The Politically Correct Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

I hope, that wherever Mark Twain hangs out in the afterlife, he has somehow managed to avoid hearing about the latest crime against literature - not least because it involves his own master-piece. Would he be rolling in his grave, I wonder? Or simply rolling his eyes like I am?

If you haven't already been linked to one of the many articles detailing this story, I'll outline briefly: In Professor Alan Gribben's new edition of the classic (publishing under NewSouth Books), some 219 instances of the word 'nigger' will be replaced with the word 'slave'. They also plan to replace the colloquial 'injun' with 'indian'. 

Far be it for me to keep my mouth shut. 

I hold great affection for Huckleberry Finn - and though that affection was originally born out of gratitude (it was one of the only assigned texts for an American literature course that didn't make me want to put my head through a wall), I grew to love it for the incredible work that it was. 

So needless to say, I would always have had opinions - loud opinions - about altering such a classic. More than that though, I believe the decision represents a much deeper problem within society today. 

Huckleberry Finn is an anti-racist book. Twain deliberately used the offensive terminology to give his readers a very stark view of racial attitude in the 1800's. Huck begins his fictional journey by befriending slave Jim while both running away from the same town. Huck's main motivation for escape is that his guardian intends to 'sivilize' him - Jim simply doesn't want to be sold and plans to buy his family out of slavery. Throughout the story, the characters become firm friends and through verbalising his troubled life, Jim radically alters Huck's view on race, slavery and life in general. If ever there were a more blatant message of anti-racism portrayed in a novel, I have not read it. 

The act of replacing the terminology, is far more offensive than the words themselves. Not only are NewSouth Books putting new words into the mouth of a dead man, they are doing so under the thinly veiled guise of 'updating'. Forgive my cynicism, but I suspect it has far more to do with sales. Consider this: 

Our world stock of literary classics are fair game, which is why most large publishing houses have their own editions. No one publisher has the rights - allowing a variety of texts to be published with different branding, introductions and notes - effectively, giving a consumer the widest of choices. They will inevitably chose the edition which best suits their needs - whether that is making a book-shelf look well rounded and chic, or obtaining the most comprehensive scholarly annotations for course purposes. It's a happy position to be in if you're a customer. Not so much, if you're a publisher competing with everyone else. Because of the racial connotations in Twain's work, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been banned in hundreds of schools across the world. A tragedy for teachers who long to place the master-piece on the curriculum, but a potential gold-mine for the publisher who dares to alter history. Under this new edition, constrictions within these schools may be lifted for Huck and Jim - in fact the text may well be adopted and taught annually. There is scope for a good year of high sales targets here before the rest of the publishing world eventually gives in and follows suit. My Lord, I hope the rest of them have a little more integrity. 

So would that not be worth it? To have younger students studying a book which I, myself have described as incredible? 

No. It would definitely not be worth the sacrifice on a variety of different levels - the very least of which is the equivalent of scribbling on the Mona Lisa. What I would most like to know, is why this particular book? Why now? And where on earth will it end?

Peter Griffin and Huck Griffin - Family Guy

If we accept that the potential for offense is an acceptable reason for censorship, where do we draw that line? Russel Brand certainly wouldn't have a publisher. Jimmy Carr wouldn't be allowed to make rape victims the butt of his jokes. Family Guy would become a children's cartoon - one which did not mercilessly mock race, gender, disability, disease, obesity and a further list of categories so long I can't possibly remember all of them. And here's the exasperating issue - all of the above seek to mock. Twain sought to educate. As funny as I find Family Guy, I still know which is less offensive. 

And this word - this abhorrent word, which causes so much offense... "The 'n' word." Or simply the term 'nigger' to anyone not terrified of uttering a pronounceable group of letters, is now one of the most popular lyrical additions to rap albums world-wide. Films, books and music all still continue to include it - is it acceptable if it's said by the 'cool kids'? To mock and to glamorize is fine, but to use this word to outline racial attitude and drive home the realities of slavery and oppression is not? 

To edit Twain's book is criminal. To take his story out of its context and claim to have updated it is to have missed his message entirely. It's also an attempt at re-writing history among pages we have no right to edit. Not since Baa Baa Black Sheep was officially condemned and re-taught as Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep have I been this incensed about todays absurd obsession with political correctness.

Avoid this edition like the literary plague it is, people. We'll be sorry if we don't.