New, sanitized editions of Mark Twain’s classic novel “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” airbrush out offensive or racist language. But should words that are offensive or potentially offensive to modern readers be removed from great books?
Totalitarian regimes have certain traits in common, irrespective of whether they are considered “socialist,” “national socialist,” “fascist,” or “communist.” One of these traits is the censoring of history. It might take the form of burning books, banning books, or simply censoring the “incorrect” parts of books. It is significant, for instance, that the forces aligned to Big Brother in 1984 go to great lengths to rewrite history, even to the extent of rewriting old newspaper stories so that those seeking to find the truths that history teaches are thwarted in their efforts to gain a perspective different from the totalitarian omnipotence of the zeitgeist.
This should be borne in mind when considering the present censorship of works, such as Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New sanitized editions of Twain’s classic novel airbrush out offensive or racist language, especially the n-word. There is, of course, no doubt that the n-word is very offensive, especially in the sense that it is currently understood. It is off-limits to white folks, as it should be, though it has been adopted by black folks in speaking of themselves, no doubt relishing the shock-value of the word itself and the irony inherent in its use.
Having wholeheartedly acknowledged the offensive nature of the n-word, let’s now grasp the nettle, or take the bull by the horns to employ the American idiom. Should words, such as the n-word, which are offensive or potentially offensive to modern readers, be removed from works such as Huckleberry Finn?
The answer must be a resounding “no” if we value the entirety and integrity of a text, especially a literary text, and if we want to avoid the slippery slope which will invariably follow the setting of the censorious precedent. A sagacious legal maxim states that hard cases make bad law. If we make a generally applicable law to counter an extreme or extremist circumstance, we risk removing freedom from all people in order to restrict the freedom of the extremist. Nor is this simply an abstract principle. There are practical examples. The passing of “hate laws” to counter racism are now being cited as grounds for censoring any dissident opinion. Books that argue for the pro-life position are now being removed from Big Tech platforms, or are having “warning” tags applied to them on the grounds that they represent a “war on women.” The fact that these pro-life books are often written by women makes no difference. To suggest that abortion is infanticide is a “hate crime.” This week, Amazon removed a book from its list which questioned the transgender ideology. Even more alarmingly, the Plutocrat-Democrat alliance, flexing its Big Media and Big Tech muscles, is now demonizing half the American population for voting the wrong way in the last election. For anyone who values freedom, especially freedom of speech, this is quite frankly scary.
Having established the framework and backdrop of any discussion of the censorship of literary texts, let’s return to Huckleberry Finn and the appearance of the n-word within its text. If we accept the removal of this bad word from literary texts, we will be accepting the removal of other bad words, which have already been removed from public discourse and are strictly verboten in many public schools. Words like virtue and sin are now considered judgmental. In a relativist culture, it is not nice to speak in terms of virtue and sin because such words are loaded with Christian presumptions, or what might be termed Christian prejudice, about what is right and wrong. Who are we to judge? As with the maxim that hard cases make bad law, we can safely prophesy that the censorship of authentically bad words, such as the n-word, will lead to the censorship of other words that those in power consider “bad.”
So, if we are not to remove the n-word, how are we to deal with its unpleasant presence? We need to have grown-up conversations about its use within the text, remembering that grown-up conversations are good and that they are much better and healthier than choosing to run away from anything we find offensive or than demanding that anything offensive should be banned or censored. With respect to the n-word, the following questions would exhibit a grown-up approach to discussing its use within the text: Who is using it and why? Is it the narrative voice or is it the voice of one of the characters? If it’s the voice of one of the characters, what does this tell us about the character using it, or the culture in which the character or author lives?
Rather than taking the immature option of reading censored versions of Huckleberry Finn, it would be much better were we to read grown-up editions of the work, such as the Ignatius Critical Edition. In the Study Guide that accompanies this edition, there are no fewer than twelve essay prompts, covering all aspects of the novel. Here’s one which relates to the whole controversy surrounding the use of the n-word:
“Huckleberry Finn” has always been a controversial novel. Excoriated by some critics in Twain’s day as “coarse” and “inelegant”, the book has been banned in more recent times for its apparent racism. Those who find the book unacceptable in this regard point, among other things, to the scenes where Huck considers Jim inferior and where Jim’s behavior seems foolish (for example, his superstitions and fear of ghosts, his inability to understand why people speak French, etc.). After reading this novel, do you believe it is “racist” or not? Consider both sides of the argument before taking a stand.
For the foregoing reasons, it would behoove anyone who is planning to read Huckleberry Finn to ensure that he is reading the book that Mark Twain wrote, blemishes and all, and not a doctored version that has been butchered by the neo-puritans of our censoriously intolerant and judgmental culture.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is courtesy of Unsplash and has been brightened for clarity.
Over the years I have noticed that words and episodes have either been rewritten or censored in many classics–the first Doctor Dolittle story and Kipling’s Jungle Book come to mind. Both of these books are more likely than not to be read by children. I suppose one could honestly debate how appropriate it is to alter or censor writings directed toward a younger audience and will offer no opinion here regarding the practice. However, a few years ago I purchased and read a reprint of an early collection of H. G. Wells’ short stories, The Stolen Bacillus and Other Incidents, first published in 1895. All of these stories were clearly written for adults. In the introduction it is stated that three of the stories were left out “because of their reflection of bygone prejudices”. I was able to locate these stories online and will confirm that there were words, sentiments, and situations used or described in the stories that probably would not be included by someone writing today. But I find it distressing that the contemporary publisher saw fit to determine what is suitable for a current mature reader to be exposed to. Such an attitude denigrates the reader and his or her capacity to make a reasoned and rational judgement on the merits of a written work. Since reading Wells’ collection I have come across phrases, words, and sentiments that could easily be censored, perhaps with no strong disruption of the flow of the narrative or the theme of the writing, in authors as varied as John Cheever, Miguel de Unamuno, and G. K. Chesterton. I wonder, how much is being deleted, especially in eBooks, by latter day Miss Grundy’s without the average reader being the wiser, especially when there is no loss of continuity in a story or disturbance in the overall presentation of an argument?
