Actually, the person who suggested removing the word from Huckleberry Finn did so in the hopes that more children would read the book. As it stands, many school boards, at the behest of parents, refuse to allow the book to be taught in high schools; this seemed like a compromise that would get the book into more schools and, therefore, give it more readers. You don’t have to agree with his methods, but it would be nice to see some appreciation for his goal.
The same people who protest the book’s use of the N-word will no doubt protest the absence of the word. It isn’t the word they find objectionable, it’s Huck’s ability to think for himself and his courage to do what is right. Those are two qualities the banners fear to see in anyone.
This is one of those times when I realize how much I value Pab’s work.
BillThompson, that was my point exactly yesterday. The real reason Huck Finn has been challenged over the years is because he ultimately sees past society’s “norms,” – or sees them for what they are and challenges our assumptions about who is a real person.
That’s still a challenging theme, and those who condemn the work have chosen this one word as their reason for condemning it. As I said yesterday, I think this version is calling their bluff.
I don’t actually believe it was created just for the money - this professor is NOT going to get rich from the book. Still, such an approach would be in keeping with Twain’s general approach to life. He loved the money and freely admitted it.
BTW, Ira and Samskara, the entire bible is a compromise. The books included were picked and chosen, by a select few who fought amongst themselves for their favorites, and the entire work has been proven to have been edited right, left and center for centuries.
Compromise just means that no one ends up happy with the choice made.
cdward, I hope you’re right about this edition of HF being a challenge to the book-banners. Publishers don’t usually print a book that they expect to fail, but someone might have decided that the publicity would repay the costs.
So we substitute Jehovah or one of his other 127 names. And Christ said if it didn’t offend, it wasn’t working, much the same as Twain would say of his N_.
By the way, believers would also say you’d have to excise Jesus and Holy Spirit as they’re the same thing as God.
the trouble is that you are taking out a real name (German derivation) as opposed to a racial slur. If the critics were demanding you remove Huck from the book, then you’d have a fair comparison. As it is, it falls short.
Bib, that would be the theologically liberal point of view, there are several million believers who are very happy with the choices made so your point falls well short also. And the usual slur is that it has no compromise in it, so thanks for expressing the other point of view there.
If folks had given it so much publicity during his life, Twain may well have made the fortune he needed to keep his personal publishing business alive and not have been so bitter when he wrote the books atheists now laud. Certainly his earlier work was more Christian in nature. I guess, like the aging Carlin, he lost his way.
The full, unedited, unexpurgated version of Twain’s quote, lest anyone accuse me of the same stuff that publisher is doing:
“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”
The quote is from “Following The Equator.”
I was already pushing it with the smaller font size in the past two days’ strips; if I’d shrunk everything enough to fit the whole quote it would be completely unreadable.
As eldo has slyly implied: Isn’t it funny how those who worry so much about censorship jump on the banned wagon when the philosophy or religion doesn’t suit them? I believe the hypo- label would fit anyone incensed at the N ban and now saying what a good idea Mark’s is.
Sam’s point in the last panel may be true, but let’s not lose sight of which of the two words in question actually appears in the strip and which one has been blacked out. Sort of undermines the point.
Furienna, every translation is an edited version of the original.
And even if we read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, and could understand the words and expressions in the sense that the writers understood them, and it turned out to be translated accurately, the ‘repeats and inconsistencies’ and odd behavior you refer to are troubling only to moderns. Back then, people repeated things a lot to help their memories (most early Christians probably didn’t read the Bible; they had it read to them); they didn’t confuse truth with factuality the way so many do now; and madness wasn’t always thought of as a bad thing.
Here’s a book for all those with questions about the translations of the Bible. Read the book “Misquoting Jesus–the story behind who changed the Bible & why” by Bart D. Ehrman. The author, a biblical scholar, traces the Bible & shows how things get mistranslated, or changed, or even lines being omitted because a monk fell asleep while copying and missed a line or two. Or some translators, not happy with women being given prominence in the early church, changed the woman’s name to a man’s. And so on, and so on. A good read.
Thank you, scrabblefiend. I didn’t have time to get back to this discussion, but that is the book I would have recommended. Others by the same author are just as informative and enlightening.
BillThompson: not necessarily. One person’s editing can be another person’s censoring. It depends on your point of view.
aardvarkseyes almost 14 years ago
Actually, the person who suggested removing the word from Huckleberry Finn did so in the hopes that more children would read the book. As it stands, many school boards, at the behest of parents, refuse to allow the book to be taught in high schools; this seemed like a compromise that would get the book into more schools and, therefore, give it more readers. You don’t have to agree with his methods, but it would be nice to see some appreciation for his goal.
Bill Thompson almost 14 years ago
The same people who protest the book’s use of the N-word will no doubt protest the absence of the word. It isn’t the word they find objectionable, it’s Huck’s ability to think for himself and his courage to do what is right. Those are two qualities the banners fear to see in anyone.
This is one of those times when I realize how much I value Pab’s work.
Samskara almost 14 years ago
I’d like to second Ira Nayman’s comment.
cdward almost 14 years ago
BillThompson, that was my point exactly yesterday. The real reason Huck Finn has been challenged over the years is because he ultimately sees past society’s “norms,” – or sees them for what they are and challenges our assumptions about who is a real person.
