I thought the Huck Finn thing was PC gone mad until I actually listened to the publisher and understood what they were trying to do. Essentially, what they're trying to do is to allow modern readers to read it the way that it was written.
Perhaps. However, I lean toward grelber on this one. The cynic in me wonders if the publisher's rationale is a little less noble than making sure kids get exposed to important literature and a little more about increasing sales.
However, conceding that their motivation may be good, I wonder if it doesn't actually dilute the book's lessons. This is probably more for a teacher to answer but it seems to me that modifying the original language reduces the impact of lessons like Finn's changing attitude toward Jim.
When it was written, the "N-word" did not have the same explosively emotional, hurtful overtones that it has today. Modern readers can't really get a sense of the original, because the word's emotional connotations tend to overshadow everything else.
But, isn't that why we have teachers? Isn't it better to have a teacher explain to a class ahead of the reading assignment that they are going to encounter this language, and put it into context? Isn't it better to have the kids talk about it?
If we don't allow the original language and context in the classroom, and open it to discussion among the kids, I think we miss a great opportunity to start getting rid of the word.
For that reason, teachers are often forbidden from teaching it in school, and people who might otherwise be able to get a valuable lens on American history through the stories simply aren't given the chance to be exposed to someone who is arguably one of the greatest American writers.
And that's really unfortunate. It also points out that it's the school administrations, not literary works, that need to be fixed. Instead of seizing an opportunity to do some good, by ensuring the curriculum adequately covers context, the administrations prefer to muzzle the teachers and put blinders on the kids.
ryck
