Why it is so important to ban Huck Finn

Sep 12, 2008
14,201
3,567
185
Pretty much as soon as Mark Twain first published it, folks have wanted to burn the thing.

Right now, the controversy is over the use of the word "******." As noted in the other thread, Mark was very careful about his language. He used the only correct word for the story. ****** has the meaning of stupid, violent, cowardly, craven, undignified. It is an interesting contrast that Jim, the only person of any real intellegence and courage and dignity in the whole book (A couple of female exceptions also, but they are only bit players) is consistently labeled with this insult. Mark was very much aware of the contrast and worked it hard. Compare Jim to the Duke and the Dauphine, Old Man Finn, the Shepardsons, the folks in those two Arkansaws towns where they did the "Royal Nonesuch...." And Jim is the one called "******."


But it has always been a controversial book.

The real reason is not the given reasons. When folks want to ban books, why is this one consistently at the top of the woodpile as the most important one to burn? Mostly because of the message that a mans worth is not in cash, but in himself, and the other message is that morals exist outside of societal norms, and a moral man is often in opposition to the morality of the society he lives in. Mark makes both these points early on. The first one is first enunciated when Huck and Jim are on the island in the river, and they are talking about finance. Jim has had small bits of cash, but to paraphrase his remarks, "Now I own myself, and I have never owned anything as valuable ever before." This is a conclusion that Huck makes for himself as well. One should own oneself, and not be owned by things, fears or desires.

The second point is also important. Huck knows he has obligations to society to turn Jim into the authorities. He even has obligations to the widow Douglas, who has done her best for him. He was taught in church that it was important to turn Jim in. Huck decides he would rather roast in hell than do such a cowardly and disgraceful thing. His obligation to Jim and to himself is more important than his obligation to the social order.


If you are the kind of person who wants to regulate what people read, think and do, this book is highly volatile explosive. The idea that morals exist outside of what you are told, the idea that one can own oneself and be true to oneself, rather than be owned by the social order makes this a very dangerous book.
 
Why ban Huck finn? Cause we have too many stupid people in America?

It is not a matter of stupid. It is a matter of controlling thought. People who think they should do your thinking for you, that believe independent thought is dangerous are the ones who fear this book.
 
Pretty much as soon as Mark Twain first published it, folks have wanted to burn the thing.

Right now, the controversy is over the use of the word "******." As noted in the other thread, Mark was very careful about his language. He used the only correct word for the story. ****** has the meaning of stupid, violent, cowardly, craven, undignified. It is an interesting contrast that Jim, the only person of any real intellegence and courage and dignity in the whole book (A couple of female exceptions also, but they are only bit players) is consistently labeled with this insult. Mark was very much aware of the contrast and worked it hard. Compare Jim to the Duke and the Dauphine, Old Man Finn, the Shepardsons, the folks in those two Arkansaws towns where they did the "Royal Nonesuch...." And Jim is the one called "******."


But it has always been a controversial book.

The real reason is not the given reasons. When folks want to ban books, why is this one consistently at the top of the woodpile as the most important one to burn? Mostly because of the message that a mans worth is not in cash, but in himself, and the other message is that morals exist outside of societal norms, and a moral man is often in opposition to the morality of the society he lives in. Mark makes both these points early on. The first one is first enunciated when Huck and Jim are on the island in the river, and they are talking about finance. Jim has had small bits of cash, but to paraphrase his remarks, "Now I own myself, and I have never owned anything as valuable ever before." This is a conclusion that Huck makes for himself as well. One should own oneself, and not be owned by things, fears or desires.

The second point is also important. Huck knows he has obligations to society to turn Jim into the authorities. He even has obligations to the widow Douglas, who has done her best for him. He was taught in church that it was important to turn Jim in. Huck decides he would rather roast in hell than do such a cowardly and disgraceful thing. His obligation to Jim and to himself is more important than his obligation to the social order.


