Ignorance Is Not Bliss: The Cons of Censoring Huckleberry Finn
One of Mark Twain’s most recognized novels, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, first published in the United States in 1885, has encountered much controversy. Authors such as Ernest Hemingway believed Huck Finn was the defining novel in American literature, while other critics emphasized the negative aspects of the novel in the late twentieth century. These faultfinders of Huck Finn believe that the text and context consists of blatant racism and unsuitable language for children to learn. These people are particularly enraged about the usage of the N-word and how that language will impact the future behavior of the reader. An editorial covering this controversy titled “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huck Finn’ are warranted,” was published in The Lufkin Daily News on January 6, 2011. The anonymous author basically says that censorship is already accepted in our society (par. 4), and it is unacceptable for children to read the excessive use of the N-word (par. 3). So what do these critics and the editorial recommend as a solution? Censorship: erasing every usage of the N-word and replacing it with “slave.” Granted that there are over 200 N-words in the novel, censorship is the absolute wrong answer. The problem is inside the educational system, involving both students and educators that it must be addressed and resolved.
In a utopia, that derogatory word would not even enter one’s thoughts, but unfortunately, the world today is far from perfect, with every curse word seen and heard in movies, music, television and schools. If the censorship did occur, the knowledge that the original version of Huck Finn would still always be available is a comforting notion. But teaching this “sanitized” version to children does not inform them of the past. During the mid-1800’s, when the novel was set, America was a different place. It was a different social world with different social norms, and clearly not representative of current social customs. The novel should not be censored because it would taint the precise language Twain so sensitively and carefully wanted to emphasize.
Delia Lloyd is a writer based in London, whose articles have appeared in The New York Times as well as The International Herald Tribune. Lloyd previously taught political science at the University of Chicago and in January, 2011, she published an article about censorship and the N-word controversy. Lloyd insightfully asks if publishers “take the N-word out of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ … is it still ‘Huckleberry Finn’? Probably not. It is, after all, a story narrated in Huck's voice” (par. 9). It is true that censoring the text directly changes Huck’s outlook on his world in the novel as well as Twain’s purpose. This would show disrespect for such a renowned and sophisticated author.
Aside from the above problems within the controversy of censorship, the article itself is flawed. The authorless editorial from the east side of Texas uses none of the rhetorical appeals to influence the reader to follow his or her interpretation of this controversy. The argument is primarily based on opinion, and since the reader knows nothing of the author, there is no ethos or credibility available to back up the opinions. There are no facts or logical appeals that show why censorship would be the best solution. In addition, emotion and the use of pathos are not even touched on in this article.
Despite all of these faults, the writer of this editorial has a valid point that must be acknowledged. The author states the problem with the controversy over Huck Finn is that it “causes an outrage of its own [and schools] are simply not assigning them to students anymore. And that’s a shame” (“Huck”, par. 2). This author rightly acknowledges the significance of the novel but wrongly assumes that censorship will change everything. In fact, censorship of Huck Finn will cause more problems. Twain wrote this novel as a satire about the Southern way of living, and all use of language was intended for a specific purpose, including the N-word.
The author of the editorial is completely missing the point that it is essential to civilization that we learn about past wrongdoings and from our mistakes. Lloyd argues that she “thinks ‘Huckleberry Finn’ is a book about social relationships. And so to remove the language in which those relationships are couched is both historically inaccurate and distorts the meaning of the text” (par. 12). The original text should not be changed because the novel, and the text within the novel, is part of history. Lloyd continues to argue that “the only way to get Americans to deal openly and honestly with prejudice is to force students to be uncomfortable with terms that -- unpleasant though they may be -- are part and parcel of our country's blatantly racist past” (par 8). If there is no evidence to teach these students on the past uses of the word and their impacts, how will they learn not to act similarly?
In 1998, an African American parent and teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, asked to have Huck Finn removed from the reading lists, but the request was rejected by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Reinhardt ruled that “‘words can hurt, particularly racist epithets, but a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas. Without that ability, one can do little to respond to them.’ Part of learning to think critically about offensive speech is to understand the context in which it is used” (qtd. in Hentoff, par. 13-14). If Huck Finn is censored and students are not exposed to the incorrect use of the N-word, then the students will have no sense of right or wrong when it comes to understanding it in context.
The real question that should be asked is at what grade level the students are reading Huck Finn and is that the appropriate age and/or maturity level? Dr. Peaches Henry, an African American professor in the writing department at Baylor University, wrote “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn” in 1992. Henry explains the study conducted in 1983 at Pennsylvania State University as the:
contention that junior high school students lack the critical perception to successfully negotiate the satire present in the novel … [The study] left the committee convinced ‘that many students are not yet ready to understand the novel on its more complex levels.’ Therefore, although not advising expulsion of the novel, the panel recommended its removal from the ninth grade curriculum and placement in the eleventh or twelfth grade syllabus … ” (Henry)
The level of immaturity, in comparison to upperclassmen, in these ninth grade students renders them incapable of grasping the significance and horrible background of the N-word as used in the novel. The complicated situation during the time period that is the setting of the novel is not truly understood by ninth grade students because they have not learned sufficient enough American history. Also, the critical reading skills of these ninth graders are not up to par with the advanced upperclassmen and are powerless to understand the sophisticated concepts of moral statements presented in Huck Finn.
If the novel is to be taught in schools to these students, the teachers must also be aware of how sensitive this subject is to so many people. Dr. Henry states that “the volatile combination of satire, irony, and questions of race underscores an additional important facet of the controversy: teacher ability and attitude … students not only look to teachers as intellectual mentors, but turn to them for emotional and social guidance as well” (Henry). She is explaining here that the role of the teacher is vital to the successful teaching of the novel and an unprepared teacher could prove disastrous to her pupils. Dr. Henry has answers for other ways to help teachers cope with the difficult task of teaching Huck Finn. She explains that the teacher must clearly discuss the usage of the N-word before reading the novel, so as to reach a basic level of understanding with all students. Dr. Henry advises noting the racial dynamics in the classroom to better access his/her teaching process. Another idea is to bring in other novels written about slavery and intertwine them in the learning of Huck Finn (Henry). Being up front with students early on in the process can have extremely positive results in the long run.
The editorial relies on an analogy to better comprehend the need for censorship. In the last paragraph of the editorial, the author ineffectively tries to make the censorship seem appropriate by relating it to the Bible. The editorial explains how publishers release new versions with new text, but with the overall meaning remaining the same (“Huck”, par. 5). This is an ill-conceived attempt at comparison as the publishers of the Bible are only updating outdated words that would not be understood by today’s readers. The word in question in Huck Finn is understood in both times, just used improperly, and so this does not relate to the new versions of the Bible at all.
The question that comes to mind when trying to solve this controversy is where does it end? At what point do we stop cutting swear words and phrases out of a text to make it more “reader friendly” to the public? Who decides what needs to be censored or what text is harmful? If we continue to censor classic novels such as Huck Finn, we as Americans will lose an essential part of our history forever.
Works Cited
Henry, Peaches. “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn.”
Teaching Huck Finn: The Controversy and the Challenge. n.pag., 1992. Web. 28 Feb
2011.
Hentoff, Nat. “Expelling ‘Huck Finn.’” 27 Nov 1999. SUNYSB. Web. 20 Mar 2011.
“Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted.” Lufkin
Daily News. 6 Jan 2011. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Lloyd, Delia. “Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy.” Politics Daily. 6 Jan 2011.
Web. 28 Feb 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment