Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Huckleberry Finn
39 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No. I dont really see how revisionism of books, films, or art to conform to modern cultural sensibilities is any different to rewriting historical events to satisfy some loony tune political extremism.Art of all forms provides a snapshot of the culture of the time and we shouldn't lose that by sanitising texts for the sake of the risk of causing offence to anyone.
No - it should not be edited.
By editing this book to remove language deemed to be offensive, you deny today's children from learning about America's history both during and after the slave trade.
How can children learn about the origins of racism and oppression if you 'Tippex out' part of the past?
It's like obliterating the word 'slave' and replacing it with 'long-term obligated manual worker'.
By editing this book to remove language deemed to be offensive, you deny today's children from learning about America's history both during and after the slave trade.
How can children learn about the origins of racism and oppression if you 'Tippex out' part of the past?
It's like obliterating the word 'slave' and replacing it with 'long-term obligated manual worker'.
History, including published works, should never ever be edited. It's the thin end of the wedge and harks to the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's novel, 1984.
When you alter history to suit the social and political moralities of the day, you devalue the hard lessons learnt and run the very real risk of repeating the same mistakes. It should always be presented warts and all with the language of the day intact.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
When you alter history to suit the social and political moralities of the day, you devalue the hard lessons learnt and run the very real risk of repeating the same mistakes. It should always be presented warts and all with the language of the day intact.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
No amount of censoring will either stop certain people thinking the words or abusing them in private, will it? There is a big difference in those who deliberately set out to offend by the manner in which they express certain "taboo" words to those people who genuinely use them in their correct context.
Am I to feel woeful because shops used to stock (n!-%%-er) brown socks when I was a kid andmy dear old mother, who would have been mortified had she been classified as "racist", went shopping sometimes and would bring back such socks for me and my brothers? Did any of us use such terms in a so called racist connotation? Certainly not.
Am I also to wring my hands when remembering, when at school, we donated money for "the black babies" in Africa? No, we were contributing to impoverished nations - would it have made a difference had we referred to them as "Afro-Caribbean" babies? Of course it wouldn't.
Am I to feel woeful because shops used to stock (n!-%%-er) brown socks when I was a kid andmy dear old mother, who would have been mortified had she been classified as "racist", went shopping sometimes and would bring back such socks for me and my brothers? Did any of us use such terms in a so called racist connotation? Certainly not.
Am I also to wring my hands when remembering, when at school, we donated money for "the black babies" in Africa? No, we were contributing to impoverished nations - would it have made a difference had we referred to them as "Afro-Caribbean" babies? Of course it wouldn't.
Jno - “…Swallows and Amazons was reprinted with Titty changed to Kitty. Civilisation did not come to an end.”
No one is saying that it did or should have. I assume by your post that you don't object in principal to editing the past?
As I said earlier, this kind of activity is the thin end of the wedge. If you retrospectively edit historical documents, which includes literature, then you are deliberately distorting history. No one benefits from this kind of activity and it begs the question, how far do you go? Taken to it's logical conclusion, why don't we edit history to erase the existence of the slave trade as that practice is now considered to be abhorrent?
As I'm fond of quotations, here's another one - “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.
No one is saying that it did or should have. I assume by your post that you don't object in principal to editing the past?
As I said earlier, this kind of activity is the thin end of the wedge. If you retrospectively edit historical documents, which includes literature, then you are deliberately distorting history. No one benefits from this kind of activity and it begs the question, how far do you go? Taken to it's logical conclusion, why don't we edit history to erase the existence of the slave trade as that practice is now considered to be abhorrent?
As I'm fond of quotations, here's another one - “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.
somebody in the 18th century rewrote King Lear to give it a happy ending. It didn't last; the original is back with us now... or at least the closest to the original that we can get. It didn't prove to be the thin edge of any particular wedge. Despite the existence of abbreviated versions of Reach for the Sky and Swallows and Amazons and Huckleberry Finn, the originals have not been suppressed and thousands of unexpurgated books are still published every year. The world has bigger problems to deal with.
You're all such a bunch of purists.
I greatly enjoyed reading Kipling's just so stories to my Daughter when she was 5 or 6.
But I did have to mentally read ahead and skip over some his rather dodgy stuff.