If you are the kind of person who wants to regulate what people read, think and do, this book is highly volatile explosive. The idea that morals exist outside of what you are told, the idea that one can own oneself and be true to oneself, rather than be owned by the social order makes this a very dangerous book.

Huck Finn is one of the greatest pieces of satire in American literature.

Anyone that wants to ban it is a moron.

I love that any teacher who would assign it as a reading assignment in today's more politically correct world, now has to explore Twain's use of the word "******" and why, as you pointed out, it was important to the novel.

Twain was brilliant.
 
Twain was anti-racist.
He purposely used the term throughout the book to call attention to how derogatory and demeaning not only the term itself, but how terrible it was at the time to be black.

He should be applauded for this book.
 
It's not important. It's STUPID.

The book in in public domain. Kids can download if with the N-word all day long.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Strangers and Wayfarers, by Sarah Orne Jewett

That's it! We must ban kids from using the Internet because they might find The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Find the headquarters of Project Gutenberg. Put a burning cross on their lawn.

Do they have a lawn? Well put it somewhere.

psik
 
It's not important. It's STUPID.

The book in in public domain. Kids can download if with the N-word all day long.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Strangers and Wayfarers, by Sarah Orne Jewett

That's it! We must ban kids from using the Internet because they might find The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Find the headquarters of Project Gutenberg. Put a burning cross on their lawn.

Do they have a lawn? Well put it somewhere.

psik

You should really take the time to read the OP next time.
 
If the charlatans at the SPLC get involved you can kiss Huck Finn goodbye. Very sad censoring literature out of context.
 
Pretty much as soon as Mark Twain first published it, folks have wanted to burn the thing.

Right now, the controversy is over the use of the word "******." As noted in the other thread, Mark was very careful about his language. He used the only correct word for the story. ****** has the meaning of stupid, violent, cowardly, craven, undignified. It is an interesting contrast that Jim, the only person of any real intellegence and courage and dignity in the whole book (A couple of female exceptions also, but they are only bit players) is consistently labeled with this insult. Mark was very much aware of the contrast and worked it hard. Compare Jim to the Duke and the Dauphine, Old Man Finn, the Shepardsons, the folks in those two Arkansaws towns where they did the "Royal Nonesuch...." And Jim is the one called "******."


But it has always been a controversial book.

The real reason is not the given reasons. When folks want to ban books, why is this one consistently at the top of the woodpile as the most important one to burn? Mostly because of the message that a mans worth is not in cash, but in himself, and the other message is that morals exist outside of societal norms, and a moral man is often in opposition to the morality of the society he lives in. Mark makes both these points early on. The first one is first enunciated when Huck and Jim are on the island in the river, and they are talking about finance. Jim has had small bits of cash, but to paraphrase his remarks, "Now I own myself, and I have never owned anything as valuable ever before." This is a conclusion that Huck makes for himself as well. One should own oneself, and not be owned by things, fears or desires.

The second point is also important. Huck knows he has obligations to society to turn Jim into the authorities. He even has obligations to the widow Douglas, who has done her best for him. He was taught in church that it was important to turn Jim in. Huck decides he would rather roast in hell than do such a cowardly and disgraceful thing. His obligation to Jim and to himself is more important than his obligation to the social order.


If you are the kind of person who wants to regulate what people read, think and do, this book is highly volatile explosive. The idea that morals exist outside of what you are told, the idea that one can own oneself and be true to oneself, rather than be owned by the social order makes this a very dangerous book.
No one is banning it. Someone is trying, rightly or wrongly, to make it accessible to the children of whining parents.

I don't buy the argument that "slave" is less insulting than "******" as I always thought it was worse to be a slave.

The real question is...why so many threads on this? Why are you so affronted about a word?
 
To reiterate, "******" is no the reason folks don't like it. They don't like it for it's message.

And I just wanted to get in TOS trouble for a wall of text post on subject that has been talked over a lot, but where I think the main point has been skipped or missed.
 
someone who is willing to go through the text and count the occurrences of a mildly offensive word in every day use and then protest the use of the word in the text is not concerned with the fact the word is used.

