4 ms·

Political correctness hits new high: Huck Finn to be bowdlerized in new edition

5 points by Jun8 16y ago

pierrefar 16y ago
"Political correctness hits new high". Surely you meant new low?
- Jun8 16y ago
  :-) Interesting. In the sense that PC is increasing, this is a new high, but of, course it's a new low for our institutions. What I find interesting is that there's a small group of words in English that are their own antonyms, e.g. sanction, oversight, and cleave (this is may favorite). Also fun are phrases that have come to mean the exact opposite over the centuries, e.g. "I DOUBT some foul play", "[I'll kill anyone] who LETS me [pass]" from Hamlet.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    "Awful and artificial".
hugh3 16y ago
Fabulous. I sure hope I'll soon be able to get versions of all my favourite hip-hop records with the word "nigger" similarly replaced, because it really spoils my enjoyment of the music.
raganwald 16y ago
You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. Editors, please restore the original title. This one has gratuitous editorial spin. In the very first paragraph of the OP, the explanation for the change is given that it makes it easier for students to understand and absorb the book, which is a very different thing than changing the book just to avoid offending people. I don't agree with the rationale, but we should not editorialize the title to the point of misrepresenting the content of the OP and by introducing an emotionally loaded term. p.s. The other comments I've seen so far are all commenting on the artificial title, not the content of the post itself. Isn't that why we don't want to editorialize titles?
- Jun8 16y ago
  Do you think the term "political correctness" or the word "bowdlerize" is the gratuitous editorial spin? If it's the latter you're wrong, this is exactly what bowdlerization means. In fact I mistakenly used "censored" at first, than I changed the title. If you read the discussion here (and elsewhere), you'll see that the reason Alan Gribben made the change is mainly that he saw people were uncomfortable in his public readings in Alabama. His audience understood and absorbed the book alright, they just found this word objectionable. However, if you take issue with my labeling this as PC, this might be debatable. On the one hand you have sensibilities, etc, on the other respect for an author's text. If you read Paul Butler's (in my opinion quite flawed) comments in the discussion, you'll see that he doesn't actually object to the usage of the work "nigger", he just doesn't like it when it is appropriated by people other than African-Americans. This is a common approach, which I tend to agree for now. To try to use the current situation to change Twains's work is indefensible.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    The OP has a title, "Does One Word Change 'Huckleberry Finn'?" This title completely changes the tone of the original title. Titles matter, they establish a direction and context for what is to follow. Retitling something on HN has even greater effect; Some people (like myself) may be very interested in the literary impact of a single word change but may be tired of rehashing the same social debates over again. I might have skipped this post entiurely were it not for my surprise that the times would use a title like this. Other people might be very interested in your title but be disappointed that the content doesn't match the title very well. Your title could apply to any of a few dozen recent posts in the news about this bowdlerizing. My suggestion is that it would have been better to post the original title and include a comment with your feelings.
    - Jun8 16y ago
      I see. I am feeling very strongly about this, so, granted, the title may have had a bit more impact than warranted. However, I disagree with you in the following points: 1) You don't have to use the same title as the news topic. I don't understand your sprise that NYT would use such a title. The correct usage is to use quotation marks if the title is used verbatim. 2) The main point of the OP is not to delve into literary theory on the relationship between the "text" and the novel, etc., which is of academic interest (though I find that very interesting as well, having worked on stylometry for my thesis). The issue is exactly to "rehash the same social debates over again," you may be tired of these, and that's OK; but evidently they are utmost significance to a lot of non-academician people (have a look at user comments in the debate) 3) I still don't quite see why the "content doesn't match the title very well", since you haven't made it very clear which part of the title you found misleading. The word "bowdlerize" comes up in most of the comment pieces and in user comments, too, so this is clearly bowdlerization. My intent is not to continue pointless back&forth but to understand the (potential) problem.
vixen99 16y ago
Doesn't censorship just help retain the derogatory aura, (for some) of a word which in itself merely comes from the latin word for black?
- raganwald 16y ago
  I hope you appreciate that the expression "Nigger merely comes from the latin word for black" is as factually true as the expression "Cocksucker merely describes a person as one who performs an act many people find mutually pleasant."
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - vixen99 16y ago
    Interesting point! Yes I do but you are not comparing like with like. It is generally unacceptable to make comments (accurate or otherwise) about other people's private sexual acts. Let's imagine we are at a local community meeting. Black is (currently) a polite word I can use for a dark-skinned person - should skin color actually be significant in a discussion. What would you suggest is the polite word to use during the meeting, in describing someone who enjoys oral sex? My point about censorshop is that I don't think we should pander to the kind of person who thinks that uttering a word describing someone's skin color does indeed make some kind of substantive and abusive point - except to people of his own level. You may be right in that the word nigger will never lose its abusive power for some people. There are other unanswered points to make but I'd better leave it there. Seems to me that censorship intensifies the power of the n word for these kind of people.
  - Jun8 16y ago
    Yet somehow we don't have editors replacing the word "cocksucker" with, say, "sexual performer". Non-US readers may not fully appreciate the stigma associated with the word "nigger". It has complex usage rules, incomparable to other racially derogatory words such as "goon" or "chink" (I don't think that anyone really uses "injun" anymore). I think Mark Bauerlein's comment is sport on, to a student in his class who got offended by the word he said: "Listen, you’re in college now, and that’s going to put pressure on you. In many courses you’ll have to face some awful facts of history, and to handle them well you can’t let them offend you so much."

