in that country. Strange niggers would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Niggers is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that nigger was corked up and had to take a back seat. Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying something to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. Niggers would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that five-center piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it. Jim was most ruined for a servant, because he got stuck up on account of having seen the devil and been rode by witches.

© source where applicable

"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Mark Twain. 1884 *Edited to replace "nigger" with "slave"*

As soon as Tom was back we cut along the path, around the garden fence, and by and by fetched up on the steep top of the hill the other side of the house. Tom said he slipped Jim's hat off of his head and hung it on a limb right over him, and Jim stirred a little, but he didn't wake. Afterwards Jim said the witches be witched him and put him in a trance, and rode him all over the State, and then set him under the trees again, and hung his hat on a limb to show who done it. And next time Jim told it he said they rode him down to New Orleans; and, after that, every time he told it he spread it more and more, till by and by he said they rode him all over the world, and tired him most to death, and his back was all over saddle-boils. Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other slaves. Slaves would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any slave in that country. Strange slaves would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Slaves is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that slave was corked up and had to take a back seat. Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying something to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. Slaves would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that five-center piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it. Jim was most ruined for a servant, because he got stuck up on account of having seen the devil and been rode by witches.

© source where applicable

Can we really say that even the vernacular is very much changed by replacing the "N-word" with the word "slave?"

I think the best case for keeping the word in place would be in the situations where Twain was leaning heavily on the racist elements in southern culture, as personified in Huck's father:

Ibid

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio--a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane--the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me--I'll never vote agin as long as I live. And to see the cool way of that nigger--why, he wouldn't a give me the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way. I says to the people, why ain't this nigger put up at auction and sold?--that's what I want to know. And what do you reckon they said? Why, they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the State six months, and he hadn't been there that long yet. There, now--that's a specimen. They call that a govment that can't sell a free nigger till he's been in the State six months. Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock- till for six whole months before it can take a hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free nigger, and--"

© source where applicable

It will be interesting to see what happens with this particular paragraph, as the man Huck's pap is talking about is a free man and not a slave. The question then becomes whether the term “black man” (or something equally unoffensive outside of context) takes away a great deal of the virulence that Huck's father demonstrates. I would argue that a grade school student will definitely capture the essence of this paragraph in edited form.



That's true about “Romeo and Juliet” — as far as I know, Shakespeare didn't have a nipple slip in the original production. The idea is that censorship of certain elements of art is not uncommon, nor is it necessarily bad. Perhaps a better analogy: if "Harry Potter" ever finds its way into a public school curriculum, school officials will have to deal with one character in the final book yelling the "B-word" at a particular villain. Is this singular instance of swearing worthy of damning the entire series? Can it be easily exchanged for a different word that retains the raw emotion of the character?

—Sam

My point is not so much that the text is changed considerably but the historical sentiment the text captures very much is and since one of the key points of value in this piece of fiction is the historical picture it takes, to change the text is to devalue it on that basis alone. Plus if you have to explain why the text is changed to a group of kids then you have to address the offending term anyway and thus you have added a level of complication to the study of the text that just is not necessary except in the imaginations of censors who think so little of how kids in school process information and critically thing that they assume the kids and society will somehow be eternally marred for having had to deal with something bad. Sheesh. We are creating a totally anaceptic environment for these kids and it's no wonder that so many of them founder when they hit the real world. Can we expect any less than that having not dealt with anything hard in preparation for the world, they are floored by the real world when the find out that it's hard.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, we could easily ask the question which scenario is the more antiseptic environment: a grade school curriculum without Huck Finn or a curriculum with an edited Huck Finn. I would argue that there are no grade school-level books capable of equally presenting the themes inherent in Huck Finn — the loss of the book from curricula, therefore, results in a more antiseptic environment than the inclusion of the book in this edited form.

I think that the idea that this edition is being published to prevent children from "dealing with something bad" is inherently flawed. All of the themes in Huck Finn are preserved and readily apparent. The screed delivered by Huck's father may lose some of its perceived viciousness by replacing the "N-word" — but it still comes across as irredeemably racist (and the lost viciousness would not have been felt by the author's intended readers, anyhow, since there was little to no objection to that particular word originally). If grade schools and institutions are going to restrict and ban "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" because of its use of an unnecessarily offensive word, is the educational value of an edited edition of the book greater than the loss of the original text? I think, in this case, a textual analysis validates the editing out of the "N-word."

