3 ms·

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

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.
    - raganwald 16y ago
      Well, perhaps you can explain why you changed the title. What did you find unsatisfactory about it? Was it that you wanted to attract more clicks? Did you want to express a personal opinion? Did you think it did a poor job of introducing the text?
      - Jun8 16y ago
        I sense an unwarranted hostility in your comments, which puzzle me. There's no rule that by default story titles have be used verbatim, only that they should not be changed gratuitously. In fact, if you look at past submissions to HN, you see that many times the title was changed by the submitter. I see no problem in having titles reflect personal opinion; of course, this should not be overdone. NYT, being a newspaper has to impose limits on their titles, so as to serve the common denominator. when posting to HN, I'm not bound by the same rules as NYT. In this particular case NYT's title is too weak, as evidenced by the commentators, i.e. quite everyone agrees this is bowdlerizing Twain's text. P.S. Thinking of hand crafting submission titles to attract more clicks, i.e. karma whoring, is laughable, I'm too old to waste my precious time on such tricks :-)

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.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Well, perhaps you can explain why you changed the title. What did you find unsatisfactory about it? Was it that you wanted to attract more clicks? Did you want to express a personal opinion? Did you think it did a poor job of introducing the text?
    - Jun8 16y ago
      I sense an unwarranted hostility in your comments, which puzzle me. There's no rule that by default story titles have be used verbatim, only that they should not be changed gratuitously. In fact, if you look at past submissions to HN, you see that many times the title was changed by the submitter. I see no problem in having titles reflect personal opinion; of course, this should not be overdone. NYT, being a newspaper has to impose limits on their titles, so as to serve the common denominator. when posting to HN, I'm not bound by the same rules as NYT. In this particular case NYT's title is too weak, as evidenced by the commentators, i.e. quite everyone agrees this is bowdlerizing Twain's text. P.S. Thinking of hand crafting submission titles to attract more clicks, i.e. karma whoring, is laughable, I'm too old to waste my precious time on such tricks :-)