A Montgomery publisher and the AUM professor who edited out more than 200 uses of a racially derogatory term in a new edition of Mark Twain’s "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" say they’re not surprised that they’re coming under fire in some quarters. . . But Gribben, who has studied and taught Twain for 40 years, changed his mind as he toured the state a few years ago reading to audiences from "Tom Sawyer" as part of the NEA’s Big Read program. He’d routinely replace the n-word -- used 219 times in "Huck Finn" and nine times in "Tom Sawyer," he said -- with the word "slave," which he has done in NewSouth Books’ new combined edition of the two works. In addition, the word "Injun" is replaced with Indian.
Of course, the hapless academic who says Mark Twain could have been a much better writer had he only seeked his much needed advice on how to write novels, explains his actions as serving the greater good. As long as censorship has existed, it has always been done with the best intentions in mind, so this case is no exception:
"We were very aware that we were doing something that was potentially very provocative and controversial," NewSouth publisher Suzanne La Rosa said. "We were very persuaded by Dr. Gribben’s point of view of what he called the amount of ‘preemptive censorship’ going on at the school level. It pained him personally to see ... the way that Twain’s novels were being de-listed from curricula across the nation. It became difficult for teachers to engage in discussion about the text when the kids were so uncomfortable, particularly with the n-word."
What Gribben's publisher is saying here is that since there are so many unprofessional, ignorant teachers out there, it was the publisher's job to cater to them by improving classical works of literature to the point where such ignorant teachers will find it easy to teach them. Of course, censors always believe that everybody else is a lot more impressionable and feeble-minded than they are. Both Gribben and his publisher have read the original novels by Twain and somehow managed to survive this traumatic experience. Still, they think that others cannot be trusted to choose their own ways of interacting with a famous text.
This is why I keep saying that conservative fanaticism isn't much different from progressive fanaticism. A fanatic always knows better, always itches to control everybody else, is always unforgivingly dogmatic. The vector of a fanatic's orthodoxy is not important. Whatever their political convictions might turn out to be, fanatics will end up in the same place: attempting to impose a rigid structure of control on everybody around them.
I have a few suggestions for Gribben, who insists that his edition offers readers "a more palatable reading experience." This hack, who is so concerned with our delicate palates getting too overworked, might now consider the following projects:
1. Rewriting the ending of Anna Karenina: how about if at the end of the novel, Anna decides not to kill herself? Instead, she starts her own business selling blouses in Saratov, sues her husband for custody and alimony and realizes how empowering it is too be a financially independent woman.
2. Redoing Mrs. Dalloway is also long overdue. How about the following denouement: Mrs. Dalloway realizes that her housewifely existence is shallow and unfulfilling. She decides to explore her sexuality freely and openly and moves into a gay community in San Francisco. The novel ends with her organizing political action in favor of gay marriage.
3. Let's be honest, Cervantes really messed up with his Don Quijote. This whole master-servant relationship between Don Quijote and Sancho promotes a demeaning class structure, which should have no place in such a famous book. How about rewriting it to show Sancho Panza organizing a union to fight for the rights of servants everywhere?
Do you have any favorite classics that are in need of improvement? Let's help Professor Gribben find a new project!
19 comments:
I read the news with disgust as well. In another forum, I've suggested that maybe "Roots" by Alex Haley should also be re-written to remove all n-word instances since it's uncomfortable for some people. It makes no sense at all to tamper with a book that merely describes a historical reality for silly political correctness.
We can as well re-write "Mein Kampf" as well. Oh wait, there will be nothing left of that text if that were to happen.
I think that a lot more offensive than any word is the fact of slavery itself. So why not edit it out? Just avoid mentioning that slavery existed? Wouldn't that be great?
And note that this kind of "academic" has no problem finding a publisher. I, however, am a perennial victim of publishers' excessive political correctness. :-)
There was a fracas when I was in school because a professor had devoted a class to the discussion of the word "nigger" and its various social ramifications. Because the professor actually stated the word rather than refer to it as "the N-word," there was an uproar.
I ended up in a heated argument with a classmate who announced that it was "never" appropriate for a non-black person to ever utter the word.
While I would never condone directing racial epithets at people, especially since I've been their target, I don't believe pronouncing certain words verboten lessens their sting, rather the opposite.
Hilarious!