—Sam

[rogue06]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ds?sc=fb&cc=fp

This is just plain stupid. Sometimes (and keep in mind I self identify as liberal) liberal sentiments are just silly. This is a form of art. You don't change art because you don't like it. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Plus, it's a historical artifact in many ways. I mean, it's a snap shot of the mind set of that time and place and it loses much of its importance if you remove that element.

Not censorship so much as bowdlerizing.

There are more than a few scholars that hold that Clemens (or Twain if you prefer) used the name to attack the racial prejudices of his day (which in the post Civil War period were full becoming increasingly polarized and violent) and that Jim is a hero of the story.

Here’s a great reaction from over in Britain: Huckleberry Finn loses the 'nigger' he loves, thanks to a publisher's ethnic cleansing

And here is a great response: Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn and Nigger Jim: sense or censorship?

[Pilgrim]

Well, we could easily ask the question which scenario is the more antiseptic environment: a grade school curriculum without Huck Finn or a curriculum with an edited Huck Finn. I would argue that there are no grade school-level books capable of equally presenting the themes inherent in Huck Finn — the loss of the book from curricula, therefore, results in a more antiseptic environment than the inclusion of the book in this edited form.

I think that the idea that this edition is being published to prevent children from "dealing with something bad" is inherently flawed. All of the themes in Huck Finn are preserved and readily apparent. The screed delivered by Huck's father may lose some of its perceived viciousness by replacing the "N-word" — but it still comes across as irredeemably racist (and the lost viciousness would not have been felt by the author's intended readers, anyhow, since there was little to no objection to that particular word originally). If grade schools and institutions are going to restrict and ban "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" because of its use of an unnecessarily offensive word, is the educational value of an edited edition of the book greater than the loss of the original text? I think, in this case, a textual analysis validates the editing out of the "N-word."

—Sam

Again this lends itself to an argument for age appropriate presentation rather than censorship of the material. I argue our kids are more ready and able to digest and critically evaluate the material than we give them credit for in this dumbed down culture. Still, your argument seems to say that the material is just not appropriate for grade school kids. I don't agree with that but I'll say, "fair enough" and suggest the book not be presented to them until they're a bit older rather than suggest that an artists work be mauled. He chose the words he chose for a reason, a specific reason, to express his artistic sensibilities. We should honor that.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Again this lends itself to an argument for age appropriate presentation rather than censorship of the material. I argue our kids are more ready and able to digest and critically evaluate the material than we give them credit for in this dumbed down culture. Still, your argument seems to say that the material is just not appropriate for grade school kids. I don't agree with that but I'll say, "fair enough" and suggest the book not be presented to them until they're a bit older rather than suggest that an artists work be mauled. He chose the words he chose for a reason, a specific reason, to express his artistic sensibilities. We should honor that.

Except that we often don't — and modification of an artist's work for a particular audience isn't necessarily a bad thing. The 1985 publication of Huck Finn re-inserted the rafting chapter that Twain pulled from the book's rough draft and abridged some of the episodes with Tom Sawyer that did not contribute to the book's overall arc. My favorite copy of Dante's "Divine Comedy" (the John Ciardi version) is indirectly criticized by Robert Pinsky in the introduction to his own translation; Pinsky argues that Ciardi's solution to the problem of translating the meter and rhyme of Dante (by valuing meter and rhyme in English over literal translation) is a poor solution and that one should sacrifice traditional rhyme before one sacrifices literal translation. Shakespeare's "Richard III" is rarely performed unabridged — and the abridged form is edited such that entire characters are omitted and their necessary lines given to other characters. Even "The Little Prince" exists in multiple English editions — the author of the 60th anniversary edition criticizes Katherine Woods for not faithfully adhering to St. Exupery's text, for transliterating instead of translating. Movies are edited for content consistently. Altering an artist's work is a long-practiced habit — and very few people object to such alterations categorically.

