Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Rosa's Law or How much PC is too much PC?

191012141520

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    The reason Twain was refers to Jim as a n*gger constantly throughout the book is that he's contrasting the common, dehumanizing slur for black people with the fundamental humanity that huck observes in Jim. We don't really observe Jim in a book; we only see him as a runaway, and one that interacts with relatively few white people. The book isn't really even about slavery per se, it's about the pervasive view that black people were inferior that Huck even in his relatively sheltered state has been socialized into, his observations of its contradictions, and his eventual rejection of it. If you change the language to make the assumed inferiority of blacks less obvious, you lessen the impact of the book.

    ed: no, the term is not interchangeable with slave; it wasn't then and it isn't now. We can, for example, freely type one word on this board, and not the other.

    One would think this would be obvious.

    And referring to him and other black people as "slaves" suddenly negates all that?

    If you think that its at all the same I question your value in a literary discussion.

    sig.jpg
  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    You're being obtuse.

    The words quite simply are not the same words, they have different meanings, and connotations.

    Then this should be easy.

    Unless, of course, Twain's work is more then simple wordplay, being a satire through plot and characterization.

    Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig already addressed this a few posts up.

    You're asking for stupid irrelevant hoops to be jumped through. You want to take out the words that make your ears hurt and replace them with words that mean something else entirely.

    :lol:

    You can't, can you?

    :lol:

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    I see you also can't give any harm from this change, preferring to go with six degrees of Kevin Censorship.

    So you know how to write huck fin better than the guy who wrote it?

    Irrelevant. Not only is it stupid to assume that writers are perfect (thereby eliminating the need for editors, which Twain used the services of), but nobody's trying to rewrite the book, but simply sub one word. Now, show the harm or stop bitching.

    But its clear "slave" and "n
    " don't mean the same thing. You're changing meaning. This assumes you know better. Can you write Huck Fin better than Tom Sawyer.
    Start using the n-word, and then tell the mod that it's foolery to edit your post.

    Shrod, you're a smart guy, don't be this dumb.

    Find me one passage of thew book in which the meaning, message, or significance is changed by the substitution. Just one.

    You're being obtuse.

    The words quite simply are not the same words, they have different meanings, and connotations.

    Then this should be easy.

    Unless, of course, Twain's work is more then simple wordplay, being a satire through plot and characterization.

    Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig already addressed this a few posts up.

    You're asking for stupid irrelevant hoops to be jumped through. You want to take out the words that make your ears hurt and replace them with words that mean something else entirely.

    :lol:

    You can't, can you?

    :lol:

    Should I just repeat what people have already posted at you or are you going to be a petulant child?

    sig.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    :lol:

    You can't, can you?

    :lol:

    I'm not sitting here with the text in front of me, so no, I can't.

    What does this prove, precisely?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    The reason Twain was refers to Jim as a n*gger constantly throughout the book is that he's contrasting the common, dehumanizing slur for black people with the fundamental humanity that huck observes in Jim. We don't really observe Jim as a slave in the book; we only see him as a runaway, and one that interacts with relatively few white people. The book isn't really even about slavery per se, it's about the pervasive view that black people were inferior that Huck even in his relatively sheltered state has been socialized into, his observations of its contradictions, and his eventual rejection of it. If you change the language to make the assumed inferiority of blacks less obvious, you lessen the impact of the book.

    ed: no, the term is not interchangeable with slave; it wasn't then and it isn't now. We can, for example, freely type one word on this board, and not the other.

    One would think this would be obvious.

    It seems like this proposal is only being made in the South. I don't live in the South, but I'm guessing that a lot of people there still use the n-word on a very casual basis. It's not something that necessarily needs to be "taught."

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    :lol:

    You can't, can you?

    :lol:

    I'm not sitting here with the text in front of me, so no, I can't.

    What does this prove, precisely?

    http://www.literature.org/authors/twain-mark/huckleberry/

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    :lol:

    You can't, can you?

    :lol:

    I'm not sitting here with the text in front of me, so no, I can't.

    What does this prove, precisely?

    That he's just being a goose holding his fingers in his ears.

    sig.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    But okay, let's fucking spell it out, since apparently that's necessary.

