"Huckleberry" Will they leave nothing unchanged?

  Bingalau 13:28 06 Jan 2011

I think this comes under the word "Vandalism" Removing parts of well established books such as Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer is disgusting.

click here

  Quickbeam 13:49 06 Jan 2011

I re-read his books a couple of years ago, they're very good yarns in the vernacular of the day.

Twain wrote about the times he lived in with the words of the time and as such his writings are a social documentary of the period that should remain intact.

We have the brains to see that, don't we...?

  WhiteTruckMan 14:25 06 Jan 2011

*we* do. Apparently others don't.

Henry Ford once famously claimed that history is more or less bunk. With the touchy-feely revisionist at work, he was absolutely right!


  amonra 16:17 06 Jan 2011

How many times has the bible been "edited" so as to please some pontif or other ?

  sunnystaines 17:14 06 Jan 2011

the n word is just spanish for black, how do the spanish deal with it.

  BT 17:47 06 Jan 2011

They were discussing this on BBC breakfast this morning with a couple of shall we say 'Ethnic' people. The lady said she was allowed to use the 'N' word and did, but she said that Bill Turnbull wasn't allowed to. Discrimination or what!!

  spuds 17:50 06 Jan 2011

I don't know about removing offensive words from true classics, I am still struggling with text messages on a mobile phone or listening to the 'with it rapper community'.

Now there's modern communications for you :O(

  spuds 17:54 06 Jan 2011

I forget the peoples names, but there are a few black and Asian comedians who ridicule the fact that they can use certain words, but certain other people cannot.

  Forum Editor 18:31 06 Jan 2011

"...a couple of shall we say 'Ethnic' people"

What's that supposed to mean? If you want to say black people you can, it's not a forbidden word. The forbidden word - the one you call the 'N' word - is offensive to black people when used by whites,or any other racial group, it's not offensive if they use it themselves about themselves. Why on earth you should think it's discrimation for them to do so is beyond me.

As for changing a couple of words in a story that was written 130 years ago, I really don't understand what the fuss is about. The changes make no difference to the central theme of the book, which is all about entrenched attitudes - ironic, given the entrenched attitudes of those people who get all excited about something like this.

  WhiteTruckMan 19:14 06 Jan 2011

I'm sorry but I think you've missed the boat on this one.

If one group of people are forbidden (by law) from an activity that is permitted by another group, then I cant think of a better definition of the word discrimination.

As for changing the words of the classic. Well thats akin to prelates who ordered the removal of the genitalia on lots of naked statues. It's a slippery slope of censorship that does credit to no-one.

Yes, its a fact that 150 years ago white people owned slaves. and called those slaves niggers. Being unpalatable today doesnt alter the truth, and those who either deny the past or otherwise seek to sanitise it are foolishly deluding themselves.


  robgf 19:59 06 Jan 2011

Surely changing the words, to make people more "comfortable" with the story, is encouraging a slide back towards racism.
The whole point of the story is to make white people uncomfortable about what was done and prevent it happening again.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Best Amazon Echo: What’s the best Alexa speaker?

Kano Computer Kit Complete review: A fun DIY 'laptop' that teaches kids to code

Best pro photo editors for Mac 2018

TV & streaming : comment regarder les Jeux olympiques d’hiver 2018 ?