Let's see ... well, the ending of Nineteen Eighty-Four is really depressing, I think it should end with Winston and Julia leading a revolution against Big Brother and getting married and living happily ever after.
I have another suggestion for Mrs. Dalloway, too: poor Septimus Smith, rather than plummeting to his death in the middle of Clarissa's party, would give a rousing speech about the horrors of war and all the partygoers would go home enlightened and committed to peace.
This is fun.
Also, have you ever read any of James Finn Garner's books of politically correct fairy tales? They're pretty funny.
Oh, I know! Let's rewrite the ending of The Yellow Wallpaper so that she leaves her husband and joins up with a women's rights group!
(My word verification is "factie." I like this for our topic.)
I've been reading about this idea of editing Twain, too. Just plain stupid. As you said, "...conservative fanaticism isn't much different from progressive fanaticism. A fanatic always knows better, always itches to control everybody else, is always unforgivingly dogmatic." Couldn't have been said better.
I agree that censorship is a very bad thing. But it does seem to me that the choice is whether pupils will be forbidden to read Huckleberry Finn at all or not. Is it better that the book be totally banned, or that a damaged version be made available? I find this to be a more difficult question, though of ocurse, I would prefer that it were not such a bad binary choice.
"ocurse" should have been "of course" sorry.
I don't think the novel is in much danger, honestly. It's read all over the world. I still remember my childhood copy that I read until it fell apart. So if a couple of fanatical, unprofessional teacher refuse to assign it in class, who cares? Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate their ignorance? If we let this keep happening, there is literally no saying what they will find offensive next.
It is not just teachers, it is school boards who ban it, even for entire states sometimes, I think.
Maybe it's not a bad thing in a way. I always say that the best way to make a child hate a book is to assign it in high school as obligatory reading. I still can't shake the feeling that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a horrible book. I'm sure it isn't but reading it as a school assignment killed it for me. And God, do I hate Pushkin! We were literally persecuted with him at school and now I don't even know if I might have enjoyed it otherwise.
Currently I am reading Barack Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father", and the word appeared there too. But in this case he directly analyzes racist society. No alien from outer space would be able to read Obama's book and mistakenly see the word as neutral, ignoring the book's analysis. Not the most stupid, ignorant white 12-year-old.
I can't 100% agree with you and understand teachers & students (I guess, including black students), who feel very uncomfortable. In Ukraine we studied Gogol's "Taras Bulba". A Classic too, right? No doubt you know how Jews are called there, which 3-letter word is used. Don't remember whether we read it in class (most likely not since then I would remember), but had we done so, I would've hated the experience of hearing the word and felt deeply humiliated. No "good" teacher with explanations of historical context would be able to help, for the simple reason of Antisemitism being alive and kicking. I don't want to say the situations are the same (Jews=/=Blacks) and "Taras Bulba" was hardly studied to learn about Jews, unlike Huckleberry Finn which, as I understand, is studied mainly to learn about the position of the black people. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. Just food for thought why some black students wouldn't enjoy hearing the word from their white teacher and classmates despite the explanations.
Besides, let's be realistic. Not all school teachers are going to be on the level of uni professors. Why should they provide so much with bad working conditions (full classes) and a teacher's salary? You probably would be able to teach the book even in mixed-race class with some very racist white students (aren't such numerous in USA?), but would you want to leave uni and go to be a school teacher? No? Then let's not criticize school teachers, who I guess aren't ones to ban the book in the first place.
el: I'm not disagree with what you are saying at all. It's true that many teachers have no idea how to teach this book.
But let me ask you a question. Have you read Huckleberry Finn? And was it taught at your school? It wasn't taught in mine, and I still read it half a dozen times.
If a teacher doesn't know how to teach this book, I believe it's better not to teach it at all than to give the students a version that's incorrect and has been messed about with. If you can't teach the truth, then at least don't teach the lies, you know.
A good solution would be to read other, less offending work by Twain in class and then inform students that these other books exist and that there is very offensive language in them. I think this would e a reasonable solution.
