Most of us know the old expression "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" While it was a rather defiant schoolyard retort to taunting, it is entirely untrue. Words can be a powerful force for evil. Ruth, my wife, works as an outreach counsellor for the local women's shelter and she has many clients who are battered and humiliated by the words of their partners. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that words kill (Matt. 5:21-22.)
There have been two circumstances in the States this week that bring this home. A disturbed young man opened fire on a group of unsuspecting citizens in Arizona, killing six and injuring many more. There is a lot of soul-searching going on across the country about whether angry political rhetoric created a climate in which the step was taken from violent words to violent actions. To me the insanity of selling automatic weapons to anyone with a pulse is a bigger factor, not to mention the mental state of the shooter, but it is a discussion worth having.
The other item broadly covered was the publication of a new version of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain which substitutes the word "slave" for the author's "nigger." I use the actual word rather than the "n-word" because it does have such jolting, negative power. I was probably thirteen when I first read Huckleberry Finn and I was shocked to see this word in print. But the novel was one of the most influential in my life, because as I read through the novel it dawned on me that Twain was making a strong social statement about slavery through Huck, who has a series of awakenings. They allow him to regard Jim, the runaway slave, as a fully realized human being rather than just another nigger. I had never read anything like this before. I have mixed feeling about sanitizing the text.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject. Feel free to comment on either or both of these examples, or any of your own.
There have been two circumstances in the States this week that bring this home. A disturbed young man opened fire on a group of unsuspecting citizens in Arizona, killing six and injuring many more. There is a lot of soul-searching going on across the country about whether angry political rhetoric created a climate in which the step was taken from violent words to violent actions. To me the insanity of selling automatic weapons to anyone with a pulse is a bigger factor, not to mention the mental state of the shooter, but it is a discussion worth having.
The other item broadly covered was the publication of a new version of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain which substitutes the word "slave" for the author's "nigger." I use the actual word rather than the "n-word" because it does have such jolting, negative power. I was probably thirteen when I first read Huckleberry Finn and I was shocked to see this word in print. But the novel was one of the most influential in my life, because as I read through the novel it dawned on me that Twain was making a strong social statement about slavery through Huck, who has a series of awakenings. They allow him to regard Jim, the runaway slave, as a fully realized human being rather than just another nigger. I had never read anything like this before. I have mixed feeling about sanitizing the text.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject. Feel free to comment on either or both of these examples, or any of your own.
5 comments:
There was a time, and I'm sure there still are times when people with extreme views will burn the book rather that change a few words. Perhaps this is a step towards moderation for these people.
Personally I think it's ridiculous to change a classic. This book was written many years ago. It was written; as you said David; to grab your attention.
If they want to re-write something they should be looking at the right to bear arms part of the constitution. That would do more people more good.
Sanitizing the text in the name of potentially increasing readership is misguided at best. Sanitizing the text to remove historically pungent phrases and realities that some in the present day may find offensive is ridiculous and revisionist.
I've said this before but history is what it is. Altering it to meet the standards of present day sensitivities is a dubious proposition.
As for Tucson, anyone who denies the link between the present language of engagemtn and the deed is deluding themselves.
Thanks for these observations guys. Did you notice yesterday that the Dire Straits hit from the 80's, Money for Nothing, has now been banned from playlists. It contains an offensive word which was used with irony. It seems that we are no longer able to discern intent.
Not only is it a clever song, it has one of the best opening rock guitar riffs ever!
The line in question has been wiped from all CD releases after 1985, and Mark Knopfler no longer sings it live, simply subbing the word out for "maggot."
And it is a KILLER riff. Top five all time in my book.
Excellent opening riff. I must have an old copy of the disc. Mine has the F on maggott.
I've noticed a number of new songs on the radio that have potentially offensive lyrics the first couple of times I here it, then they are blanked out later. Nickleback led off the closing cerominies at the Olympics with the unedited version of "Burn it to the Ground". Very energetic song with a healthy sprinkling of 4 letter words. When you hear it on the Radio there are alot of gaps. I'm not offended by language. Lord knows I've used some colorful phrases over the years, so I'm not the one who complained.
My question would be why did it take so long to change this one? Is it 25 years since it was released?
Post a Comment