THE DOCTOR IS IN

THE WIDDER GETS HER MITTS ON HUCK

Last week, part of our “Litopia After Dark” discussion centered on the trend toward “cleaning up” the classics, specifically the new combined edition of Tom Sawyer  and Huckleberry Finn that has excised two racially offensive terms (“nigger” and “Injun”) and substituted theoretically more acceptable ones (“slave” and “Indian”) throughout the text. 

Alan Gribben, the English professor who performed this operation, explained that his intention was not to “sanitize” Mark Twain, but to make the books accessible to sensitive readers. He argues that readers may “resent” books that use racially insulting language and may thus be deprived of a potentially rewarding experience. By tweaking the prose a little, without altering the plot or the author’s viewpoint, he has removed the barriers to appreciation of the beauty and richness of the books. 

Professor Gribben seems to be sincere and well-intentioned. But I have to say, I think this is a horrible idea. 

First, great writers choose every word for a reason. If Clemens had meant to say “slave” or “Indian,” that is what he would have said. “Improving” his language seems disrespectful. 

Second, to a psychologist, this sort of revisionism reads as a disturbing form of denial. It’s as though we are wiping out a chapter of history; pretending that these ugly words—and the attitudes that underlie them—were never commonplace--and it follows that of course none of us harbor such attitudes now. Not only does this give the reader a skewed perception of the culture being depicted, but it cuts off the possibility of contemplation and thoughtful discussion that reading a book with controversial elements can evoke. 

And third, with all the promising books that don’t get published every year, do we really want to waste resources putting out a watered-down edition of a work that’s already available? 

Susan O'Doherty, Ph.D.,is a clinical psychologist with a New York City-based practice. A fiction writer herself,she specializes in issues affecting writers and other creative artists. She is the author of Getting Unstuck without Coming Unglued: A Woman's Guide to Unblocking Creativity(Seal, 2007). Her Career Coach column appears every Monday on Inside Higher Ed's Mama, Ph.D. blog, and she is a regular guest panelist on Litopia After Dark. Send your questions to her at Dr.Sue at mindspring dot com. 

Comments

[Katharine Weber]

Thank you for saying this, Sue. Making editorial decisions to avoid racist language in a new manuscript in the present moment would be a different matter, but deleting the historic record as if everything in our culture must conform to the newest standards and regulations or we are somehow endangered feels weirdly totalitarian to me.

Do we have no faith at all that readers could possibly discern the historic context of a novel? Must we all be "protected" from the errors of the past, large and small? By this standard, my 1740 house that does not conform to current building code should be gutted immediately and rebuilt so it matches all the new houses down the street.

[Jack O'Doherty]

Sue:

I have to disagree with you about the “Cleansing” of Huck Finn. The issue is that Huck Finn is no longer taught in schools --- because of the offending words --- words that have taken on different meanings since Twain wrote the book. The reason given by the editor for making the changes is that students are denied the opportunity to read Huck Finn because of the offending words. Changing those two words might give more students the chance to read Twain and maybe send the them to the library to read the uncensored version. To me, anything that gets more people reading Twain --- especially Huck Finn --- is a good thing. Changing the words is bound to start a lively dialogue --- as it has now --- and in a class room setting it would be addressed by the teacher.

This isn’t the first time an editor has mucked with a classic. The authors of The Fantasticks have been struggling with re-writes to deal with the song “Rape” for the last 20 years or so. In context rape means abduction --- but the word has taken on a different meaning since the play was first produced.

What are schools supposed to do . . . not teach Twain? Huck Finn is one of the greatest books ever written --- it is a disservice to students not to have it taught in school. Two words --- which do not change the context of the writing --- is worth it to get better exposure for Twain and Huck Finn

BTW, I don’t know if you remember this, but we used to have a copy of Gulliver’s Travels which was “Updated and abridged for our time.” That is the only version I’ve read --- so I don’t know what I am missing!