    Slave isn't a substitute because the point isn't that slaves are inferior, it's that black people are. There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time Huck Finn is set, and white society didn't think any more highly of them just because they were emancipated.

    Calling him "Slave Jim" instead implies that his inferiority is a product of his enslavement, not of his natural condition as a black person. It's not even close to the same thing.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    But okay, let's fucking spell it out, since apparently that's necessary.

    Slave isn't a substitute because the point isn't that slaves are inferior, it's that black people are. There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time Huck Finn is set, and white society didn't think any more highly of them just because they were emancipated.

    Calling him "Slave Jim" instead implies that his inferiority is a product of his enslavement, not of his natural condition as a black person. It's not even close to the same thing.

    And the entire plot doesn't do that? His father ranting about "free slaves" voting as if black people are slaves regardless of status doesn't do that?

    Edit: that's why I need a passage. You keep claiming that there is a loss that should be easy to demonstrate but which you refuse to actually demonstrate.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    But okay, let's fucking spell it out, since apparently that's necessary.

    Slave isn't a substitute because the point isn't that slaves are inferior, it's that black people are. There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time Huck Finn is set, and white society didn't think any more highly of them just because they were emancipated.

    Calling him "Slave Jim" instead implies that his inferiority is a product of his enslavement, not of his natural condition as a black person. It's not even close to the same thing.

    Obviously, slavery and race were completely unrelated.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    sig.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    sig.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    sig.jpg
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    I listened to Louis CK rip this apart for a half hour this morning. It was brilliant. It was on a radio show and he had a black caller challenge him that it should be changed. Then Louie asked him "Well, what about Roots. Should we go back and remove it from Roots too?" "No." "No? What's so different between the two of them?" Then fucking silence for like 20 seconds. "Nothing. You got me. You're right. Leave it alone."

    Edit: I might be able to pull the audio of this if anyone is interested.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because then it is not Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn edited by people he choose and agreed with their edits, which is how literature is made, not in a personal vacuum but with people reading over the work, commenting on it, and advising the writer how they think it might be improved.

    Instead it becomes agentk13's adaptation of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Teaching schoolchildren that ones altered version of someones work is the original work is being intellectually dishonest.

    I thought the whole point of teaching this work was to teach people not to use words to label people but to see them as individuals.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Very interested Justin, very. Please let us know what show this was at least.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    Who the hell is changing the story? This is a change in one case of word choice, much less than what most editors do. Sometimes editors will eliminate whole chapters, let alone paragraphs. If you think this is changing the story, show me a passage where the word change in any way effects the narrative, or do you consider substantiating arguments to also meat the definition of "censorship?"

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    Who the hell is changing the story? This is a change in one case of word choice, much less than what most editors do. Sometimes editors will eliminate whole chapters, let alone paragraphs. If you think this is changing the story, show me a passage where the word change in any way effects the narrative, or do you consider substantiating arguments to also meat the definition of "censorship?"

    Ah but I didn't say that. You claim better judgment on which word to use than Mark Twain though.

    And you should probably stop acting like the two words mean the same thing. Its silly.

    sig.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Teaching schoolchildren that ones altered version of someones work is the original work is being intellectually dishonest.

    Is anyone actually doing this?

    And Mark Twain was writing for a different audience. In his time, the n-word was okay. In this time, it isn't. Ergo, it's not really a question of "Does Agent know better than Mark Twain."

    Of course, on that note, does RLM know how to write Star Wars better than George Lucas?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Teaching schoolchildren that ones altered version of someones work is the original work is being intellectually dishonest.

    Is anyone actually doing this?

    And Mark Twain was writing for a different audience. In his time, the n-word was okay. In this time, it isn't. Ergo, it's not really a question of "Does Agent know better than Mark Twain."

    Of course, on that note, does RLM know how to write Star Wars better than George Lucas?

    The point is it isn't ok.

    sig.jpg
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Very interested Justin, very. Please let us know what show this was at least.

    It was on Opie and Anthony this morning between 9:30-10. Which is replaying right now. If you have SiriusXM, switch to 202 in about 8 or 9 minutes.

  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Teaching schoolchildren that ones altered version of someones work is the original work is being intellectually dishonest.

    Is anyone actually doing this?

