Original version of Huckleberry Finn censored.

[kstater]

I'm gonna be in the minority here. Don't like it,don't buy it. I'm sure there is still unedited copies out there.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by kstater

I'm gonna be in the minority here. Don't like it,don't buy it. I'm sure there is still unedited copies out there.

Again as I said in the REAL thread, I'm OK with it, so long as it's titled 'Huckleberry Finn' by NewSouth Books, based on the novel 'Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Again as I said in the REAL thread, I'm OK with it, so long as it's titled 'Huckleberry Finn' by NewSouth Books, based on the novel 'Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain.

Heh. That's fair enough.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by kstater

I'm gonna be in the minority here. Don't like it,don't buy it. I'm sure there is still unedited copies out there.

Not just unedited copies out there (ie, old publications)... but all of the new ones that are published now that aren't published by this one company... have the original text.

It's one selected publisher making this alternate edition available for younger readers.

[DBOSHO]

I wonder why brock hasnt shown back up. This is old news right?

[jAZ]

Ummm... settle down bevis.

It's a book out of copyright and an author/publisher who sees a market opportunity to sell books to people who don't use the book (but would otherwise) because of the language.

It's just one optional alternate version. It's not like it's the only version that will be published.

[Baby Lee]

.

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert

"I'd rather be called a N***** than a Slave."

FTR - Rog has apologized and admitted he'd rather be called neither.

[LaChapelle]

The power of Whitlock

[jAZ]

Anyone upset about this should be furious with the Congress for removing references to slavery in their reading of the Constitution yesterday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

House Reading Amended Slavery-Free Constitution This Morning
Evan McMorris-Santoro | January 6, 2011, 10:44AM

Members of the House of Representatives, led by their new Republican majority, will kick off the 112th Congress this morning with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. The reading is largely a political maneuver, so it's no real surprise that the Constitution you'll hear read on C-SPAN this morning will be the politically correct version.

It's fairly likely that no elected politician wants to stand up and read aloud the Founder's vision of African Americans as equaling three-fifths of a white person, so the GOP has decided to leave that part, and others, out when the Constitution is read today.

From The Daily Caller:

Instead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.

The reading of the Constitution on the House floor has never been done before, and it's only happening today thanks to the tea party. Throughout the campaign last year, "returning to the Constitution" (in a vague and largely undefined way) was sacred to the tea party, and supporters of reading the document aloud today seem to hope that hearing the words in the House chamber will cause members to adhere to the document more closely.

Democrats and Republicans are expected to participate in the reading, but not all members of Congress think it's a worthy use of their time.

From a Washington Post interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY):

Nadler called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
"You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it," he said.

Whatever the motivation of the supporters of reading the Constitution today, it's clear that politics is playing a major factor in what's being read. So, what won't you hear about in the version of the Constitution entered into the Congressional record today? The DC's Chris Moody offers this rundown:

The Constitution contains nine parts that were later changed -- including an entire amendment, the 18th, which banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol -- which will be left out of Thursday's reading. The omitted sections, which do not apply to the 112th Congress, include the so-called "three-fifths clause," the election of senators by state legislatures and the original process outlined for electing the vice president.

On MSNBC's "Last Word" Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who's the man in charge of the reading today, defended the scheme -- and the decision to leave out some of the words written by the Founders.

From the transcript:

[Show host Lawrence] O'DONNELL: So, we've established that this was a document written by men, fallible men, who made some grievous--in the case of slavery--grievous mistakes. Why is it that you think we need to somehow return to what? A literal interpretation of the Constitution or some flexible interpretation, or a flexible interpretation that is determinative--something that can be determined only by Republicans?

GOODLATTE: No, I think that what we should return to is a debate in the Congress that looks at the Constitution and looks for a foundation for any laws that the Congress adopts. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And the Constitution is the foundation for those laws.

And so, we think that a lot of times today, members of Congress introduce a bill because they think it's a great thing. And it might be a wonderful thing, but it may not at all be what was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a part of our federal government, as opposed to what our states do or what we as individuals do in a free country.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Anyone upset about this should be furious with the Congress for removing references to slavery in their reading of the Constitution yesterday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

House Reading Amended Slavery-Free Constitution This Morning
Evan McMorris-Santoro | January 6, 2011, 10:44AM

Members of the House of Representatives, led by their new Republican majority, will kick off the 112th Congress this morning with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. The reading is largely a political maneuver, so it's no real surprise that the Constitution you'll hear read on C-SPAN this morning will be the politically correct version.

It's fairly likely that no elected politician wants to stand up and read aloud the Founder's vision of African Americans as equaling three-fifths of a white person, so the GOP has decided to leave that part, and others, out when the Constitution is read today.

From The Daily Caller:

Instead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.

The reading of the Constitution on the House floor has never been done before, and it's only happening today thanks to the tea party. Throughout the campaign last year, "returning to the Constitution" (in a vague and largely undefined way) was sacred to the tea party, and supporters of reading the document aloud today seem to hope that hearing the words in the House chamber will cause members to adhere to the document more closely.

Democrats and Republicans are expected to participate in the reading, but not all members of Congress think it's a worthy use of their time.

From a Washington Post interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY):

Nadler called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
"You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it," he said.

Whatever the motivation of the supporters of reading the Constitution today, it's clear that politics is playing a major factor in what's being read. So, what won't you hear about in the version of the Constitution entered into the Congressional record today? The DC's Chris Moody offers this rundown:

The Constitution contains nine parts that were later changed -- including an entire amendment, the 18th, which banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol -- which will be left out of Thursday's reading. The omitted sections, which do not apply to the 112th Congress, include the so-called "three-fifths clause," the election of senators by state legislatures and the original process outlined for electing the vice president.

On MSNBC's "Last Word" Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who's the man in charge of the reading today, defended the scheme -- and the decision to leave out some of the words written by the Founders.

From the transcript:

[Show host Lawrence] O'DONNELL: So, we've established that this was a document written by men, fallible men, who made some grievous--in the case of slavery--grievous mistakes. Why is it that you think we need to somehow return to what? A literal interpretation of the Constitution or some flexible interpretation, or a flexible interpretation that is determinative--something that can be determined only by Republicans?

GOODLATTE: No, I think that what we should return to is a debate in the Congress that looks at the Constitution and looks for a foundation for any laws that the Congress adopts. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And the Constitution is the foundation for those laws.

And so, we think that a lot of times today, members of Congress introduce a bill because they think it's a great thing. And it might be a wonderful thing, but it may not at all be what was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a part of our federal government, as opposed to what our states do or what we as individuals do in a free country.

And jAZ in with the mid-course correction to DC!

[stevieray]

rap will take up the slack...because after all, it's only a bad word for some, but not everyone.

I agree with BL's take...if you're going to modify the original, own it.

[fan4ever]

[QUOTE=stevieray;7328538]rap will take up the slack...because after all, it's only a bad word for some, but not everyone.QUOTE]

Exactly, everyone's in an uproar over something that rap music has already taken care of; when kids read that Jim is Huck Finn's n*gger, they'll just assume he's part of Huck's posse. A total non-issue.

[JD10367]

Sometimes this country really sucks.

Imagine if they tried to rerun some of the original "Saturday Night Live" shows?

Like the one with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor hurling slurs.

"Honky."

"N****r."

"DEAD honky."

[Sannyasi]

I am against the bowdlerizing of a classic novel on principle, however I don't really see this being that big of an issue. Proper, uncensored versions of the novel will still be available, and even the people who choose to read the censored novel will know perfectly well they are getting the PC edition.