DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:40 pm**

jpanimation wrote:
Goliath wrote: I agree, but this doesn't only go for works that have been made a long time ago. Sometimes the "n-word" (or other racist, anti-semitic or mysogynist words) are used in a movie to tell the viewer something about what kind of character we're dealing with. What if we would edit them all out? The meaning would go missing. And it would deprive us of some very funny dialogue, like this part in Pulp Fiction:

Jimmie: Did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said "Dead Nigger Storage"?
Jules: [pause] No. I didn't.
Jimmie: You know WHY you didn't see that sign?
Jules: Why?
Jimmie: 'Cause it ain't there, 'cause storing dead niggers ain't my fucking business, that's why!
Not only do I love that scene but your point is perfectly realized with it. Huck Finn is an uneducated child who lives in the south during a different era. He's not supposed to sound like George Sanders, that is not who he is and that's not who the dialogue was written for.

That's just it. The book isn't a product of its time as much as its reflecting the people and attitudes in the time in which the sotry takes place. This is literally the rewriting of history.

On the other hand I can see how people would be sensitive to the language in the book. Should it be required reading? Maybe not. Should it be banned or censored? Definitely not.

I can see wanting a version that is milder for children. Espeically if you are reading it aloud. At least kids could still get to know the story and experience Mark Twain for themselves. Then keep original version copies in the library for anyone who wants to read it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:13 pm**

enigmawing wrote:"But in 1980, the censors crawled out of the woodwork, seemingly overnight, organized and determined.

I wouldn't say "overnight". Nixon had already cited the so-called 'silent majority' of people, who supposedly were fed-up with the societal changes of the 1960's (with its looser -sexual- morals and attack on authority), as the kind of people whom he represented. Then in 1980, Reagan got elected with the help of the far-right evangelical crowd. That's when they came out of the woodwork and we've seen all these attacks on education. Because I don't see it an an attack at just a book or some books, but an attack on what education is supposed to be about: to teach children to question the world; question what they see, hear and read. And a *lot* of people are vehemently opposed to that.

... And people still wonder why the US consistenly ranks at the bottom of developed nations when it comes to education.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:21 am**

I really can't stand parents who work themselves up over supposedly "offensive" material and call for books to be banned, thereby ruining the educational experience for everybody else. If these parents are so easily offended by things that challenge their worldview, then why don't they just have their children homeschooled?

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:35 pm**

Ok, first off, just a single publisher is wanting to do this. There are still plenty of versions with the original text intact. Second, the book is and has been for sometime, in the public domain. Meaning, anyone can come out with any version that they want and it is perfectly legal, even if Mr. Twain didn't approve. I don't remember anyone getting all fussed up after almost porn style versions of "Peter Pan," "The Wizard of Oz," and Alice in Wonderland" started popping up after each of those works lost their copy rights.

I think, we get so caught up with "freedom of speech," we sometimes end up becoming the vary thing we hate and limit other's speech, or we seem ok with changes to original works so long as they fit how we see the world. Then it is ok. It begs the question, is it starting to become PC to not be PC? I think on this issue, as with any other book or film, I say why can't we have both? This ridiculous thing where we force a single version of any entrainment choice on others is not good for our society, and causes a lot of fights that we really don't need to have.

Why can't we take the moderate approach to this and allow both original and "sanitized" version of any entertainment choice, book, movie, music or even video game, exist? How will your day to day life sudden get worse becuase some guy on the other side of the country is reading "Huck Finn" sans "N" word? Or visa versa. Why do we feel the need to force things on to other people and tell them how they will enjoy something? I say as long as the original still exists, what is so wrong about this? I mean the Bible defiantly has been altered and changed to fit different group's thinking and is still being altered. Why can't this?

We as a society need to be a bit more rational when ever words like "sanitized" or "edited" are used and not act like the Apocalypse is upon us. I think "adults" can accepts other people's views and allowing each person to read or watch as they wish. But so far, that does not seem to be what I see, which is sad.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:51 pm**

milojthatch wrote:This ridiculous thing where we force a single version of any entrainment choice on others is not good for our society, and causes a lot of fights that we really don't need to have.

Since it's safe to assume that the censored version of this particular book is intended for school-aged children, how accessable would the unaltered version be? Who gets to decide what version to teach? What are the consequences of obbjections to the decision of a particular version? Aren't new problems created when censored versions become the "single version"?

Also if new editions can be made so easily, why not have a version that features a note at the begining stating why one of the greatest authors in US history chose to use such language and discourage it? It's something I feel teachers should do anyway, but it's a possibility.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:53 pm**

milojthatch wrote: I think on this issue, as with any other book or film, I say why can't we have both?

Why can't we take the moderate approach to this and allow both original and "sanitized" version of any entertainment choice, book, movie, music or even video game, exist?

I say as long as the original still exists, what is so wrong about this?

That's all fine, but as far as it applies to the school, the original should be taught or not at all. Education should be about the real thing, not somebody's manipulated version of it. The shock of the words to a modern audience is part of the process--to realize that, yes, once upon a time it was okay and accepted to be this degrading. It also helps to see the subtle ways in which discrimination is internalized by a society, and the ways in which it still occurs today. To be adults, students should have to digest reality and not a sugar-coated version of it.