They have other issues. They have issues with the message not the language.
 
The bit of dialogue in the book when they are talking about an explosion on a steam boat:

"Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

"No'm, Killed a ******."

"Well, it's lucky, because sometimes people do get hurt."

Brilliant satire. The whole point of the novel, as has been pointed out, is the evolution of Huck Finn from a person who is age/time appropriate for the day and does not regard a black man as a human being to someone who is not afraid to shun societal norms in regard to race.

This is why Hemingway called it the great American Novel.
 
You should really take the time to read the OP next time.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Banning or censoring words in the book is stupid. The fact that it is free on the net and you probably have to buy the edited version merely emphasizes that STUPIDITY.

The burning cross business was just my facetious sarcasm. I thought it was obvious. :lol:

psik
 
Last edited:
You should really take the time to read the OP next time.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Banning or censoring words in the book is stupid. The fact that it is free on the net and you probably have to buy the edited version merely emphasizes that STUPIDITY.

The burning cross business was just my facetious sarcasm. I thought it was obvious. :lol:

psik

I was under the impression that you thought the OP was advocating for banning Huck Finn. He was not. Apologies if I didn't understand your post.
 
Pretty much as soon as Mark Twain first published it, folks have wanted to burn the thing.

Right now, the controversy is over the use of the word "******." As noted in the other thread, Mark was very careful about his language. He used the only correct word for the story. ****** has the meaning of stupid, violent, cowardly, craven, undignified. It is an interesting contrast that Jim, the only person of any real intellegence and courage and dignity in the whole book (A couple of female exceptions also, but they are only bit players) is consistently labeled with this insult. Mark was very much aware of the contrast and worked it hard. Compare Jim to the Duke and the Dauphine, Old Man Finn, the Shepardsons, the folks in those two Arkansaws towns where they did the "Royal Nonesuch...." And Jim is the one called "******."


But it has always been a controversial book.

The real reason is not the given reasons. When folks want to ban books, why is this one consistently at the top of the woodpile as the most important one to burn? Mostly because of the message that a mans worth is not in cash, but in himself, and the other message is that morals exist outside of societal norms, and a moral man is often in opposition to the morality of the society he lives in. Mark makes both these points early on. The first one is first enunciated when Huck and Jim are on the island in the river, and they are talking about finance. Jim has had small bits of cash, but to paraphrase his remarks, "Now I own myself, and I have never owned anything as valuable ever before." This is a conclusion that Huck makes for himself as well. One should own oneself, and not be owned by things, fears or desires.

The second point is also important. Huck knows he has obligations to society to turn Jim into the authorities. He even has obligations to the widow Douglas, who has done her best for him. He was taught in church that it was important to turn Jim in. Huck decides he would rather roast in hell than do such a cowardly and disgraceful thing. His obligation to Jim and to himself is more important than his obligation to the social order.


If you are the kind of person who wants to regulate what people read, think and do, this book is highly volatile explosive. The idea that morals exist outside of what you are told, the idea that one can own oneself and be true to oneself, rather than be owned by the social order makes this a very dangerous book.
No one is banning it. Someone is trying, rightly or wrongly, to make it accessible to the children of whining parents.

I don't buy the argument that "slave" is less insulting than "******" as I always thought it was worse to be a slave.

The real question is...why so many threads on this? Why are you so affronted about a word?

I believe you are tampering with an artisits work. His novel is a lesson in history as well as a damn good story. The characters, plot, setting and speech all telling of the era. To be called the "N" word is just one more indignity afforded the black man with the torture, terrorism, inhumanity given to him.

If we are to whitewash an artists work, it's no longer their words. A teacher can use this word as a lesson to show how blacks were denigraded in speech, actions and how unwarranted it was, how at one time they werent even considered a whole person!

Where do we stop in altering an genius's work? Listen to the rap today. Mark Twain had a good reason for using this word. Clean up todays usage of the word...no reason for using it today!
 

Forum List

Back
Top