The argument for "age appropriateness" certainly has a place in discussing whether to censor a piece of art for children — but in this case, the subject of censorship was not, at the time of its writing, a matter of age appropriateness. There was not a controversy in 1884 about children hearing or reading the "N-word." To make it a reason to delay the book's reading today, therefore, has little to do with the artistic sensibilities of Twain. He simply did not expect his readership to react to that word the way that modern readers do. Twain chose to use the "N-word" because that was the vernacular of the book's time period. The focus on vernacular was Twain's artistry — and I believe, and as I think the examples cited above show, that the vernacular in Huck Finn is still readily apparent to a grade school audience.

—Sam

[Raphael]

That's true about “Romeo and Juliet” — as far as I know, Shakespeare didn't have a nipple slip in the original production.

Considering that in the original production all the actors were male, Shakespeare most definitely would not have included a nipple slip.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Considering that in the original production all the actors were male, Shakespeare most definitely would not have included a nipple slip.

I don't know — this is the guy who wrote "Twelfth Night," after all.

Tangent to the conversation, literary study of Shakespeare and sexuality is one of those areas I didn't think about being so complicated and interesting when reading his stuff in high school.

[Seasanctuary]

I would rather leave it out than censor the text. We already have to be selective about readings, but we don't have to start altering readings.

[Ansgar Seraph]

This conversation reminds me a bit about a discussion we had in my contemporary literature class a while back. We were assigned Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" and we were told by the teacher that a glossary of some of the words used in the book was included. Having read the book prior to class, I brought up the idea that a glossary of words undermined one of Burgess' foundational themes — the ability of a third party to subconsciously alter an individual's thought process and behavior. Obviously, this theme is foundational, since it is critical to the overall plot of the book but Burgess' genius was his ability to alter the reader's thought process through repeating and contextualizing strange words like "kroovy" and "gulliver." At the beginning of the book, the reader is struggling to define what these words mean. Around the middle of book (when Burgess reveals his strategy through two bit characters), the reader is mentally substituting these words with their English counterparts. At the end of the book, though, the reader has fully incorporated Burgess' vocabulary — "kroovy" suddenly means "kroovy," not "blood." The reader has undergone the same uninvited mental transformation as the protagonist.

To me, this is an example of "age appropriateness." Altering the language or disturbing imagery of "A Clockwork Orange" would indeed destroy or severely damage the themes that Burgess developed. "Kroovy" cannot be replaced with "blood" without a complete loss of an underpinning theme of the book. I just don't see "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" being in the same category.

—Sam

[Pilgrim]

Except that we often don't — and modification of an artist's work for a particular audience isn't necessarily a bad thing. The 1985 publication of Huck Finn re-inserted the rafting chapter that Twain pulled from the book's rough draft and abridged some of the episodes with Tom Sawyer that did not contribute to the book's overall arc. My favorite copy of Dante's "Divine Comedy" (the John Ciardi version) is indirectly criticized by Robert Pinsky in the introduction to his own translation; Pinsky argues that Ciardi's solution to the problem of translating the meter and rhyme of Dante (by valuing meter and rhyme in English over literal translation) is a poor solution and that one should sacrifice traditional rhyme before one sacrifices literal translation. Shakespeare's "Richard III" is rarely performed unabridged — and the abridged form is edited such that entire characters are omitted and their necessary lines given to other characters. Even "The Little Prince" exists in multiple English editions — the author of the 60th anniversary edition criticizes Katherine Woods for not faithfully adhering to St. Exupery's text, for transliterating instead of translating. Movies are edited for content consistently. Altering an artist's work is a long-practiced habit — and very few people object to such alterations categorically.

The argument for "age appropriateness" certainly has a place in discussing whether to censor a piece of art for children — but in this case, the subject of censorship was not, at the time of its writing, a matter of age appropriateness. There was not a controversy in 1884 about children hearing or reading the "N-word." To make it a reason to delay the book's reading today, therefore, has little to do with the artistic sensibilities of Twain. He simply did not expect his readership to react to that word the way that modern readers do. Twain chose to use the "N-word" because that was the vernacular of the book's time period. The focus on vernacular was Twain's artistry — and I believe, and as I think the examples cited above show, that the vernacular in Huck Finn is still readily apparent to a grade school audience.

