The Happy Freelancer

I know I’m supposed to be writing about things writers can do in January for their business but there are so many other issues capturing my imagination right now that I’m constantly interrupting myself. Plus, I’m giving everyone an extra few days to get their offices and computers in order (assuming anyone is following my advice, that is) so I thought today I would give consideration to the new edition of Huckleberry Finn.

In fact, I’ve been weighing the issue for a few days. The knee-jerk reaction is to call those who propose the changes “morons” and gripe about how even the classics aren’t sacred any more (although I know Huck Finn isn’t the first story to undergo revision and it won’t be the last). But there are interesting points in the decision to edit the new edition, ones that should be considered carefully. So I’m going to work through this on my blog and hopefully come to a rational conclusion that offends as few people as possible.

First, the changes. Change number one is that all instances of the n-word will be replaced by the word “slave,” (and don’t pretend you don’t know what n-word I’m talking about). Second, the word “Injun” will be replaced by “Indian.”

Now, the first and best reason for making the changes was just illustrated by the above paragraph. Many people are afraid to use the n-word at all, even in instances in which the word is used in classic literature to highlight the evils of racism. I couldn’t imagine being a teacher and teaching the book without using the word, but I can’t imagine saying the n-word in classroom full of students. Replacing the n-word  with “slave” takes care of that problem.

Second, some people may have avoided reading the book because of discomfort due to its use of the offensive words. For them, this new edition overcomes the problem, while those who want to read the original can simply buy a different edition. There’s no law that says everyone has to read the new edition of the book.

And yet, I can’t get my mind around changing a classic to make it more palatable, especially when the book is about racism. I don’t believe that the word “slave” has as much power to move readers as the n-word, especially when I have no trouble writing “slave” on this blog, but I won’t write the actual n-word in full (I’m actually convinced my fingers won’t type the entire word). If the lesson is about racism and the power of language, then doesn’t changing the wording of the book dilute the lesson?

And doesn’t it further diminish everything that people of that time went through? The language in the book was the language used then, for good or evil. If we are to understand what people lived, what they experienced, and, ultimately, what they overcame, should we not be exposed to the actual language that was used against them? Who are we to change the language used by an author who has greater perspective of the time than we ever will, especially now that he’s not around to defend his words?

The point of books is to read and understand. If people can’t read Huckleberry Finn with the original language, then aren’t they missing the point of the book entirely? And if so, then why read the book at all?

Furthermore, people who read this book will have come across this language already. It’s not as though Huckleberry Finn will be their first or only exposure to the n-word or even the word “Injun”. But it might be the first exposure that illustrates how hurtful that language is rather than glorifying it. It might be the first, or only, time these readers are asked to look at their own language and how it affects other people–and if that language is diluted to make the reading more comfortable, then my worry is that the lesson will be lost on the readers.

Changing the n-word in a book doesn’t change history. It doesn’t erase the past. All it does is makes some topics a little easier to discuss, but sometimes history should be difficult to talk about because some of the things that have been said and done were awful. As readers, our duty is to make an honest effort to understand the history, both the good and bad parts.

After all, we’re not talking about changing historical inaccuracies in the book. We’re talking about taking out actual language that was used at the time because we are uncomfortable with using it today, even to teach people how hurtful that language can be.

At the very least, the author’s words should be left as they were intended. Because after that, where does it stop? Once we start making changes to books to sanitize them, where do we draw the line?

And if my thoughts on this topic annoy you, feel free to blame my mother who was a teacher-librarian since before the printing press was created (just checking to see if she’s reading this post). As a teacher-librarian at a K-7 school, my mom had a book that included the F-word twice (I think it was a Judy Blume book, but I’m not positive). While other teacher-librarians used white-out to erase the offensive word, my mother refused to. Her firm belief was that the book should be read the way the author wrote it and it wasn’t her job to censor books. That’s a lesson I’ve never forgotten.

Always stick with what the author wrote, otherwise you’re missing the point. Worse, you could be sliding down a dangerous slope.