It is in great irony that banning a word, or airbrushing it or even being offended by a word, gives it power over us. The ‘F’ word has that power over me.
That attribute of the ‘N’ word, I suspect, causes the duality of some “permitted” the use of the word while other commit a sin punishable by death in the minds of others. Are those who seem to relish being able to use the word freely trying to gain power over the word? Yet, they have a visceral reaction to someone whispering it under their breath who they don’t believe should be permitted to even think the word.
That dissidence is sad to me on so many levels. It is irresolvable. It slowly dissolves the individual’s very being, unable to control the impulse within themselves, yet desperately attempting to control having to ever hear that same word that consumes them internally.
I suppose forgiveness and sympathy in our own selves is a lesson we can extrapolate from this example. It seems the unifying characteristic of despots and tyrants of every persuasion seek to control the demons within them, while trying desperately to damn the demons that they ultimately can’t control in everything and everyone else.
At this rate how long would it be before the work of George Orwell was banned for reflecting “bygone prejudices” in favour of freedom of conscience?
Mr. Pearce makes an important point that we should examine the context in which language is being used in a work of literature – for example, is it being used in the voice of a character, or in the author’s own voice, and is the author trying to make a particular point? This is relevant to HUCKLEBERRY FINN, which if I remember correctly is entirely in the voice of the title character and so reflects his background, prejudices, etc.
People make a mistake in this regard when they say “Shakespeare said” this or that, when actually it was a character in one of his plays.
In the fourth paragraph, Pearce notes that “Even more alarmingly, the Plutocrat-Democrat alliance, flexing its Big Media and Big Tech muscles, is now demonizing half the American population for voting the wrong way in the last election. For anyone who values freedom, especially freedom of speech, this is quite frankly scary.” Pearce, a Chesterton devotee, is no doubt familiar with “Hudge” and “Gudge,” Chesterton’s monikers for Big Government and Big Business. I fear the amalgamation of the two is rapidly merging into a monolith of “Ghludge.” And it doesn’t appear to be stopping any time soon.
I just read the great novel Pendennis by Thackery. Some characters use the n-word a couple of times. I, an adult, know that this was the 1830s, no one in the story personally knew a black person, the characters were worldly people. But I reflected with grief that a young person in today’s environment might dismiss this masterpiece of human insights, because of the flawed characters reflecting the flawed understanding of the time.
Take out all the things now considered bad with Huckleberry Finn, and all you have is a story of a Slave and a boy on a camping trip, and if a slave can go camping, i.e. take a vacation, then slavery must not be so bad after all. We need the bad, to remind us why it is indeed, bad. Mark Twain wrote the story to show us this. If you read it, you see that Huck’s dad was an abusive father, and Jim was a gentle man. This is complete opposite of what “white and black” stereotype where. All people of all “races” should read this book, exactly as written, and taught the meaning and why Mark Twain wrote it, as a mirror of those times, and as an example of why things needed changing.
Mark Twain as a white male can be crucified for Huckleberry Finn, but Harriet Beecher Stowe, white woman, can be lauded as helping abolish slavery with Uncle Tom’s Cabin — even though that book overflows with the N word in its opening chapter.
There is a fun website called Uncle Tom’s Cabin Reconsidered. In it there is link to a page called Who’s Your Mammy? A fond look at Micki McElya’s book Clinging to Mammy-The Faithful Slave in Twentieth Century America. But Micki is a female person of color and can say such things. Too bad Hattie McDaniel had to be the first African-American actress to win an Oscar for her beloved Mammy performance in Gone with the Wind in 1939. Would that character even be allowed today? Oh, I forgot. Gone With the Wind is not even allowed.
My understanding is that Twain used the language that was in use at the time by all Americans. It was not a derogatory term then. Removing that word may help today’s sensitive reader feel better, but if he knows some honest facts about the author he would realize that Twain is portraying realism as he knew it and lived it. I think that anyone who wants to alter that magnificent book is ignorant of American history and would likely not appreciate its truth and beauty.
Even sanitized of the “n” word, Huckeberry Finn is vulnerable to the cancel culture and political correctness because even illiterate Jim very presciently had a clue about Queen Pelosi’s “sacred ground” of partial birth abortion dismemberment. Even Jim fully understood what was self-evident in the competing claims for a child, as set before Solomon: “De’ spute warn’t ’bout a half a chile, de ’spute was ’bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ’spute bout a whole chile wid a half a chile, doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain.”
Forgive any error in my statements, as I am functioning on memory alone (it has been several decades since I read Huck Finn). But wasn’t one of the primary arcs of the story based on an initial starting point where two people with starkly contrasting differences are viewed through the lens of prejudice (albeit mainly one-sided) and over the adventure, there is a realization of the interior person that goes beyond the superficial qualities? It would seem to me (if I am even close to being correct) that this is at the heart of what so many strive for in moving away from the remains of past racism.