Should the N-word be taken out of Huck Finn? Dr. Alan Gribben talks about why he changed the words of the greatest American writer.
How to listen:
Subscribe for your iPod/iPhone at iTunes
Download this episode by clicking here.
Show Notes
Episode #26
Guest: Dr. Alan Gribben
Want to keep the convo going? Call my voice mail hotline: 888-522-1929
 |
| Attribution: Bob Englehart, Caglecartoons.com |
In this episode I speak to Dr. Alan Gribben about how and why he felt justified in changing the words of arguably the greatest American writer. We also cover:
- How commerical Mark Twain was (did you know he was the essentially the first self-published author?)
- Michael Chabon’s article about reading both Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to his young children and what he did about reading the N-word aloud
- How native American Debbie Reese feels about the change of “injun” to “indian”
- The very interesting introduction to the new edition
- What sounds like a great teacher who created a Flow Day for his students so they could understand about the language in Huck Finn
- How has the publicity effected NewSouth, the publisher of this new edition
- Why Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are categorized in different parts of the library, as kid’s book vs. young adult or adult fiction
- What if people become uncomfortable teaching the holocaust, should we take references to that out of books?
- His article in PW called Trouble on the Raft
Debbie Reese
January 14, 2011 - 3:53 pm ·Hi Katie,
I listened to the podcast. At the top, just after you shared some of my criticism with Dr. Gribben, he said that he's gotten several emails from people in Native Studies who are glad he made that change.
I wished I could ask him who they are… I teach in American Indian Studies. I attend conferences, read AIS journals, books, etc.
There's a vibrant thread of research and writing about stereotypes. As you might imagine, we (Native people) object to them, but we don't (as far as I know) want them to be revised as Gribben has done.
Dr. Gribben—if you read this, can you write to me at dreese dot nambe at gmail dot com and tell me who wrote to you? I'd like to talk with those individuals, to understand the viewpoint they shared with you.
Thanks, too, Katie, for including my called-in-message at the end of the podcast. The sound quality wasn't as crisp and clear as the rest of your show was.
I'll close this comment box and follow-up right away with one that has the text of my remarks. (Yeah, I had to write it down before calling so I didn't ramble.)
Debbie Reese
January 14, 2011 - 3:54 pm ·Hi Katie,
This is Debbie Reese.
I publish the online resource, American Indians in Children’s Literature, where I write about portrayals of American Indians in children’s and young adult books
I appreciate what Dr. Gribben tried to do in his revision to TOM SAWYER, but substituting INJUN with INDIAN is a change for the worse.
The word INJUN is derogatory.
The word INDIAN is an overly broad term, but it is not derogatory. I’ll say more about that in a minute.
For now, back to Tom Sawyer.
INJUN JOE is utterly despicable. He’s a liar and a thief and a racist and a murderer. And, he’s a terrorist who plans to mutilate the widow.
There’s an unchallenged depiction of American Indians throughout the book. This is best captured in the remarks made by the Welshman, who suggests that INJUNS are just like Joe.
With his change of INJUN to INDIAN, Dr. Gribben casts all Indians as heinous. I don’t mean to defend Twain’s creation of the character INJUN JOE as an example of “that’s what people of that time period thought about Indians” because that’s not true. Some people thought that way, but not everyone—especially not American Indians!
Regarding the word Indian, I said earlier that INDIAN is an overly broad term.
By that, I mean it obscures the diversity that exists amongst the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It collapses all of us into a single, monolithic image. Most of us prefer to be called by the name of our specific tribal nation. For example, when you talk about me, I prefer you say “Debbie Reese, a tribally enrolled Pueblo Indian woman from Nambe Pueblo.” It may be a mouthful for some, but consider how much that information can do to break down that monolithic Indian image!
Thanks for providing this opportunity to share my thoughts on this topic, and I hope you and your listeners will visit my site.
Debbie Reese
January 14, 2011 - 3:55 pm ·Hi Katie,
This is Debbie Reese.
I publish the online resource, American Indians in Children’s Literature, where I write about portrayals of American Indians in children’s and young adult books
I appreciate what Dr. Gribben tried to do in his revision to TOM SAWYER, but substituting INJUN with INDIAN is a change for the worse.
The word INJUN is derogatory.
The word INDIAN is an overly broad term, but it is not derogatory. I’ll say more about that in a minute.
For now, back to Tom Sawyer.
INJUN JOE is utterly despicable. He’s a liar and a thief and a racist and a murderer. And, he’s a terrorist who plans to mutilate the widow.
There’s an unchallenged depiction of American Indians throughout the book. This is best captured in the remarks made by the Welshman, who suggests that INJUNS are just like Joe.
With his change of INJUN to INDIAN, Dr. Gribben casts all Indians as heinous. I don’t mean to defend Twain’s creation of the character INJUN JOE as an example of “that’s what people of that time period thought about Indians” because that’s not true. Some people thought that way, but not everyone—especially not American Indians!
(part 2 in next comment)
Debbie Reese
January 14, 2011 - 3:55 pm ·Regarding the word Indian, I said earlier that INDIAN is an overly broad term.