That’s still a challenging theme, and those who condemn the work have chosen this one word as their reason for condemning it. As I said yesterday, I think this version is calling their bluff.
I don’t actually believe it was created just for the money - this professor is NOT going to get rich from the book. Still, such an approach would be in keeping with Twain’s general approach to life. He loved the money and freely admitted it.
librisleo almost 14 years ago
Dead to rights, Mr. Clemens!
BTW, Ira and Samskara, the entire bible is a compromise. The books included were picked and chosen, by a select few who fought amongst themselves for their favorites, and the entire work has been proven to have been edited right, left and center for centuries.
Compromise just means that no one ends up happy with the choice made.
Bill Thompson almost 14 years ago
cdward, I hope you’re right about this edition of HF being a challenge to the book-banners. Publishers don’t usually print a book that they expect to fail, but someone might have decided that the publicity would repay the costs.
Pab Sungenis creator almost 14 years ago
The comments in panel 3 are an edited (for length only) version of one of Twain’s own remarks.
Sandfan almost 14 years ago
^And those comments point out the idiocy of religious fanaticism.
Wildcard24365 almost 14 years ago
I was going to ask where to find the unedited version of that quote, but Google came through, again.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
So we substitute Jehovah or one of his other 127 names. And Christ said if it didn’t offend, it wasn’t working, much the same as Twain would say of his N_.
By the way, believers would also say you’d have to excise Jesus and Holy Spirit as they’re the same thing as God.
the trouble is that you are taking out a real name (German derivation) as opposed to a racial slur. If the critics were demanding you remove Huck from the book, then you’d have a fair comparison. As it is, it falls short.
Bib, that would be the theologically liberal point of view, there are several million believers who are very happy with the choices made so your point falls well short also. And the usual slur is that it has no compromise in it, so thanks for expressing the other point of view there.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
If folks had given it so much publicity during his life, Twain may well have made the fortune he needed to keep his personal publishing business alive and not have been so bitter when he wrote the books atheists now laud. Certainly his earlier work was more Christian in nature. I guess, like the aging Carlin, he lost his way.
Pab Sungenis creator almost 14 years ago
The full, unedited, unexpurgated version of Twain’s quote, lest anyone accuse me of the same stuff that publisher is doing:
“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”
The quote is from “Following The Equator.”
I was already pushing it with the smaller font size in the past two days’ strips; if I’d shrunk everything enough to fit the whole quote it would be completely unreadable.
jadoo823 almost 14 years ago
…I hate to pick nits, gweedo, but the great war was World War I - the Holocaust occurred in WWII…
kfaatz925 almost 14 years ago
Well said, Sam and Pab!
Spyderred almost 14 years ago
Kudos to all of the thinking people who see through the label (book banning) to the real issues underneath.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
As eldo has slyly implied: Isn’t it funny how those who worry so much about censorship jump on the banned wagon when the philosophy or religion doesn’t suit them? I believe the hypo- label would fit anyone incensed at the N ban and now saying what a good idea Mark’s is.
oscarfan almost 14 years ago
Sam’s point in the last panel may be true, but let’s not lose sight of which of the two words in question actually appears in the strip and which one has been blacked out. Sort of undermines the point.
Pab Sungenis creator almost 14 years ago
Oscar: I made the decision to black out because I didn’t want this week lost down the Fuzzy Bunny hole. I wanted to get my message across.
Plus it made for a great side-swipe joke on Monday.
prrdh almost 14 years ago
Furienna, every translation is an edited version of the original.
And even if we read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, and could understand the words and expressions in the sense that the writers understood them, and it turned out to be translated accurately, the ‘repeats and inconsistencies’ and odd behavior you refer to are troubling only to moderns. Back then, people repeated things a lot to help their memories (most early Christians probably didn’t read the Bible; they had it read to them); they didn’t confuse truth with factuality the way so many do now; and madness wasn’t always thought of as a bad thing.
3hourtour Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Pab..looks like your point is being made for you..it seems people would be very upset with taking God out of the Bible
scrabblefiend almost 14 years ago
Here’s a book for all those with questions about the translations of the Bible. Read the book “Misquoting Jesus–the story behind who changed the Bible & why” by Bart D. Ehrman. The author, a biblical scholar, traces the Bible & shows how things get mistranslated, or changed, or even lines being omitted because a monk fell asleep while copying and missed a line or two. Or some translators, not happy with women being given prominence in the early church, changed the woman’s name to a man’s. And so on, and so on. A good read.
Bill Thompson almost 14 years ago
Editing clarifies meaning. Censoring destroys meaning.
librisleo almost 14 years ago
Thank you, scrabblefiend. I didn’t have time to get back to this discussion, but that is the book I would have recommended. Others by the same author are just as informative and enlightening.
BillThompson: not necessarily. One person’s editing can be another person’s censoring. It depends on your point of view.
Pab Sungenis creator almost 14 years ago
All censoring is editing (to some degree) but not all editing is censoring.
Coyoty Premium Member almost 14 years ago
freeholder1 said, Certainly his earlier work was more Christian in nature. I guess, like the aging Carlin, he lost his way.
I’d say he found it.