dexfarkin: (me)
[personal profile] dexfarkin

There's a back and forth in the Guardian about the desire in some quarters to update titles to remove now offensive terms which can create unnecessary discomfort as well the potential for similar corrections for books where the impact of the language is changed to the point that its impact is unnecessarily taken as intentional in the story. There's some interesting points made, although none that compel me from my basic point that in general, it's usually a unnecessary and mis-intentioned step.

One point I did like was the idea of terms creating controversy that leads to a distortion of the intending meaning of the work. One example used is a 1900 painting titled 'Young Negro Girl' switching to 'Young Girl with Fan'. Now, the change doesn't impact the work - each is a descriptive title as opposed to an evocative one as most art would adopt in the decades following. Most would argue that it is a small change that doesn't impact how I will approach it. The only issue is that art is highly contextual. Work that is admired from the past exists within its specific continuum and language is an important element through which we place our understanding of a piece. I think it is possible to understand why 'Young Negro Girl' would be an inappropriate title today without needing to change it for a modern sensibility.

In terms of the argument used with Huckleberry Finn, where in some additions, the word n***** is replaced with slave, the thrust is that slave carries the same kind of low level derision that n***** did at the time, while it carries in a modern reading a significantly different meaning. When 'Deadwood' came out, the original scripts for the show used period swearing in the first drafts. The problem was that what were incredibly offensive terms for the time have long lost any impact and even have become comedic or cartoonish phrases. So, they switched them for modern verbiage with similar impact, like 'motherfucker'.

The problem is, again, contextualization. If someone is only to read Huckleberry Finn and ignore the rest of the works of the late 19th century, they will get the same meaning. But if their reading expands, suddenly there is a different and more modern cast to the altered text and it becomes more difficult to associate it with other works of the period in understanding the material. Sanitized works are about altering the content to preserve a specific set of messages and lessons, but as literature criticism evolves and changes, those messages from the core text often do so as well. Modifying base texts muddle them and too often dilute what they mean to preserve.

If there is concern, it is better to use judgement and lessons about the time period and use of language prior to starting the work than to alter the text and hope the meaning remains as impactful.

Date: 2015-12-20 09:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't entirely disagree with you that people should know the context in which a thing was created and thus find out more about the work, the author and the history that surrounds it.

I would caution though that it's very easy to come from a place where the harm and pain that is done by certain words is not brought into account.

I've never been for censorship - but I am for allowing the people most harmed by a thing decide how that thing will be used or portrayed.

Date: 2015-12-21 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I would caution though that it's very easy to come from a place where the harm and pain that is done by certain words is not brought into account.

I'm less inclined to sympathize with past work, especially when you're looking at it as scholarship. I agree that you don't throw a ten year old into Huck Finn these days without some caution about the source materials, but part of the point of reading older literature is providing that window into a past point. To dilute it, especially when the point is to represent that age of culture and thought, you start to create highly imperfect versions that ultimately reduce the impact of that knowledge, and in turn, end up whitewashing historical knowledge.

Again, the use of language in Huck Finn is important in one sense because for anyone now reading the book, you can't help being struck by the casualness of something that is strongly condemned now. That reinforces many of the lessons of the book, in the fact that Jim is part of a society that not only barely considers him human, but his identity is linked with what is now an offensive slur. That message resonates differently between, say, a black and a white kid, but it still resonates. The last thing you want is people looking back at that time with an imperfect idea of it and consider 'it wasn't all that bad'.

April 2017

1617 1819202122

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 08:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios