> "As a notoriously commercial writer who watched for every opportunity to
> enlarge the mass market for his works, [Twain] presumably would have been
> quick to adapt his language if he could have foreseen how today's
> audiences
> recoil at racial slurs in a culturally altered country." This presumption
> is
> a long leap. References to actions or statements supporting the likelihood
> of such a response would lend it more credibility.
Twain often changed his texts on the advice of Howells or his wife Livy, or
after he tested them on lecture-circuit audiences, and he either initiated
or agreed to the deletion of one entire chapter about lynching from one of
his books because it might hurt sales of that book in the south. It's not so
long a leap as it might seem. It's a hop, maybe a skip, but not even a jump.
>
> "I invariably substituted the word "slave" for Twain's ubiquitous n-word
> whenever I read any passages aloud. Students and audience members seemed
> to
> prefer this expedient, and I could detect a visible sense of relief each
> time, as though a nagging problem with the text had been addressed." The
> psychological and sociological factors driving these sorts of behaviors is
> complex and influenced by many factors. Were these factors considered? A
> much larger question, though, is the basis upon which it was concluded
> that
> an audience's apparent favorable reaction to the expurgation of an
> uncomfortable term is a valid basis upon which to make the decision to
> expurgate it.
As somebody else pointed out, "nigger" is a hurtful word to many and if a
student is hurting that student is not learning. If you teach the book
that's a valid consideration. I've seen several in this Forum admit that
they substitute something else for the word "nigger" when reading the book
aloud to a class. But do those same people think that the word "nigger" is
somehow less objectionable (or less an obstacle to appreciating Twain's
work) when it's merely read by a student?
>
> "Unquestionably both novels can be enjoyed just as deeply and
> authentically
> if readers are not obliged to confront the n-word on so many pages." I'm
> not
> aware of any evidence to support such a sweeping conclusion. I'm not sure
> it
> is even possible to design an experiment that could consistently and
> objectively measure the relative depth and authenticity of a reader's
> enjoyment across two versions of a text. Even if such could be devised, it
> is doubtful that "enjoyment" can legitimately be considered the intent of
> Twain's use of the n-word in the text.
Twain had a fixation (some might say an obsession) with the word "that." He
became very irritated with authors who over-used this word and habitually
struck it out of the texts that he read, sometimes several times per page,
page after page. He'd also make wrathful comments in the margins about the
authors who used "that" too many times. Once, in conversation, somebody
claimed that "that" could not be used more than four times consecutively in
a sentence and Twain quickly gave an example -- "It's not that that that
that refers to, but..." I think he could have said "It's not that that that
that that refers to..." but it could be that "that that that that that" is
bad grammar. That's something I'll leave for others. But it's clear Twain
himself enjoyed a text with very few "thats." Maybe some folks enjoy a text
better without that word "nigger."
>
> "Consequently in this edition I have translated each usage of the n-word
> to
> read 'slave' instead, since the term 'slave' is closest in meaning and
> implication." This is patently and demonstrably false, yet it is presented
> as an obvious, universally accepted fact. The n-word is a very specific
> and
> powerful epithet, while "slave" is a generic descriptor that, to my
> knowledge, has never been commonly used as an epithet (or even an
> appellation).*
I agree that "slave" does not substitute well for "nigger" in every instance
(the word "slave" also appears in the original text of HF). To our modern
ears "slave" does not have the sting that "nigger" does, but what about in
1835-45 (or 1885) when "nigger" may have been used more casually? We like to
think that Twain used the word to draw attention to racism, and he did, but
it's a mistake to think that Twain or his contemporary readers found this
particular word as offensive as we do now. It might have been more freighted
with prejudice than "slave" but not so vastly more powerful and offensive as
we view it now. In contemporary reviews of the HF I recall reviewers
commenting on the generally rough language of the coarse characters, but I
don't recall any that took Twain to task specifically for using the word
"nigger." Twain himself used the word with rancor in the 1850s in letters to
his family, but he was also using it casually in the last few years of his
life. This might be a good moment to mention that on the subject of racism
the late great Lou Budd observed that Twain was not so far ahead of his
times on the subject of race as many of his modern admirers would like to
imagine, but that he was certainly on the leading edge of the progressive
thinking of his day on the subject.
>
. A fairly succinct introduction to the relevant linguistic
> issues can be found in the first few sections of 'The Semantics of Racial
> Epithets' (http://www.ub.edu/logosbw/bw5/abstracts/Hom.pdf) by Christopher
> Hom.
> Dan Davis
> Atlanta, GA
That's a good suggestion. I can also suggest Randall Kennedy's book, NIGGER,
THE STRANGE CAREER OF A TROUBLESOME WORD (2002), which includes some
references to Twain and a discussion of his `Only a Nigger.' I strongly
recommend reading the revised enlarged edition, with illustrations.
Kevin
@
Mac Donnell Rare Books
9307 Glenlake Drive
Austin TX 78730
512-345-4139
Member: ABAA, ILAB
*************************
You may browse our books at
www.macdonnellrarebooks.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3372 - Release Date: 01/10/11
|
