- The job of an editor is not to change a writer’s style, message, or intent; his job is, traditionally, to work with the writer in making the work more clear, more effective, or more smooth stylistically—or perhaps to fit space constraints. Changing “n” to “slave” in Huckleberry Finn does none of these, and, in fact, it does the earlier-mentioned: it changes the style and the message by attempting to dilute it. Writers and editors often disagree, but that discourse is often what makes the work better, ultimately. Obviously, it’s a hundred or so years too late to do such a thing with Mark Twain. There is no chance for Twain in this case to agree, disagree, or even acquiesce grudgingly. A writer has a right to let his style help define his work—it is, after all, HIS work. Changing this word does not make Twain’s work better. It’s wrong to play Big Brother a century after the fact, and it’s disrespectful.
- I hate the “n” word. I can’t even bring myself to say it—or even write it out: it is a vile and loaded expression. It marks an ugly stain on the history of America. In fact, I’d venture to say that it’s such a terrible word that at this point in history, it’s probably the single most offensive word in the entire English language. It might be interesting to some day chart the evolution of the word from its beginnings to what it is and what it means now; but I digress. Like it or not, that word is part of our country’s history, and part of the narrative of Huck Finn’s time. It is, simply, what it is. Furthermore, the proposed replacement word, “slave,” is not at all synonymous with the “n” word. Not at all. Ultimately, though, the point I’m getting at here is that editing offensive words out of Huckleberry Finn is no more justified than the notion of editing the offensive anti-Semitism out of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. Should that be done, too? By that logic, editors may as well start with Euripides and work forward from there to edit out the proliferation of misogyny that exists through the centuries. Oh—and what about the excessive profanity, racism, AND misogyny that is smeared like goo all over Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? (After all, that book is taught in schools!) Shall I go on? Where does it stop?
- If the editors of NewSouth Publishers edit the offensive material out of Huckleberry Finn, it is tantamount to attempting to re-write history, to water down or even ignore this country’s past. It almost hearkens back to the dystopian world of George Orwell’s 1984: how shall we remember the past to suit us? Racism existed (and still does); it cannot be blotted out by removing offensive words and pretending they weren’t there. And, no, this isn’t political correctness. It’s censorship. Plain and simple.
- Those who would argue that there is nothing wrong with this editing would point out that the Mark Twain scholar’s (and thus the publisher’s) purpose in removing that nasty word from such a great, historical work of fiction is only to update the text for the 21st century. Did I mention that “n” and “slave” are not the same thing at all? They’re not. These people would also point out that by re-writing this text, they will keep it in the schools, thus “pre-empting” the censorship that already exists—schools are already banning the book, they would say. So, I ask: is censorship the solution to censorship? Now it’s starting to feel a little Ray Bradbury-ish. Most importantly here, though, these short-sighted people are missing out on the real opportunity that is staring them in the face. Since slavery, racism, and oppression are an indelible part of America’s history, this book is an excellent vehicle for opening that dialogue, for challenging the student to think, to consider, to understand. And by understanding, we can all move forward.
- So there it is. Face it, America, there is racism in your past. Mark Twain wrote it right into his book: deal with it straight up. Don’t sugar-coat it and don’t ignore it. And go bleep yourself, NewSouth.
