I seldom speak in this forum, preferring to listen. Michael seems to me to see the essence of scholarship; let original and contemporary literature compete for scholars and readers. Those who study the human should find much of interest in the propensity for revisionism, and I would not deny them the opportunity. My money is on a large and continuing interest for the original, man and author. on 1/11/11 10:54 AM, Michael Kiskis at [log in to unmask] wrote: > What exactly do you expect those of us in the academy to do? We can offer > statements disagreeing with the arguments that led to this new edition. And > we can choose both not to use it and to counsel teachers not to use it. (In > doing that, we also need to take complaints about the book seriously by > minority readers, and we need to step up and do a better job teaching future > and present teachers who struggle with the book in their classrooms -- too > often we are quick to dismiss readers and offer only condescending comment > instead of real instruction.) But once that is done, what remains? > > I did an interview with a newspaper that was published on Sunday (the > Syracuse Post-Standard). Reading through the comments that were posted, I > was surprised to find one person -- a reader of Twain -- had placed a call > to Alan Gribben's institution hoping to complain directly to Alan (really it > seemed to yell at him). Is that the route we are headed? God, I hope not. > > It also seems to me that we live in a time that demonstrates the power of > language. Our political and cultural "debate" in the United States has > become incoherent because of the use of personal attacks and tests for > ideological purity. And there is some likelihood that we have lost the > ability to disagree and have moved instead toward a kind of psychological > and even physical violence. We can at least offer some example of how to > disagree -- with some element of respect. Without that, comes chaos. > > Supporting an individual's right to offer a different approach to Twain and > his writing (even to the point of making ruinous changes to a text) is > within a long tradition of academic argument. Perhaps we could all gain > some small status from flaming each other. But it would hardly be worth the > cost. > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Dan Davis <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I know. I said I would be quiet for a while. But now that NewSouth is >> beginning to assemble on its website a long sampling of quotes from those >> who, inexplicably, have chosen to defend this new publication, it seems >> especially important to keep the discussion alive. The sense I continue to >> have -- that many who should know better are responding to this event with >> a >> yawn and a shrug -- is nicely highlighted in this editorial: >> >> >> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-06/opinion/powers.huck.finn_1_offensive-word >> s-publisher-mark-twain?_s=PM:OPINION<http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-06/opini >> on/powers.huck.finn_1_offensive-word%0As-publisher-mark-twain?_s=PM:OPINION> >> >> In this light, and after spending many hours looking at the public's >> reaction to this news, I find it quite disappointing that there has been >> little more than a whimper from the academic community. Indeed, it seems >> some on this list can hardly wait for people to stop talking about it. >> What's that all about? The world is looking to academia to help them >> understand this news and its implications, but to date they hear little >> more >> than crickets chirping. >> >> If anyone here honestly considers Gribben's position defensible*, I'd >> certainly like to see the argument laid out, point by point. >> >> Keep in mind that it is a relatively simple matter to objectively prove >> that >> Gribben's edits have altered the meaning of the text -- his >> rationalizations >> to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> Dan Davis >> Atlanta, GA >> >> * When I say "defensible" I mean supportable by means other than emotional >> references to Dr. Gribben's credentials, experience, reputation, or >> all-around good-guy personality. >> > > -- Linwood Cottage, Sheffield It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain http://fch-senseandnonsense.blogspot.com/