FROMONLINE | 2011-01-09

  • by Tami Lange
  • January 9, 2011
  • 281
                        
Language is in the news again – which either is an indicator it is a slow news week or that words actually still carry weight in our LOL, tx, btw society. The word of the day is one I am sure the publishers of this newspaper would rather I not use, so we’ll refer to it euphemistically as “The N word.” It was a word that once was pretty widely used, like it or not, to describe blacks in America. It wasn’t derogatory so much as it was descriptive. And so it was that Mark Twain used it in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and “the Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” Some people, including at least one publishing house, feel these three American classics would be best enjoyed by all the huddled masses if the N-word were replaced by “slave. Really? I assume that when I refer to the word in question as “the N-word” you know the word of which I write. So it seems silly that I have to refer to it as “the N word” to begin with, as if adding the other five letters would turn the world upside down. It’s like saying the “cancer” in a whisper, as if dropping your voice would somewhat lessen the impact of the disease The “N word” was a word not unacceptable in Twain’s time, the same way “colored” was acceptable in my grandmother’s time and “Negro” was acceptable in my mother’s time. I was raised to refer to people as “black” or “white.” I understand African American is now better, though I have not, to my knowledge, ever been referred to as a Caucasian American. While it may seem both “Tom Sawyer” and “Huck Finn” are childrens’ classics, they are not. Twain himself said both were written solely for adults. I read “Huck Finn” in college, so reading the “N word” more than 200 times didn’t bother me at all. After all, the book was anti-racist – calling the character “N” Jim just seemed a bit ironic. What was important about the book were the themes, the character, the satire. My initial response to removing the “N word” from the book was to be offended. You just do not mess with a classic. It would be like putting a pair of jeans on the sculpture of David or writing a happy ending for “Romeo and Juliet.” But then I thought of all the readers who have never been exposed to “Huck Finn” because of the language – or more specifically because of one word in the language. Words are not timeless. Words that are derogatory today were not always used in that way. Think of the word once used to mean a bundle of sticks or the word once used to mean a nearly burned out cigarette. Now think of why I am not going to use either one of those words in print. Should one lousy word ruin the entire novel? Does the work still stand with the word removed? Printing a new “N word-less” edition of “Huck Finn” does not mean were completely getting rid of the original. I find a good deal of The King James Bible difficult to understand, not because of the concepts, but because of the antiquated language. Updating that language for the modern reader doesn’t make the miracles of Christ any less miraculous, nor does it detract from the beauty of The Psalms. The beauty of the friendship that is central to “Huck Finn” is not diminished by removing the “N-word.” The history of race relations in America can be discussed without getting sidetracked by a word. Maybe it makes it a little more politically correct, but it does not change the characters, nor does it change the plot, nor does it change the outcome. It just takes away some of the controversy, so that it can be accessible to so me who may not have considered it before. I’ll still read the original. But if more people find the new version more accessible without an objectionable word, so much the better. Wooster Weekly News columnist Tami Lange can be reached via e-mail at tam108@hotmail.com. .


Loading next article...

End of content

No more pages to load