My issue with this is very simple. This is Twain's work and nobody except Twain should be able to change any part of it. Since he is no longer with us,then it should be left be.

 

This statement makes more sense to me than any other post I've heard on this board. I completely agree.

I don't see how anybody can defend this butchering. It kind of reminds me of that idiot Ashcroft wanting to put drapes over the "Spirit Of Justice" statue at the DOJ that showed a woman's breast. Utterly and incomprehensibly stupid.

 

I can appreciate parents wanting to "protect the children," but in the rush to protect them we overdo it and end up leaving them clueless about the harsh realities of life. Maybe parents can do some real parenting instead of trying to whitewash the world.

I don't see how anybody can defend this butchering. It kind of reminds me of that idiot Ashcroft wanting to put drapes over the "Spirit Of Justice" statue at the DOJ that showed a woman's breast. Utterly and incomprehensibly stupid.

 

I can appreciate parents wanting to "protect the children," but in the rush to protect them we overdo it and end up leaving them clueless about the harsh realities of life. Maybe parents can do some real parenting instead of trying to whitewash the world.

 

So there's no point that's too young for racial epithets?

So there's no point that's too young for racial epithets?

 

Didn't say that. That's where parenting comes into play.

 

But, as has been noted, it's probably stuff the kids have already heard from adults. Why can't it be a teachable moment? That's what Twain tried to do. Too many people prefer to play the ostrich role rather than addressing difficult subjects.

Didn't say that. That's where parenting comes into play.

 

But, as has been noted, it's probably stuff the kids have already heard from adults. Why can't it be a teachable moment? That's what Twain tried to do. Too many people prefer to play the ostrich role rather than addressing difficult subjects.

 

 

First you say that you didn't say there's not a point where it's too young and then you say why not make it a teachable moment.

 

There is an age at which it can be a teachable moment. That age varies child to child. The challenge is that the school has to make a decision and that , unfortunately, may have to be made on behalf of only one child.

First you say that you didn't say there's not a point where it's too young and then you say why not make it a teachable moment.

 

There is an age at which it can be a teachable moment. That age varies child to child. The challenge is that the school has to make a decision and that , unfortunately, may have to be made on behalf of only one child.

This is why I say this book should be read by high school students, which you agree with. To me, it's such an easy solution and so much better than censoring the book.

Are you deliberately missing the point or is it just that difficult to follow?

 

The issue isn't simply offensive language in a classic.

 

The issue is "age appropriate" language used when teaching a lesson.

 

If the original language isn't age appropriate then it shouldn't be taught to that age group in any form. It's amazing how "age appropriateness" evolves as time passes as well. When I was in high school a million years ago my school had a junior level English class that taught Science Fiction. Arthur C. Clarke, James Bradbury and a field trip to see the original release of Star Wars were part of the class. One other item in the class was a 16mm film called "Future Shock" based on a book by Alvin Tofler. On the outside of the film can was a typed warning that no one below 11th grade was allowed to watch the film. The reason, there was a 5 second scene of 2 men in tuxes marrying each other. No kissing, nothing salicious just a voice over that in the future there may be a new type of marrriage. That would hardly cause an eye to be batted now. Something that has been ommitted from this discussion in that in the book "Tom Sawyer" the same publisher has decided to replace the word injun because it was viewed as offensive by some. I saw a report about this today with a discussion between a person on each side of the issue. In the end the moderator closed by saying that Mark Twain never intended either Tom Sawyer ot Huckleberry Finn to be "children's books" because apparantly even at the time of theri publication there were some that objected to their content. His reply was you wouldn't tell a man that he couldn't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.

 

And before you ask I would feel the same way about Emenem. If his language isn't appropriate for a certain age group then his work shouldn't be used in any for as a teaching tool for that age group.

First you say that you didn't say there's not a point where it's too young and then you say why not make it a teachable moment.

There is an age at which it can be a teachable moment. That age varies child to child. The challenge is that the school has to make a decision and that , unfortunately, may have to be made on behalf of only one child.

 

I don't like the book being changed because of my understanding of literature. Just like I don't like the way churches tend to ignore the more difficult texts in Scripture that paint our Faith Heroes in less than flattering light.