I read books about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn (once) & some Twain's humorous short stories in my childhood in Ukraine, which I liked the best of the 3. Then I don't remember thinking about race after reading Huckleberry Finn due to being young, never seeing any not white person in my life before coming to Israel (so race wasn't at the front of my mind), and, not the least, since Tom Sawyer made (wrong) initial impression of them being only adventure books. I did think about race while reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin", "The White Slave" and "Slave Isaura", but there it couldn't have been more obvious. As far as I know, the books aren't taught neither in Ukraine nor in Israel, except a short excerpt about Tom painting a fence in Ukrainian 6th (?) grade English textbook.
Agree with your proposed solution, only want to ask an ignorant but sincere question: why did Twain use the word? Because he thought it was the only way to convey his message, by truly painting reality? Or because he lived in such racist times that saying "they should be free" was extremely advanced and he didn't see a big problem in putting it many times in children's book?
What about Pudd'nhead Wilson? I was surprised to see Twain painting a black man as inherently corrupt, while a white man, even raised as a slave and mistreated by his evil (black!) master, was shown as noble. I even checked sparknotes, but their :
Roxy and others suggest that "Tom"'s malicious behavior is a result of something innate, in this case his racial heritage. However, "Tom" has been raised poorly, by a series of sentimental but misguided wealthy white people. Which of these factors is responsible for his personality is left a mystery.
didn't persuade me. Based on this book alone, I can't see why racist students shouldn't see their views reinforced. This Twain's book isn't imo suitable for school and not because of bad teachers. Of course, I can judge only as a usual reader, without any education in this field.
But I am most curious about the next:
I'm not disagree with what you are saying at all. It's true that many teachers have no idea how to teach this book.
Is the first sentence referring only to bad teachers? Because it wasn't my main point. What do you think about my bolded sentence in the previous post? When I wrote "No "good" teacher" I didn't mean a bad teacher. Read it as "Not even a good teacher..."
One can be a wonderful teacher, but it doesn't give the ability to reach everybody. I've never been in US, can't speak of what I haven't seen except in blog posts, so let's continue with Jews in Ukraine example. I don't believe the explanation would make antisemitic students not antisemitic or stop them snickering among themselves afterwards. It would make other students and Jewish students in class uncomfortable, yes. In many classes not even the best teacher would succeed. Imo the success depends on the students' levels of maturity, intelligence and prejudice. There are classes in which HF can be taught and others in which a different book would be preferable even with the best teacher. I am pessimistic like that. The best solution is to let each teacher decide what's the most suitable for each class.
In your work at university it's different since on average uni students are: smarter & more open-minded, going to uni is traditionally supposed to include new experiences; pay lots of money and thus are afraid of you, so won't snicker, play "I Don't Care" and "What Can You Do?" games to show they're "cool". Not the least, they're adults, more mature --> can disguise their racist, antisemitic, etc views better.
George Orwell wrote a great short essay "Antisemitism in Britain" (on-line here http://orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib )
Quote: above a certain intellectual level people are ashamed of being antisemitic and are careful to draw a distinction between “antisemitism” and “disliking Jews”. The other is that antisemitism is an irrational thing. The Jews are accused of specific offences (for instance, bad behaviour in food queues) which the person speaking feels strongly about, but it is obvious that these accusations merely rationalise some deep-rooted prejudice. To attempt to counter them with facts and statistics is useless, and may sometimes be worse than useless. As the last of the above-quoted remarks shows, people can remain antisemitic, or at least anti-Jewish, while being fully aware that their outlook is indefensible. If you dislike somebody, you dislike him and there is an end of it: your feelings are not made any better by a recital of his virtues.
Is racism different in your opinion? Why? Because if it isn't, then even the best teacher wouldn't bring positive net result in the world by teaching HF in some classes.
Sorry, if sent for several times. I am having some problems. But I am most curious about the next:
I'm not disagree with what you are saying at all. It's true that many teachers have no idea how to teach this book.
Is the first sentence referring only to bad teachers? Because it wasn't my main point. What do you think about my bolded sentence in the previous post? When I wrote "No "good" teacher" I didn't mean a bad teacher. Read it as "Not even a good teacher..."
One can be a wonderful teacher, but it doesn't give the ability to reach everybody. I've never been in US, can't speak of what I haven't seen except in blog posts, so let's continue with Jews in Ukraine example. I don't believe the explanation would make antisemitic students not antisemitic or stop them snickering among themselves afterwards. It would make other students and Jewish students in class uncomfortable, yes. In many classes I don't think even very good teacher would succeed. Imo the success depends on the students' levels of maturity, intelligence and prejudice. There are classes in which HF can be taught and others in which a different book would be preferable even with the best teacher. I am pessimistic like that. The best solution is to let each teacher decide what's the most suitable for each class.
