One Book Says It All! Shall We Censor That, Too?
“Books don’t start trouble, Dorothy. Books help stop it!”
~ Dr. Michaela Quinn ~
Given recent discussions on a new edition’s removal of the word nigger from Mark Twain’s ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN, I’d like to share my own thoughts on the matter. As a writer, I have strong opinions on censorship and banned books, to a point where I wholeheartedly strive to join the Greats (L’Engle, Bradbury, Twain, etc.) and achieve status on the Banned Book List.
Why the desire to be considered controversial? These are the stories that make a difference in society! The successful tales that express truth and open people’s minds to possibilities beyond the ‘comfort’ realm. The exact reasons they’re considered for censorship are the foundation of why they MUST be read and studied.
Book censorship has long been part of the American society. What’s caused the uproar this time? A “simple” switch of the words nigger and injun to slave and Indian. The hope? Removal of Twain’s classic from the Banned shelf. I’m game for more access to a treasured story, but at what cost?
The New York Times article opens: What’s the harm? Does one word alter the whole story? YES! Many people deny this, believing the switch is good because, politically, it cancels any negative connotations.
Really???
Think about it: how does “slave” or “Indian” hurt less when used in the derogatory sense? I could make spaghetti snotface sound derogatory if I worked the right context. There’s the trick, isn’t it? Context, perspectives, and interpretations shape everything.
In every writing class I’ve ever taken–literary analysis, poetry, fiction, whatever–one lesson remains constant: word choice is crucial and therefore must be considered wisely.
A writer’s diction drives the impact her piece has on readers, especially in light of varying perspectives.
Katie ran down the street, away from her pursuer, Chuck.
What does that image convey? The language leaves the sentence open to interpretation. Readers will conjure their own ideas on how they view running. But if I want to express a specific tone with the image, I’d choose words that fit:
Katie rushed down the street, away from her pursuer, Chuck.
In the example above, what comes to mind (at least for me) is somewhat negative. Panic. Fear. Katie doesn’t want Chuck chasing her. She’s racing away. Readers can surmise she has a frown on her face. Wide eyes, maybe some tears. Let’s try again with a different word:
Katie skipped down the street, away from her pursuer, Chuck.
Now, readers can envision a smile on Katie’s face. Perhaps she’s laughing because the guy she likes is chasing her as part of a game. Positive tone.
Language means everything.
Mark Twain himself said: “the difference between the right and wrong word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” <–BEAUTIFUL image, that is. Lightning is bright, obnoxious, and scary to many people. But a lightning bug? Small insect = less threatening.
Twain knew what he was doing. He chose words to express certain ideas. Nigger and Injun were vernacular in Huck Finn’s time. Huck didn’t realise the offence in them; he spoke how he was taught. Changing that alters the story because it removes the tone Twain meant for his story to have: the historical accuracy of the period!
@JimmyMakDaddy tweeted: “By taking the racism out of “Huckleberry Finn,” that means it never happened! Soon, we’ll fix history so that whites never F’d up.” Censoring literature invalidates the truest records we have of our history. Through fiction, truth prevails. Denying that to literature is just another way to control what people know about human history.
Racism happened. It sucks, it’s wretched, and it forever dominates how people interact with one another. Unless we educate ourselves. Use literature as a device from which to teach and learn about society and cultures.
Some folks feel we must protect ourselves and our children from certain values or beliefs, as if sheltering them means the world’s negativity doesn’t exist. For that reason, censorship is seen as righteous.
But consider the wise words of one of my favourite fictional characters from the 1990′s–
Colorado Springs discovered “evil horrors” that lie within their new library’s pages. Books about selling one’s soul to the devil (Faust) or an unwed mother (The Scarlet Letter)–OUTRAGEOUS, especially given the time period.
But I adore Michaela’s response to the town’s close-minded desires to censor their literary exposure. She approaches the church with “A book that tells of a father who sacrificed his own daughter. A book that tells of a man who was married to more than one woman at the same time. This book even has a passage in it describing how God accepted a bet from the devil.” The townspeople cringe and gasp while the Reverend praises Dr. Mike for her new insight and agreement that such a book without a doubt, MUST be banned.
Then she hands the book to the Reverend and his face turns sour. The townsfolk ask what book could host such ‘evil.’ Dr. Mike turns to them and says: “The Holy Bible.”
You said it all beautifully. I totally agree with you. It does come down to context and I don’t think changing the words to slave and Indian will make it less derogatory. However, there is more power in the original words just because of their controversial value.
Something else that I think is lost on all the people wanting to change those two little words in the fact that the Adventures of Huckleberry Fin is a primary text. It was first published in 1884. When Mark Twain wrote it those words were accepted and used regularly. It still doesn’t change the racist context but in its original form it can be studied as primary text.
Monday 10 January, 2011 at 22:00
Exactly! People shouldn’t focus on “fixing” history–racism is part of the American past, and such words were, as you said, accepted and used regularly. The fact that we’re now more educated and accepting of those terms as wrong means we need to discuss those issues while reading these brilliant classics. Not change them as a way of pretending it didn’t happen, or that they don’t still hurt.
Wednesday 12 January, 2011 at 10:43
Aaaawe min!! As always clear and concise and to the point. These books can bring the discussion into the classroom where thoughtful teachers and students can explain WHY these things were in this book and why they matter. Words have consequences. Teach the kids to think and maybe they’ll go home and teach their parents!
Tuesday 11 January, 2011 at 16:01
Yes, ma’am. I can’t think of a better way to teach history than through words of the genius authors from those periods. Huck didn’t know his calling his friend “nigger” was derogatory. In his mind, it was a term of endearment. The perfect way to begin a discussion on how wonky everyone was back then >.<
Wednesday 12 January, 2011 at 10:45
While I don’t agree that writers should be purposely controversial — I believe that a writer should just write what’s in their heart, and if it turns out to be controversial, fine, but it might feel forced or fake to the reader if they try too hard — I do agree that censorship is not the answer. Slavery happened. People used hurtful words. They still do today. Scrubbing away the truth — the language that was used — is not going to change what happened. We can only move forward, and personally I think it’s better that people read the words as they were intended by the author; if those words continue to shock the people reading them, then those people will work harder to change the racism we see today.
From a writer’s perspective, I bet Twain is rolling in his grave knowing that someone is changing his work; I know I would be pissed!
Sunday 30 January, 2011 at 23:57
Brilliant point, Elizabeth. Controversy should not be sought intentionally–it WILL cause weak writing that feels forced. But writers also shouldn’t forcibly write to AVOID controversy, as that also weakens a story. Thanks for the two cents!
Tuesday 15 February, 2011 at 09:30
This topic always gets me on a rant. What irritates me most is that A) the editor of the book studied Mark Twain in depth. B) Seems to think that Mark Twain would have supported such censorship of his books (Apparently he missed quotes from Twain regarding early censors of his books as “reading immoral books on the sly, and then selfishly trying to prevent other people from having the same wicked good time.”)
Context is indeed everything. And removing or changing words takes not only the word but the work itself out of it’s historical context. The controversy of the words is important to the story. It’s what gets you riled up as a reader and ready to confront not only the ideas expressed, but your own ideas of the world.
Beautifully written. Beautifully stated.
Friday 1 April, 2011 at 12:01
Thanks
Glad you enjoyed reading it!
Exactly. That’s the point of literature. ‘Twas the main thematic focus of my American Renaissance class, at the very least. Wasn’t it Emerson who preached that philosophical ideas are meant to be studied, then expanded based on the evolution of society?
Friday 1 April, 2011 at 12:59