—Sam

I've heard it well argues that Twain used the word precisely because it had a negative conotation and he wanted the reader to be uncomfortable. The word did not bring about the same visceral reaction it gets today but even then it was considered among a certain set to be course and vulgar.

[Nicholas]

I have to strongly disagree with this move. Removing the word "nigger" and replacing it with "slave" not only takes the story out of its historical context, but it doesn't even make sense to replace every instance of "nigger" with "slave" because there were free blacks during this period. There was a reason why Twain used that word.

On a side note, I can't help but remember an instance where I was watching Blazing Saddles on TV, and they bleeped out every mention of "nigger", which makes little sense giving the context in which it was used.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I've heard it well argues that Twain used the word precisely because it had a negative conotation and he wanted the reader to be uncomfortable. The word did not bring about the same visceral reaction it gets today but even then it was considered among a certain set to be course and vulgar.

Many people did indeed believe the text of Huck Finn was vulgar and coarse — but there isn't evidence (that I have seen) that the "N-word" was meant to be uncomfortable for the reader in any way other than its presence in the vernacular. A "Time" article explains it well:

"Banned Books," TIME. 2008.09.28

In 1885, the Concord Public Library in Massachusetts banned the year-old book for its "coarse language" — critics deemed Mark Twain's use of common vernacular (slang) as demeaning and damaging. A reviewer dubbed it "the veriest trash ... more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people." Little Women author Louisa May Alcott lashed out publicly at Twain, saying, "If Mr. Clemens [Twain's original name] cannot think of something better to tell our pure-minded lads and lasses he had best stop writing for them." (That the word nigger appears more than 200 times throughout the book did not initially cause much controversy.) In 1905, the Brooklyn Public Library in New York followed Concord's lead, banishing the book from the building's juvenile section with this explanation: "Huck not only itched but scratched, and that he said sweat when he should have said perspiration." Twain enthusiastically fired back, and once said of his detractors: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." Luckily for him, the book's fans would eventually outnumber its critics. "It's the best book we've had," Ernest Hemingway proclaimed. "All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since."

© source where applicable

The idea that the "N-word" did not carry the same offensive status in the late 19th century as it does today is at least partially evidenced by the fact that magazines and newspapers of the day seem to have made casual use of the term:

Chicago Daily Tribune 1 Dec. 8/1 (taken from the OED)

When the ‘jigger’ [sc. a police officer] does come along the ‘niggers’, as the railroad men call their tormentors irrespective of color, are perched upon the fence like the rail birds, ready to call names and throw stones or fight him face to face.

© source where applicable

Certainly, the term was, at least at times, meant to be understood as offensive and certainly it was considered crude and vulgar. The objection that Huck Finn was a vulgar book, however, was not initially made primarily because of the inclusion of the word "nigger." Rather, the entire "voice" of Huck Finn and the characters therein was considered objectionable.

The "N-word" was still prevalent in the late 19th century; it is therefore unlikely that Twain would have used it precisely to cause discomfort in his readers. Indeed, there are numerous instances in the book where it would be difficult to argue that he means the term to be used pejoratively, since slaves referred to each other using the word in casual talk. Twain probably did object to the use of the word in any sense, as the use of the word would have likely been offensive to his heightened sensitivity to the plight of black people in the South. But there's a leap from arguing that Twain was likely offended by the word to the idea that Twain intentionally meant the word to have the same reaction to his readers then that we feel today.

And we are talking about the merits of the book being presented to grade school students, not changing all editions of the book. The debate over the use of the word is itself a much more complicated issue than most grade school students are prepared for. If the question is whether the coarseness and vulgarity present in Huck Finn is very much changed by replacing the "N-word" with the word "slave" in the minds of grade school students, I just don't see a very large change in the books themes, characters or readability.

Disney made a movie adaptation of Huck Finn in 1993, almost certainly omitting the "N-word." Is this example of editing particularly different than what we are discussing here? Both are adaptations of the book for young audiences, both omit certain objectionable content. The book, however, takes at least some time to explain its editing decisions in the preface whilst the movie likely only reads "Based on the novel by Mark Twain." I have a very difficult time seeing people objecting to the Disney film (and I certainly remember no national controversy about it at the time) and I have a very difficult time seeing categorical differences between the two examples of editing.

—Sam