In your work at university it's different since on average uni students are: smarter & more open-minded, going to uni is traditionally supposed to include new experiences; pay lots of money and thus are afraid of you, so won't snicker, play "I Don't Care" and "What Can You Do?" games to show they're "cool". Not the least, they're adults, more mature --> can disguise their racist, antisemitic, etc views better.
George Orwell wrote a great short essay "Antisemitism in Britain" (on-line here http://orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib )
Quote: above a certain intellectual level people are ashamed of being antisemitic and are careful to draw a distinction between “antisemitism” and “disliking Jews”. The other is that antisemitism is an irrational thing. The Jews are accused of specific offences (for instance, bad behaviour in food queues) which the person speaking feels strongly about, but it is obvious that these accusations merely rationalise some deep-rooted prejudice. To attempt to counter them with facts and statistics is useless, and may sometimes be worse than useless. As the last of the above-quoted remarks shows, people can remain antisemitic, or at least anti-Jewish, while being fully aware that their outlook is indefensible. If you dislike somebody, you dislike him and there is an end of it: your feelings are not made any better by a recital of his virtues.
Is racism different in your opinion? Why? Because if it isn't, then even the best teacher wouldn't bring positive net result in the world by teaching HF in some classes.
I've taught a lot of anti-semitic literature. I kind of don't have a choice not to teach it because the entirety of Spanish literature is profoundly anti-semitic. And I did have a chance to teach it to high school students too. It went very well, I believe. Not to be too self-congratulatory here, but I had my students practically in tears by the end of the class.
It's actually easier with high school students than college students. It's true that they are not as sophisticated intellectually, but their emotional responses are fresher. I agree with Orwell there is a profoundly irrational part in any kind of racism or xenophobia. This is why it is very helpful to appeal to the emotional side of the students.The best age in my experience for that is 11-13 years old. This is the age when they are a lot more open emotionally than during their teenage years and undergrad years. The next good moment to try to reach them on this level will be in grad school. THis is just based on my own observations and practice. I don't have any studies to back this up.
Bringing the texts like those of Twain (or the anti-semitic texts of Quevedo, for example) to class is a great opportunity to start a host of very important conversations. The central thing I need for the students to understand is that societies change profoundly. We do not operate with the same concepts as people did historically. To give an example, last semester we discussed with my students how the concept of childhood is s VERY recent invention and how that reality informs the entire pre 18th century literature. Then there should be a discussion of what racism is, why it happens, what it means. An experienced teacher knows how to plug the students into her emotional wavelength. If the teacher brings the pain of racism or anti-semitism and the horror of it into the classroom and the students get to feel it on a non-verbal level, that will be the best racism-prevention strategy any one can come up with.
I have to say, though, that I never tried this with Russian-speaking students. I honestly think I would not have succeeded with them. I don't have a good track record interacting with my own people. Hence the emigration. :-)
What people forget about teaching is that it really isn't just an explanation of facts and logical arguments. When a teacher is any good at all, teaching also occurs on a deeply emotional, non-verbal level. I don't have to verbalize many of the messages I send in class. It's a really lousy teacher who can't make the students feel what she feels. :-) I discovered this phenomenon a long time ago when I was learning teaching methodology. I once told my supervisor that students don't like a certain kind of activity, just hate it. "You are the one who hates this activity," the supervisor responded. "The students just mimic your response." That's how it always works.
As for Twain's racism, yes he was racist. I don't understand why any convoluted explanations need to be looked for in this respect. One can be a creative genius and a vile anti-semite, woman-hater and homophobe at the same time. That also can offer a great topic for discussion with students. What do ou need to avoid interiorizing horrible beliefs and customs that are prevalent in your society? We condemn Twain for his racism, but are there any similar beliefs that we are interiorizing and that people will abhor 100 years from now? 1000 years from now?
I do not think Twain was a racist, or at least was much less so than other white people of his time. He used the then current language and still made the argument, literarily speaking, that black people were human just like white people were. If he had used more neutral terminology, he would not have been understood by his white readers, and would have been less effective in this.
(Pagan Topologist again)
Post a Comment