Of course, it's fine for adults out-of-school to read whichever version they want, whether or not the original authors would feel they're missing the point.

I mean the Bible defiantly has been altered and changed to fit different group's thinking and is still being altered.

Which is a whole 'nother discussion itself... *sigh* (not meant as a snub, but as a "that's so crazy for a religious text to be altered" sentiment).

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:10 pm**

milojthatch wrote:I mean the Bible defiantly has been altered and changed to fit different group's thinking and is still being altered. Why can't this?

I think this is a whole different issue in itself. We are translating from one language to another. As easy as that sounds, not all words, phrases, or sentences have exact translations into English for example. Works like the Odyssey for example have been translated into English many times by many different people. Same goes for the Bible. That's not the same as taking the original Greek text of the Odyssey and editing for Greek readers.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:22 pm**

The_Iceflash wrote: I think this is a whole different issue in itself. We are translating from one language to another. As easy as that sounds, not all words, phrases, or sentences have exact translations into English for example. Works like the Odyssey for example have been translated into English many times by many different people. Same goes for the Bible. That's not the same as taking the original Greek text of the Odyssey and editing for Greek readers.

I'm sure he means an editing of the Bible (such as one I remember there being a topic in this forum for a while back), not just a translation.

Posted: **Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:03 pm**

eeewww, censorship.

I read the book when I was 15, and I dont go around spouting "n*****" at any time of day.

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:08 pm**

milojthatch wrote:[...] Why can't we take the moderate approach to this and allow both original and "sanitized" version of any entertainment choice, book, movie, music or even video game, exist?

Okay, even though I had vowed never to speak to you again, I still want to adress this, because it seems so obvious to me, that I'm astounded that anybody would ever even ask this question.

So here goes: why don't we have 'sanitized' versions of all books/movies/songs etc.? Because that would completely negate the reason why those media even came into existence. An artist has a meaning with everything he makes, and to censor and/or sanitize it takes away that meaning. Why would an artist make anything when he knows it will be distributed in a sanitized version too? He shouldn't bother anymore, because he already knows the expression of his artistic vision will be raped and murdered, just to please the puritans.

Just look at my example from Pulp Fiction. The way characters talk, says something about them. What if they were talking like this: "Do you understand English, my dear boy?" instead of: "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!" The whole meaning would change. And that goes for all media. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the world of difference even one altered word can make, I'm afraid you'll never grasp how essential it is to leave literature intact.

milojthatch wrote:How will your day to day life sudden get worse becuase some guy on the other side of the country is reading "Huck Finn" sans "N" word?

Because it violates a kid's right to a decent education. Kids need to be able to have access to original literature to understand the world and the past.

milojthatch wrote:Why do we feel the need to force things on to other people and tell them how they will enjoy something? I say as long as the original still exists, what is so wrong about this?

But nobody is forcing you to watch any movie, read any book, or listen to any song you don't like. Well, yes, school is the only exception, where they 'force' you to read books. Yeah, guess what, kids need to have an education. So, yeah, but outside school, who has ever forced you to watch or listen to anything when you didn't want to?

milojthatch wrote:We as a society need to be a bit more rational when ever words like "sanitized" or "edited" are used and not act like the Apocalypse is upon us. I think "adults" can accepts other people's views and allowing each person to read or watch as they wish. But so far, that does not seem to be what I see, which is sad.

You want artists to adapt to puritans' standards. That's the world upside down. Puritans should simply not watch/read/listen to creative outlets of they are too immature to handle grown-up materials.

Imagine of somebody, 50 years from now, decided to re-write Bob Dylan's song Idiot Wind, because he thought it was too hurtful...

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:53 pm**

Goliath wrote: I wouldn't say "overnight". Nixon had already cited the so-called 'silent majority' of people, who supposedly were fed-up with the societal changes of the 1960's (with its looser -sexual- morals and attack on authority), as the kind of people whom he represented. Then in 1980, Reagan got elected with the help of the far-right evangelical crowd. That's when they came out of the woodwork and we've seen all these attacks on education. Because I don't see it an an attack at just a book or some books, but an attack on what education is supposed to be about: to teach children to question the world; question what they see, hear and read. And a *lot* of people are vehemently opposed to that.

... And people still wonder why the US consistenly ranks at the bottom of developed nations when it comes to education.

That's interesting you say that, cause Japan, one of the top ranking in education, put assload of censorship and misinformation when it comes to WWII information or anything remotely involved with any history between Them and China and/or Korea. The Chinese are even piss off at Japan about it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:49 am**

As a parent...I get so disgusted by other parents for crap like this.

Least the ORIGINAL book will still be available. But the blatant idiocy going through these morons' heads is really disturbing. Sometimes I think citizens are given too much control over the masses.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:36 pm**

@ those of you who (rightfully) object to the editing/censoring of 'Huckleberry Finn': you're all gonna LOOOOOOOVE this segment from Jon Stewart's Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... ontroversy

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:08 pm**

Watch out Mel Brooks, the censorship nazis are coming after you next!

"And for my next impression, Jesse Owens!" *takes off running*

DVDizzy Forum

New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the 'n' word