Even Twain not sacred.

I don't know just what kind of PC hell this world may be coming to, but I find this to be a bonafide act of desecration.

Here's the story:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40917583


I'm not even sure if I should call this censorship, desecration, or both.

Most likely, BOTH.

***:crap:flip:kissmy

I think the above "covers the bases", regarding my feelings about the destruction of classic literature.

 

WTF???

I realize that word is offensive today, but anyone who reads that book without understanding the context it was written in, is too uneducated to get it anyway and should be banished from all modern libraries.

Seriously.

Next up: All Jane Austen works must be rewritten to exclude the word "bachelor" since that is a copy-right protected TV show. uke

 

Yeah, like "slave" is any less offensive than the so-called "N-word", anyway rolleyes. Also consider which ethnic sector uses the term the most. A lot of terms used in previous eras are not politically correct or polite these days. Does this means we should pretend that they don't exist on the premise that it is protecting someone? More attempted mind-control by legislation. Wouldn't it be nice if life was that simple - well it aint.

 

Everyone is so afraid of offending someone else that the PC police are having a field day with some of the classics, Does this mean that works of Shakespeare will need to written in PC English or maybe Ulysses, God knows where it will stop (oops that could offend non Christians)

 

I say burn all of those books!:-D rolleyes

 

I miss the Hot Topics area too!

 

Love me some Twain.

“I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.”

PC is BS. And that is all I will say.

 

Ya, too much work to read through lot's of crap that one doesn't believe in and try to be non-judgemental. When we had one it was sooo time consuming, especially from those who write a 500 word sentence.rolleyes:-D I know exactly what you mean dr.m!

 

These so called " PC police " must sit all day long in libraries and places like them just poking around to find this crap !
madmad:mad Dick's !

 

Thanks for the freedom on the topic, Tim. And, the reminder not to abuse it.

A wise man once said, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

~ George Santayana, "Reason in Common Sense" (1905)

 

There is no need to remove the word, only it's offensive and negative meaning.

One of the most common Swedish slang words for "young woman" today is a couple of hundred years old. It was picked up from Romani (if I remember right) and was initially used to refer exclusive to prostitutes. And not the expensive pseudo-glamorous kind either, the ones that stand in street corners in bad neighborhoods, and are missing teeth. Over time, the meaning has changed and now it's a fully accepted word that just means "young female" that everyone uses nearly anywhere except in very formal contexts.

Similarly, I can easily imagine an evolution of the English language to where the controversial N-word eventually begins to mean something entirely uncontroversial. I believe it will take several generations for it, if it happens at all, of course.

Because of all the negative connotations and because of the history of that word and its use, I do understand why someone would want to edit Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn to remove it. However, I also believe that something is lost when a text is edited and altered, and no longer the way the author intended. There is something to be said for reading older works of literature with their original verbiage, and gaining a deeper understanding of both the language and how it has evolved, and of the literature itself. The potential for thought provoking and educational class room discussions with an unedited version of an old book that uses words that today mean different things, is obvious. Particularly if Huck's friend Jim gets to keep his original name, ******-Jim.

But there is also something to be said for not going out of one's way to offend people. Agatha Christie' famous novel And Then There Were None was not called that initially. It was called Ten Little ******s, after a nursery rhyme about ten little boys (care to guess at their skin color?) who one by one die in pretty gruesome ways. A few editions and decades later, the book was renamed to Ten Little Indians by the publisher, and after a bit more enlightenment, eventually arrived at its current title. The value of the book itself, the story it tells and the way it tells it, has remained unchanged through these changes, as of course is to be expected.

Sometimes it's a good idea to remove offensive words, the N-word being one of them, and if it's done with care and tact, it can be done well and without tarnishing (for lack of a better word) the text that is being edited. But it needs to be done the right way, and that is a very, very difficult and precarious balance act.

 

No need to rewrite the classics to eradicate "offensive" words or language. Granted, such exist . . . if someone fears offending someone else, just slap a warning about the language in question on the cover and let it go. Like Mimsy said - "anyone who reads that book without understanding the context it was written in, is too uneducated to get it anyway."

Political correctness is but another term for plain old censorship . . . first, offensive words and language. What's next . . . "Offensive" ideas? Who then decides which ideas are offensive? Do they "edit" such books, or simply ban them and burn all they can find?

Such nightmares have occurred many times in the past. Think it can't happen again because we are in some kind of magical modern era? That mankind has "grown" past the age of despots quashing any view that does not support their own? A quick review of world news gives the answer . . .

Voltaire would be shocked, sir . . .

 

I agree in essence with what you say - but you are missing my point. There is a slippery slope here . . . at what point do the "powers that be" stop editing and changing classic literature, etc?

Many people actually consider political correctness to be social enlightenment, and do not consider the possible negative effect of political influence on the process. To be honest I find the word in question to be distasteful anywhere I see it . . . so, sure, there are obvious offensive words and language that can be universally targeted and censored - but will the censorship stop with the obvious or descend, like the PC madness, into the increasingly esoteric? This is my main concern.

I have no problem reading a classic with uncomfortable language edited out - as long as it is clearly marked so. Maybe a caveat can be added where the historical minded among readers can see an unaltered version.

I also think there is a danger in pretending such words were never used . . . for then we risk gradually forgetting the context which caused the word to became distasteful to start with.

In my humble opinion.

 

"I also think there is a danger in pretending such words were never used . . . for then we risk gradually forgetting the context which caused the word to became distasteful to start with."

~Spad


Though Santayana is often misquoted, he never fails to make a valid point in any of his writings. It is indeed a difficult, even precarious place, where one can easily misstep, "editing" a period work. Should we forget? Should we not let future generations see the time and place for what it was? Should we not teach them what not to be, or do, without examples such as Twain's work?

"What was" is most likely the best educational tool there is. It's hard to teach a child what hatred, bigotry, or malice is, without an example of it. Ray Bradbury was one of most adamant about having his works abridged in the slightest. Not even for Reader's Digest. :-D Anyone who ever wanted his work in a reader, or abridged/edited for ANY reason, were sent rejection letters across the board. I for one, wholly, and unadulterately laud him for it.

While "time and tide waits for no man", there are some things that speak for themselves across time.

As Dr. M alluded, our society MUST have a social conscience. Without it, we are no more than savages.