5 points by Jun8 16y ago

pierrefar 16y ago

"Political correctness hits new high". Surely you meant new low?

Jun8 16y ago
:-) Interesting. In the sense that PC is increasing, this is a new high, but of, course it's a new low for our institutions. What I find interesting is that there's a small group of words in English that are their own antonyms, e.g. sanction, oversight, and cleave (this is may favorite). Also fun are phrases that have come to mean the exact opposite over the centuries, e.g. "I DOUBT some foul play", "[I'll kill anyone] who LETS me [pass]" from Hamlet.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  "Awful and artificial".

hugh3 16y ago

Fabulous. I sure hope I'll soon be able to get versions of all my favourite hip-hop records with the word "nigger" similarly replaced, because it really spoils my enjoyment of the music.

raganwald 16y ago

You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. Editors, please restore the original title. This one has gratuitous editorial spin. In the very first paragraph of the OP, the explanation for the change is given that it makes it easier for students to understand and absorb the book, which is a very different thing than changing the book just to avoid offending people. I don't agree with the rationale, but we should not editorialize the title to the point of misrepresenting the content of the OP and by introducing an emotionally loaded term. p.s. The other comments I've seen so far are all commenting on the artificial title, not the content of the post itself. Isn't that why we don't want to editorialize titles?

Jun8 16y ago
Do you think the term "political correctness" or the word "bowdlerize" is the gratuitous editorial spin? If it's the latter you're wrong, this is exactly what bowdlerization means. In fact I mistakenly used "censored" at first, than I changed the title. If you read the discussion here (and elsewhere), you'll see that the reason Alan Gribben made the change is mainly that he saw people were uncomfortable in his public readings in Alabama. His audience understood and absorbed the book alright, they just found this word objectionable. However, if you take issue with my labeling this as PC, this might be debatable. On the one hand you have sensibilities, etc, on the other respect for an author's text. If you read Paul Butler's (in my opinion quite flawed) comments in the discussion, you'll see that he doesn't actually object to the usage of the work "nigger", he just doesn't like it when it is appropriated by people other than African-Americans. This is a common approach, which I tend to agree for now. To try to use the current situation to change Twains's work is indefensible.
- raganwald 16y ago
  The OP has a title, "Does One Word Change 'Huckleberry Finn'?" This title completely changes the tone of the original title. Titles matter, they establish a direction and context for what is to follow. Retitling something on HN has even greater effect; Some people (like myself) may be very interested in the literary impact of a single word change but may be tired of rehashing the same social debates over again. I might have skipped this post entiurely were it not for my surprise that the times would use a title like this. Other people might be very interested in your title but be disappointed that the content doesn't match the title very well. Your title could apply to any of a few dozen recent posts in the news about this bowdlerizing. My suggestion is that it would have been better to post the original title and include a comment with your feelings.
  - Jun8 16y ago
    I see. I am feeling very strongly about this, so, granted, the title may have had a bit more impact than warranted. However, I disagree with you in the following points: 1) You don't have to use the same title as the news topic. I don't understand your sprise that NYT would use such a title. The correct usage is to use quotation marks if the title is used verbatim. 2) The main point of the OP is not to delve into literary theory on the relationship between the "text" and the novel, etc., which is of academic interest (though I find that very interesting as well, having worked on stylometry for my thesis). The issue is exactly to "rehash the same social debates over again," you may be tired of these, and that's OK; but evidently they are utmost significance to a lot of non-academician people (have a look at user comments in the debate) 3) I still don't quite see why the "content doesn't match the title very well", since you haven't made it very clear which part of the title you found misleading. The word "bowdlerize" comes up in most of the comment pieces and in user comments, too, so this is clearly bowdlerization. My intent is not to continue pointless back&forth but to understand the (potential) problem.

vixen99 16y ago

Doesn't censorship just help retain the derogatory aura, (for some) of a word which in itself merely comes from the latin word for black?

raganwald 16y ago
I hope you appreciate that the expression "Nigger merely comes from the latin word for black" is as factually true as the expression "Cocksucker merely describes a person as one who performs an act many people find mutually pleasant."
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- vixen99 16y ago
  Interesting point! Yes I do but you are not comparing like with like. It is generally unacceptable to make comments (accurate or otherwise) about other people's private sexual acts. Let's imagine we are at a local community meeting. Black is (currently) a polite word I can use for a dark-skinned person - should skin color actually be significant in a discussion. What would you suggest is the polite word to use during the meeting, in describing someone who enjoys oral sex? My point about censorshop is that I don't think we should pander to the kind of person who thinks that uttering a word describing someone's skin color does indeed make some kind of substantive and abusive point - except to people of his own level. You may be right in that the word nigger will never lose its abusive power for some people. There are other unanswered points to make but I'd better leave it there. Seems to me that censorship intensifies the power of the n word for these kind of people.
- Jun8 16y ago
  Yet somehow we don't have editors replacing the word "cocksucker" with, say, "sexual performer". Non-US readers may not fully appreciate the stigma associated with the word "nigger". It has complex usage rules, incomparable to other racially derogatory words such as "goon" or "chink" (I don't think that anyone really uses "injun" anymore). I think Mark Bauerlein's comment is sport on, to a student in his class who got offended by the word he said: "Listen, you’re in college now, and that’s going to put pressure on you. In many courses you’ll have to face some awful facts of history, and to handle them well you can’t let them offend you so much."