By that, I mean it obscures the diversity that exists amongst the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It collapses all of us into a single, monolithic image. Most of us prefer to be called by the name of our specific tribal nation. For example, when you talk about me, I prefer you say “Debbie Reese, a tribally enrolled Pueblo Indian woman from Nambe Pueblo.” It may be a mouthful for some, but consider how much that information can do to break down that monolithic Indian image!
Thanks for providing this opportunity to share my thoughts on this topic, and I hope you and your listeners will visit my site.
Katie Davis
January 14, 2011 - 4:01 pm ·Thanks for both your comments Debbie. I think you've got a lot of cogent arguments and I hope Dr. Gribben reads this!
As to your comment that your phone message wasn't as crisp – you are right. I don't know why, and I've contacted my voice message company about it. They said it sounded clear to them and keep telling me it's iTunes fault for some reason! iTunes has nothing to do with it, so now I'm completely confused.
Elizabeth O. Dulemba, a.k.a. "e"
January 15, 2011 - 8:12 am ·Katie, I was honored to have my question aired on your show today – thank you! It's such an important topic, and as you said, the knee-jerk reaction is to respond negatively. But when we learn that one word is keeping these books out of schools completely – well, it makes me think it might have been a good idea. As Dr, Gribben said, this is one publication of a book that is available everywhere, in full – edited for one small segment that would otherwise be denied exposure to the stories. (Although we could argue, our educational system is no small segment.) It's a tough topic and Dr. Gribben is brave to have taken it on, as was his publisher.
Katie Davis
January 15, 2011 - 8:19 am ·I know! I was surprised that my viewpoint changed, though I'm still not comfortable with changing the words of such a genius.
Phillis Gershator
January 15, 2011 - 8:54 am ·I was very curious about Dr. Gribben and looked forward to hearing him speak, and I have to say he convinced me that he HAS done a service and his reasoning can't be faulted. So that's a real switch in my own thinking. But I also have to admit that the heart part –my feelings from childhood–still have a grip. And maybe that's why change, in general, is so difficult.
Thanks for offering this forum. And for giving us a chance to change our minds!
Phillis
Katie Davis
January 15, 2011 - 8:59 am ·Oh boy, are those childhood imprints hard to change! I know what you mean!
Debbie Reese
January 15, 2011 - 10:37 am ·Those childhood imprints are what is working against those of us who are striving for literature that doesn't dehumanize American Indians.
We all carry, within us, images placed there with and without intention from our very earliest days. The first Indian images children are likely to come into contact with are stereotypical. They might be savage-like, or they might be romantic-warrior-like, but either one imprints (to use the word used by Phyllis) in a way that is hurtful. It is the "knowledge" we have about American Indians, and, because its subtle or given to us by someone who cares for us, it packs an emotional component.
When someone pushes us to think about such images, it is unsettling. It was, perhaps, Dad who was the "chief" in the "Indian Princess" program we participated in… Or mom who made that Indian costume for Halloween…
Debbie Reese
January 15, 2011 - 10:40 am ·I don't think Twain's work should be revised, but Gribben is not the first to do it. Its been done before. Roger Sutton (editor at Horn Book) wrote about it at his blog last week, providing the full text of the column he wrote decades ago.
That said, I don't think SAWYER should be read as a work of literature in an elementary school classroom in order to teach about racism. I think excerpts of it could use used in a high school class that studies racial or social justice.
In other words, the context in which it is read is crucial to the work that it can do.
Debbie Reese
January 15, 2011 - 12:50 pm ·Oh! I forgot to say. Professor colleagues in Native Studies are weighing in to my query. So far, ten professors in Native Studies have responded, and so far, no one thinks the change is appropriate.
jugglingpaynes
January 25, 2011 - 4:02 pm ·I listened to your podcast and I have to say, I guess I'm a textual purist. Several thoughts occurred to me as I read.
First, I think it is good that we see the word and are afraid to even utter it. It shows some growth on our part. This is a part of our history. History isn't all nostalgia and glory. It can be ugly and brutal. To simply ignore the elephant in the room won't make it disappear. We need to acknowledge that hatred existed–still exists–in our world and that is why we need to do something about it.
Second, why, exactly, are we censoring these books from our children? We need to think about that. Is it a question of fear that they will use the term? If so, I don't think they are all getting the message. The teens are a time of rebellion. Such words are used because they know it makes adults uncomfortable.
Are we afraid of hurting our children's feelings? Maybe it would help to understand why the word upsets us. This is a good way to open discussion.
Are we afraid of what they will think of us? Obviously, adults are uncomfortable with the word today. Changing it without explaining it to our children is unfair to them, and untruthful. Surely the middle-schoolers this new edition is geared toward could understand an explanation of why this word is so hateful.
We want so much to introduce our children to classic literature, but we water it down to the point where it becomes senseless. Literature should stir our emotions and make us think, not coddle us and tell us everything is fine. Which brings me to my last thought. I am no expert on Mark Twain, but I believe he enjoyed mocking our conventions and social mores. What do you think HE'S thinking about this conversation? :o)
Katie Davis
January 25, 2011 - 4:28 pm ·Thanks for your comment, JugglingPaynes – wouldn't it be GREAT to know what Mark Twain thinks of all this?! Hey – I'd love it if you wanted to call that comment in to my voice mail feedback line. I'll include it in my next show!