    And Mark Twain was writing for a different audience. In his time, the n-word was okay. In this time, it isn't. Ergo, it's not really a question of "Does Agent know better than Mark Twain."

    Of course, on that note, does RLM know how to write Star Wars better than George Lucas?

    Yes.

    Of course, there are trained chimps who can do better Star Wars than modern Lucas, so...

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I listened to Louis CK rip this apart for a half hour this morning. It was brilliant. It was on a radio show and he had a black caller challenge him that it should be changed. Then Louie asked him "Well, what about Roots. Should we go back and remove it from Roots too?" "No." "No? What's so different between the two of them?" Then fucking silence for like 20 seconds. "Nothing. You got me. You're right. Leave it alone."

    Edit: I might be able to pull the audio of this if anyone is interested.

    Well, one differences is that in Roots, you identify with the black characters, where as in Huck Finn, you identify with the white characters.

    The other difference is that reading is an active medium, where as film is an passive medium.

    So if you're a black kid, it's probably a lot more disturbing to read from the perspective of a nice white kid casually referring to black people as the n-word, as opposed to Roots, where the person using the n-word are clearly depicted as monsters.

    Now, this has another affect. Which is that it convinces people that non-monsters are non-racist. Ron Paul writes racist newsletters, but he's never been recorded using the N-word, so it's okay. Which is why you also need to teach that, "Hey, people can still be racist even if they don't use the n-word." Or, you focus on the fact that racism can appear in subtle.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    But okay, let's fucking spell it out, since apparently that's necessary.

    Slave isn't a substitute because the point isn't that slaves are inferior, it's that black people are. There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time Huck Finn is set, and white society didn't think any more highly of them just because they were emancipated.

    Calling him "Slave Jim" instead implies that his inferiority is a product of his enslavement, not of his natural condition as a black person. It's not even close to the same thing.

    And the entire plot doesn't do that? His father ranting about "free slaves" voting as if black people are slaves regardless of status doesn't do that?

    Edit: that's why I need a passage. You keep claiming that there is a loss that should be easy to demonstrate but which you refuse to actually demonstrate.

    If you think that their meanings are completely interchangeable, then there's no passage that will convince you. Since by definition, the meaning will be the same.

    I mean, maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees here, but, if the terms' meanings are interchangeable and the work will have the same impact regardless of which is used, how did we even arrive at this discussion? Why would people want to replace one offensive word in the text with an equally offensive word?

    When the book was published, there had already been a generation of black Americans born (at least nominally) free citizens in the south. More than that in some northern states. There were plenty of black people walking around who had never been held in bondage. The story is as much about their condition as it is about runaway slaves'.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Huckleberry Finn is a book with the n word in it. Don't like it? Don't teach it.

    JKKaAGp.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I mean, maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees here, but, if the terms' meanings are interchangeable and the work will have the same impact regardless of which is used, how did we even arrive at this discussion? Why would people want to replace one offensive word in the text with an equally offensive word?

    The n-word is a modern day insult that black people are still exposed to.

    "Slave" is not.
    When the book was published, there had already been a generation of black Americans born (at least nominally) free citizens in the south. More than that in some northern states. There were plenty of black people walking around who had never been held in bondage. The story is as much about their condition as it is about runaway slaves'.

    There are black people experiencing racism in the South right now.

    If some of them like the n-word, then it's really condescending to tell them to tough it out and grow a backbone.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    Who the hell is changing the story? This is a change in one case of word choice, much less than what most editors do. Sometimes editors will eliminate whole chapters, let alone paragraphs. If you think this is changing the story, show me a passage where the word change in any way effects the narrative, or do you consider substantiating arguments to also meat the definition of "censorship?"

    Ah but I didn't say that. You claim better judgment on which word to use than Mark Twain though.

    And you should probably stop acting like the two words mean the same thing. Its silly.

    On one word. Is Twain infallible? Is he the pope?

    For an even more invasive example, is Peter Jackson a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien?

