Just to add to what Ann says quite eloquently . . . .

As one who has not previously commented on the expurgated Huck Finn 
controversy, I think one thing some people overlook is this:  It is 
arguably wrong to modify any great work of art, BUT that does not mean 
that every great work of art must or should be taught in public high 
schools. 

I believe that it is the prevalence of Huck Finn on mandatory reading 
list for high school kids that prompted the effort to soften the 
"N-word" blow in an edited version aimed specifically at that audience.I 
may be wrong, but I suspect many if not most of the scholars on this 
list are affiliated with colleges and universities rather than with high 
schools, so perhaps the issue of appropriateness for relatively immature 
15-16 year olds in public high schools is not given sufficient 
consideration.

--Steve Hoffman
Takoma Park MD

Ann wrote:
> Dear Forum,
>
> I've enjoyed reading the excellent responses to this new edition, and
> overall I've opted to simply listen. But let's be honest,  oobjecting to the
> language of Huck Finn is utterly reasonable, and it ought not to be
> dismissed so frivolously. Of course, I wholly disagree with editing or
> altering Twain's text; I'm equally sympathetic with teachers and parents who
> search for ways to discuss Twain's satire honestly and effectively. I think
> this new edition attempts to solve a complex historical and pedagogical
> problem a little too simply.
>
> Twain's language is something more than "spicy"--it's violent and it
> reflects the problem of racism and violence. Twain's use of racial
> epithets--though often a crucial signpost to larger issues--still offends
> and embarrasses many students. I'd invite us all not to lose sight of that
> fact.
>
> And, in response to Kit's inquiry, I wonder what the virtue is in using an
> offensive word during an intellectual debate about it. Choosing not to use
> and obscenity may not be a reflection of guilt or fear; it may simply be
> tasteful.
> Ann Ryan
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Ryan, Ann <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>   
>> Dear Forum,
>>
>> I've enjoyed reading the excellent responses to this new edition, and
>> overall I've opted to simply listen. But let's be honest,  oobjecting to the
>> language of Huck Finn is utterly reasonable, and it ought not to be
>> dismissed so frivolously. Of course, I wholly disagree with editing or
>> altering Twain's text; I'm equally sympathetic with teachers and parents who
>> search for ways to discuss Twain's satire honestly and effectively. I think
>> this new edition attempts to solve a complex historical and pedagogical
>> problem a little too simply.
>>
>> Twain's language is something more than "spicy"--it's violent and it
>> reflects the problem of racism and violence. Twain's use of racial
>> epithets--though often a crucial signpost to larger issues--still offends
>> and embarrasses many students. I'd invite us all not to lose sight of that
>> fact.
>>
>>
>> Ann Ryan
>>
>>   On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:17 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I'm thinking of replacing the garlic in my Italian dishes with sugar, so
>>> at least some people who object to garlic will have an opportunity to taste
>>> real Italian cooking.
>>>
>>> Got the idea from a recent new edition of Huck Finn.
>>>
>>> Ben Wise
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:36:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Thank you
>>>
>>> And thank you so much for that link, Jerry (also forwarded to me by a
>>> friend who saw your post before I did!). It brought up a point about racist
>>> terminology that's been sleeping under the more accessible issue of the "n-"
>>> word, namely, the equally - indeed more reprehensible and stealthy "N-" word
>>> (which I remember using, with some unexpressed discomfort, all during my
>>> activist days in the 50s and 60s). Chabon's nine-year-old daughter is right
>>> on the money. Don't know what she was thinking, but my take, as a 74-year
>>> old, is that "Negro" is even more offensive since it gives social
>>> acceptability and pseudoscientific vocabulary to a profoundly racist
>>> concept, and was adopted, hook, line and sinker, by the victimized
>>> themselves since it seemed to be the only respectable term available. That
>>> is, until they discovered that Black is Beautiful and has power. I remember
>>> that moment, and it was glorious! RIP Stokely, et al.
>>>
>>> Let's never forget that "race" is a social construction and its meaning is
>>> in the mind of the beholder. Terminology is a powerful way to establish a
>>> concept, whether there is any validity to it or not.
>>>
>>> Ben Wise
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jerry Bandy" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:42:06 PM
>>> Subject: Thank you
>>>
>>> In the 14 years since I completed an undergrad course on Twain, I've
>>> been a steadfast lurker on this list. Only now am I finally compelled to
>>> post, even if it is only to post a link to yet another response to the
>>> Huck Finn brouhaha.
>>>
>>> Michael Chabon's response in the Atlantic,
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2011/01/the-unspeakable-in-its-jammies/69369/
>>>
>>> affected me more directly than most other opinions I've read on the
>>> subject so far. Like Chabon, I am also a father of two young children
>>> with a hearty appetite for books. As in Chabon's anecdote, I know that
>>> some day in the ever-nearing future I'll be faced with a similar
>>> conflict of how to navigate the n-word and of how to steer my children
>>> into the correct contextual current. I know when that moment arrives I
>>> will appreciate, even more than I do now, the voices on this list.
>>>
>>> So in advance, I want to thank you all for your tireless, entertaining,
>>> and informative devotion to Twain scholarship.
>>>
>>> JB
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>