the "N" word to be removed from Huck Finn

Er, thanks.

 

Unless they are reading different translations because they speak different languages.

Just being pedantic.

:2thumbsup:

 

I'll answer it anyway... lol

That is actually one of those hard things, seems some languages literally don't have some words...

However, if it is being translated as it was written, in a case such as huck finn, to show that those at the time were using hateful, demeaning language and thought EVEN towards their friends then it is fine...

It is if it gets translated to take that part of the story away, to make it seem like those at the time didn't use such language, that it isn't.

 

You could inflate a balloon and fly across the Atlantic on the overheated rhetoric in this thread. I've never seen so much absurd hyberbole and bombast.

But now you know who to call if you ever need a molehill turned into Mount Everest.

 

I prefer to think of it as being sure a skin lesion doesn't turn into a full blown melanoma.

 

Original word, +footnotes to explain EXACTLY what it means and it's EXACT connotations

 

i agree that this is entirely motivated by profit. This version isn't going to be marketed towards the individual that shops at the local bookstore, it is going to be sold in bulk to schools all across the world. The publishers of this version of the book will make a killing from it.

it is not only a book, it is a great work of literature that will survive past the point when all of us will live and die. It is a book that is mandatory reading in most schools and therefore it is a work that buries itself in the collective consciousness of young, impressionable students everywhere. If most schools adapt this version, that means that future generations of students will not grasp the entire complexity of the theme of this work. The book will no longer provide the valuable history lesson that the original version teaches.

 

Jesus wept....

And so it goes.

 

Most schools won't. If you are saying this book is mandatory in most schools...then why would they wish to adapt the original if they are happy to and can have the original "un-censored" version?
Isn't it true the book is banned in primiary schools not secondary schools?

Tom, I'm sorry that you feel that the endless versions/adaptions etc of great works of literature is somehow a crime of epic proportions and a kick in the teeth to the authors. But I don't feel that way. That's what it boils down too. If it is good enough for the RSC it's good enough for me.

 

Even though we disagree on pretty much everything, I had always held out hope that you actually spoke this stuff because it was what YOU thought...

Now that I realize that I was wrong, and you are just following along, I'll leave you to it...

 

Following along?

Do you mean: "If it is good enough for the RSC it's good enough for me."?

I'm basically cutting a long ramble down to the fact that even the RSC see merit in adapting and allowing differing versions of Shakespear to be on their stage and in print.
We can argue all day and night...
The fact is there is merit in both our arguments.
It isn't always a crime. It isn't always wrong.

You seem to be dismissing this as "for profit" and ignoring any merit it might have. Which ultimately will not get us anywhere in this discussion.

I'll leave you to it too.

 

I have no idea, but I would assume if the book was solely banned at secondary schools that would render a new version completely pointless, given that the subject matter itself, and not solely the language choice, is too complex and mature for younger children.

 

I think this is how many people wish to see it:

Huckleberry finn BANNED in some primary schools and some other schools.

 

That's just not true odon.

 

What's not true?

 

Uuuuuhhhhhhhh... what you just said...

 

I wanted you to be specific. I wondered if you thought I was speaking "in general" or about all those in apposition to the new version.

 

Do you act like this in real life conversations?

 

Act like what? Trying to clarify what people mean?
No, I just constantly shout as loud as I can: "You fucking wanker", obviously.

 

I'll take that as a yes.

Just to clarify what I meant when I said, "that's not true-what you just said" I was refering to the thing that you just said in the post immediately before what I said, and I was insinuating that it wasn't true, or to be precise that I, for one, disagreed with it. Is that clear enough for you?

The onus is now upon you to defend your position on that particular statement by providing some evidence to justify it.