    For your next point, if the change in meaning is so significant, you should be able to show some evidence. Instead, you categorically refuse to show any passage where the word change has an impact. I would note that you haven't shown a very good record on understanding the meanings of words, Mr. Censorship.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    Who the hell is changing the story? This is a change in one case of word choice, much less than what most editors do. Sometimes editors will eliminate whole chapters, let alone paragraphs. If you think this is changing the story, show me a passage where the word change in any way effects the narrative, or do you consider substantiating arguments to also meat the definition of "censorship?"

    Ah but I didn't say that. You claim better judgment on which word to use than Mark Twain though.

    And you should probably stop acting like the two words mean the same thing. Its silly.

    On one word. Is Twain infallible? Is he the pope?

    For an even more invasive example, is Peter Jackson a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien?

    For your next point, if the change in meaning is so significant, you should be able to show some evidence. Instead, you categorically refuse to show any passage where the word change has an impact. I would note that you haven't shown a very good record on understanding the meanings of words, Mr. Censorship.

    But as Pig said, you won't be swayed because in your eyes they're all the same.

    And they don't need to be infallible. They just need to be better writers than you.

    Yes you're right because you don't think its censorship slave and n
    mean the same thing. Good job.

    sig.jpg
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2011
    Louis CK on the Huck Finn Censorship. It's 10.3 mb in size and 22 minutes long.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    But okay, let's fucking spell it out, since apparently that's necessary.

    Slave isn't a substitute because the point isn't that slaves are inferior, it's that black people are. There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time Huck Finn is set, and white society didn't think any more highly of them just because they were emancipated.

    Calling him "Slave Jim" instead implies that his inferiority is a product of his enslavement, not of his natural condition as a black person. It's not even close to the same thing.

    And the entire plot doesn't do that? His father ranting about "free slaves" voting as if black people are slaves regardless of status doesn't do that?

    Edit: that's why I need a passage. You keep claiming that there is a loss that should be easy to demonstrate but which you refuse to actually demonstrate.

    If you think that their meanings are completely interchangeable, then there's no passage that will convince you. Since by definition, the meaning will be the same.

    I mean, maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees here, but, if the terms' meanings are interchangeable and the work will have the same impact regardless of which is used, how did we even arrive at this discussion? Why would people want to replace one offensive word in the text with an equally offensive word?

    When the book was published, there had already been a generation of black Americans born (at least nominally) free citizens in the south. More than that in some northern states. There were plenty of black people walking around who had never been held in bondage. The story is as much about their condition as it is about runaway slaves'.

    That's why using the word "slave" to denote black people provides the same significance as the n-word in the context of the book without carrying the meaning the n-word carries in modern contexts.

    I don't think the words are completely synonymous, I just think that the context of the book ensures that keeps the shared meaning. I need you to show a case in the book that doesn't occur in the overlap between the two words.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I don't think the words are completely synonymous, I just think that the context of the book ensures that keeps the shared meaning. I need you to show a case in the book that doesn't occur in the overlap between the two words.

    Burden of Proof.

    That ball is in your court.

    sig.jpg
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?
    The book was written a certain way to make a certain point. Maybe you don't like the way the point is made, or don't like the point itself. That's fine. And maybe you don't like violence, so you cut out the stabby-stabby scene in Julius Caesar.

    It's still the same play, right? Just with less violence that is likely to disturb young minds.

    Perhaps this would be more analogous if there were a certain group of children who were the children of autocrats who had been stabbed who were about 10% of the population who and whose families had complained about the scene in the play being taught.

    Though, of course, taking out the climax of the play might just slightly alter the content, so in such a hypothetical perhaps it would simply be better not to teach the play at all, and some other play instead, because lord knows there isn't exactly a shortage of plays worth teaching to people.

    So, I find your analogy sloppy, I guess.

    Taking out a word and replacing it with something that is essentially a synonym is a lot different from removing the climax of a story, and doing it because "someone might get offended" is different from doing it because a group of people have consistently complained about it for, oh, decades.

    It's funny -- for all the people talking about historical context, "slave" is actually a much better synonym for the N-word if you're talking about the N-word in the historical context of the time Huck Finn was set in. It's not such a good synonym now, because of the political history of the word post-slavery, but that came later. I thought the present didn't matter?

  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    Like, are you all realize that the N-word didn't mean to Twain what it means today, right? Like, he didn't include the N-word to make a point about racism, because it still wasn't really considered racist to use the N-word at that time. It's not like his audience would have gleaned some special meaning from it that "slave" would not communicate. No one in the late 19th century would have batted an eye at a book riddled with the N-word.

