Tuesday, January 11, 2011


Illustration of Jim and Huckleberry Finn, by E...
The more and more I thought about my recent WTF Alert the more angry I became.

To read my newspaper editorial about why we should be concerned about publishers changing historical classics like Huck Finn, click HERE.


  1. What do I think? We can not alter historical words either said or written to suit the moral majority. That tampers with history, free speech and free press. I am apaled at this occurrence and bet Mr Twain woukd use far worse words that those if he were alive today.
    My 2.5 cents worth!!

  2. Bah! I tried to post a comment on the article but couldn't. So here's my comment:

    I couldn't agree more with your "WTF" reaction to this Ant. How asinine that anyone would want to change...history, and that's exactly what they're doing here.

    "...literature — be it fiction or non-fiction — exists to not only tell stories, but to capture and record accurate moments in time." This line sums it all up quite clearly. I so hope someone sees the light of day and fixes this issue before it goes way too far.
    Fabulous article Ant!

  3. All valid points, Ant. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of literature (at least the sort of literature with words that MAY be considered offensive).

  4. As someone who has taught books with the n-word, including Huck Finn (often with many students objecting, at times...loudly), I say...go ahead--alter it--, at least for high schools. Those students who take an interest in the book and/or history can do more research, read the original so forth.

    Huck Finn may be a bit overrated,even as sort of PC classic, though there are a few powerful scenes--the Colonel, or the feud with the Grangerfords, Huck's pap, a few river scenes etc. The hick dialect tends to be overwhelming and not very funny, IMHE--they're probably better off reading Moby Dick (which is ...somewhat PC in a sense as well---consider Queequeg and the crew of the Pequod).

    Grapes of Wrath, IIRC did not have racist speech (apart maybe from "okies"). The conservatives and biblethumpers wanted it censored for a few somewhat racy scenes (including the last one, where Rose of sharon, er, gives some milk to an old man), and because of the slightly leftist content.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.


Say something... Anything...