 

That said, in response to the bolded Clyde, I had a teachable moment for my son when he was about 7 that I didn't want to have. The only President he knew at that time was Bill Clinton. And so I had to explain terms used in media reports at an age I would have liked to avoided. It's funny the news didn't seem overly sensitive then to the young minds. :idunno:

 

It's a tough question to ask but for me, tampering with works of art/literature in order to "soften the blow" to the viewer/reader is somehow wrong IMO. I believe in being Politically Correct (I prefer the word "Respectful") but if a work is too mature for someone, let them experience it when they are older. If they experience it anyway, offer parental leadership (unique idea). Just my take. :thumb:

I have to ask, language aside, why would this book be presented to an age group that wasn't mature enough to understand the message, regardless of the message. Removing the word "injun" is one issue. But the larger issue is what the use of the word implies, and that's not likely to be understood by an age-inappropriate audience. So, the solution, to me, is to present books that can be understood by the audience. Literature should be taught in such a way that the study of a tome encompasses the message of the story, not unlike Bible study is taught.

 

Censorship wouldn't be necessary if common-sense approaches to the presentation were in place. You wouldn't teach a Mario Puzo novel to a grade school audience, nor likely a middle school audience. You wouldn't take a grade school class, nor maybe even a middle-school class on a field trip to a museum of Renoir nudes. Censoring the text is altering the art, and that is simply far beyond my tolerance of censorship.

But I don't think that changing the words in this story DOES change the message. That's my point.

 

Presentation is everything though... The message sent by this book is meant to be a powerful one. Let's say I tell you about some kids starving in Africa. There's a simple message: Poverty is rampant in that part of the world, and it's obviously not a good thing. You get the point.

 

Now let me show you a poor starving child from Africa. Allow you to observe his/her life. The message is still the same, but the impact is completely different. Presentation... The reason Twain shouldn't be censored is because his work was meant to be powerful. It was meant to have a lasting impact on society. Censoring his work only lessens the impact his novel has. That's where I take issue with it.

Presentation is everything though... The message sent by this book is meant to be a powerful one. Let's say I tell you about some kids starving in Africa. There's a simple message: Poverty is rampant in that part of the world, and it's obviously not a good thing. You get the point.

 

Now let me show you a poor starving child from Africa. Allow you to observe his/her life. The message is still the same, but the impact is completely different. Presentation... The reason Twain shouldn't be censored is because his work was meant to be powerful. It was meant to have a lasting impact on society. Censoring his work only lessens the impact his novel has. That's where I take issue with it.

 

Your example doesn't apply to this issue. It[s not a case of them summarizing everything into one brief sentence. They are taking everything as is with the exception of an offensive word. It would be the eqivalent of saying kids are "very hungry" vs "starving" in your example. It doesn't change the image.

Your example doesn't apply to this issue. It[s not a case of them summarizing everything into one brief sentence. They are taking everything as is with the exception of an offensive word. [b]It would be the eqivalent of saying kids are "very hungry" vs "starving" in your example. It doesn't change the image[/b].

I disagree. A lot of times before lunch I am "very hungry", I wouldn't ever consider myself to be "starving" though. I think most believe that as BB12 says, "starving" is very powerful and much more so than "very hungry".

This is ignorant. He would have used different words if they didn't have significance. Change the language used, and you might as well remove the author's name from the book, because it sure isn't his work any more.

 

This country is becoming more and more ignorant by the day.

Your example doesn't apply to this issue. It[s not a case of them summarizing everything into one brief sentence. They are taking everything as is with the exception of an offensive word. It would be the eqivalent of saying kids are "very hungry" vs "starving" in your example. It doesn't change the image.

 

What are you talking about? Very hungry and starving have 2 completely different meanings.

Your example doesn't apply to this issue. It[s not a case of them summarizing everything into one brief sentence. They are taking everything as is with the exception of an offensive word. It would be the eqivalent of saying kids are "very hungry" vs "starving" in your example. It doesn't change the image.

 

I disagree with that just because the offensive language was used in a way to make most of us uncomfortable when we read it. That unconfortable feeling is a key part of the novel. Or at least it was when I read it. As a white man when I hear the term slave I don't become nearly as uncomfortable as when I hear the N word. If I were discussing s Civil War battley with someone and they said the freed slave army that fought for the North as opposed to that northern N army, I would have completely different reactions, even though in theory they both refer to the same army from the civil war. If you truly get the book as it is written that word should make you very uncomfortable everytime you see it and should reenforce the need to never use it.

 

While I certianly understand how offensive the word can be and the need to not waive it in front of little children. The book should honestly in my opinion be left as is and not taught to children until they are old enough to appreciate it's message and understand it.