So you'd deny me an edition that did this and insist my 5 year old understood the historical and social contex of Kipling's generation?
Get over yourselves!
And Rojash if a school decides not to place a particular edition on it's shelves that is censorship by the school.
I dare say they don't stock their shelves with the complete version of Lady Chatterly's lover or Nuts or Loaded either
I greatly enjoyed reading Kipling's just so stories to my Daughter when she was 5 or 6.
But I did have to mentally read ahead and skip over some his rather dodgy stuff.
So you'd deny me an edition that did this and insist my 5 year old understood the historical and social contex of Kipling's generation?
Get over yourselves!
And Rojash if a school decides not to place a particular edition on it's shelves that is censorship by the school.
I dare say they don't stock their shelves with the complete version of Lady Chatterly's lover or Nuts or Loaded either
Jno - “... somebody in the 18th century rewrote King Lear to give it a happy ending. It didn't last; the original is back with us now... or at least the closest to the original that we can get. It didn't prove to be the thin edge of any particular wedge”
But they attempted to rewrite it. Luckily, the rewritten version didn't become the standard but given a different set of circumstances, it could have done.
If you don't think that retrospective revisionism is a big deal, then fine. I, on the other hand, do.
http://en.wikipedia.o...ism_%28negationism%29
But they attempted to rewrite it. Luckily, the rewritten version didn't become the standard but given a different set of circumstances, it could have done.
If you don't think that retrospective revisionism is a big deal, then fine. I, on the other hand, do.
http://en.wikipedia.o...ism_%28negationism%29
even if it had become standard, the original wouldn't have vanished. We don't live in a totalitarian society where books are burnt. Rewriting's not uncommon, particularly for kids
http://www.bournemout...n_for_new_generation/
but somewhere, somehow, the originals will always be around (the British Library and Library of Congress in the USA keep copies of everything published, for a start).
http://www.bournemout...n_for_new_generation/
but somewhere, somehow, the originals will always be around (the British Library and Library of Congress in the USA keep copies of everything published, for a start).
Jake-the-peg – “I greatly enjoyed reading Kipling's just so stories to my Daughter when she was 5 or 6. But I did have to mentally read ahead and skip over some his rather dodgy stuff. So you'd deny me an edition that did this and insist my 5 year old understood the historical and social context of Kipling's generation?”
So you've shielded your young daughter from some of Kipling's more choice remarks which is understandable. That's your choice as a parent. You're not editing the actual text and passing it off to a wider audience as the original work though are you? You are simply choosing what not to show to your kids.
We're talking about the retrospective revision of literature which is presented as the original work – not the selective and laudable censorship of published literature by a responsible parent.
So you've shielded your young daughter from some of Kipling's more choice remarks which is understandable. That's your choice as a parent. You're not editing the actual text and passing it off to a wider audience as the original work though are you? You are simply choosing what not to show to your kids.
We're talking about the retrospective revision of literature which is presented as the original work – not the selective and laudable censorship of published literature by a responsible parent.
Jno - “... the original wouldn't have vanished. We don't live in a totalitarian society where books are burnt.”
No we don't. But it wasn't very long ago that this was a very real possibility.
“... but somewhere, somehow, the originals will always be around...”
I don't share your optimism – not if we allow the selective editing of history and literature that you seem to be in favour of.
I have to ask – why do you see no problem with retrospective historical revision? I can see all sorts of potential problems with it, but no real benefits. Problems from the mundane to the obscene – from thinking that the word 'n****r' wasn't in common usage to thinking that the holocaust didn't actually happen.
What do we gain from rewriting history and literature to reflect our current political and moral values?
No we don't. But it wasn't very long ago that this was a very real possibility.
“... but somewhere, somehow, the originals will always be around...”
I don't share your optimism – not if we allow the selective editing of history and literature that you seem to be in favour of.
I have to ask – why do you see no problem with retrospective historical revision? I can see all sorts of potential problems with it, but no real benefits. Problems from the mundane to the obscene – from thinking that the word 'n****r' wasn't in common usage to thinking that the holocaust didn't actually happen.
What do we gain from rewriting history and literature to reflect our current political and moral values?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Is Mogadon Joe About To Get The Spansh...
News19 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