    We're the ones attaching special meaning to it. This, to me, adds a dimension of humor to all the arguments about author's intent and preserving historical context that we have thus far seen in this thread.

    If anything, you could argue that the original "point" would be better served by using a word that doesn't have all this newfangled political association attached to it.

  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    agentk13 wrote: »
    Agent, I'm glad you're better at writing than Mark Twain. Its rare to meet someone of such great skill.

    Were Mark Twain's editors better writers then he was?

    No, they were his editors, and hey they clearly thought n
    was the correct word.

    Setting up a mighty big hat to fill there.

    Then why did he use editors, if you think that you have to be a better writer than someone to edit his works (I suppose the ability to craft a story and characters has nothing at all to do with one's skill as a writer in your book).

    Because sometimes you misspell a word or your meaning isn't clear or a sentence is broken.

    But I'm really glad I've met a guy who has a greater grasp on story telling than Mark Twain!

    Who the hell is changing the story? This is a change in one case of word choice, much less than what most editors do. Sometimes editors will eliminate whole chapters, let alone paragraphs. If you think this is changing the story, show me a passage where the word change in any way effects the narrative, or do you consider substantiating arguments to also meat the definition of "censorship?"

    Ah but I didn't say that. You claim better judgment on which word to use than Mark Twain though.

    And you should probably stop acting like the two words mean the same thing. Its silly.

    On one word. Is Twain infallible? Is he the pope?

    For an even more invasive example, is Peter Jackson a better writer than J.R.R. Tolkien?

    For your next point, if the change in meaning is so significant, you should be able to show some evidence. Instead, you categorically refuse to show any passage where the word change has an impact. I would note that you haven't shown a very good record on understanding the meanings of words, Mr. Censorship.

    But as Pig said, you won't be swayed because in your eyes they're all the same.

    And they don't need to be infallible. They just need to be better writers than you.

    Yes you're right because you don't think its censorship slave and n
    mean the same thing. Good job.

    So I'm a better scientist than professionals if I spot a typo or case of poor word usage in a scientific article. Various people have noted that Twain used a word that has aged badly and sought to correct it. Unless you think that Twain was infallible, you have to admit that he could have made a mistake noticeable by some readers. It sure as hell didn't take a better orator than Kennedy to notice "ich bin ein Berliner," and I doubt anybody on this forum who complains about choices George R. R. Martin made in his books styles himself as a better writer.

  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    agentk13 wrote: »
    6) It's a disservice.
    Response: What is the disservice?

    You're being taught edited versions great works of literature because it makes someone feel bad?

    So?

    So that's bad? Unless of course you're a better writer than Twain.

    Come again Deebaser?

    OK, so you feel that doing a find-and-replace for two words in the book, and exchanging them for things that are essentially exact synonyms does a irreparable harm to the artistic merit of the book. It ruins the book -- the message, the characterization, the plot? Any of the above? All of them?

    I mean, can you please elaborate? You keep just stating things like we're assholes for not "getting it" instantly -- well, fuck dude, you're arguing with people who don't share your worldview. We're going to need more justification because we don't share all your assumptions. If you want us to understand you, you're going to need to put on your big boy pants and make a fully-formed argument.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Agent you really actually need to prove a couple things here.

    1) The use of the n-word detracts in a significant way from the learning experience for appropriately aged students.

    2) That changing the story to not offend people assuming 1 is true does not have a greater negative impact than positive.

    3) The use of the word "slave" is an appropriate substitution, in that it does not represent an undue change in the story or tone and accomplishes to goal of not offending anyone.

    sig.jpg
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2011
    I don't think the words are completely synonymous, I just think that the context of the book ensures that keeps the shared meaning. I need you to show a case in the book that doesn't occur in the overlap between the two words.

    Burden of Proof.

    That ball is in your court.

    And how, pray tell, should I prove a lack of difference? If I show a block of text where there is nothing lost, you'd just say that it's a different passage that the loss occurs in. You're the one asserting that there's a loss and that there's a difference, so the burden of proof is on you.

This discussion has been closed.