Upcoming NewSouth 'Huck Finn' Eliminates the 'N' Word...
By Marc Schultz
Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an American classic by most any measure—T.S. Eliot called it a masterpiece, and Ernest Hemingway pronounced it the source of "all modern American literature." Yet, for decades, it has been disappearing from grade school curricula across the country, relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright, appearing again and again on lists of the nation's most challenged books, and all for its repeated use of a single, singularly offensive word: "nigger."
Twain himself defined a "classic" as "a book which people praise and don't read." Rather than see Twain's most important work succumb to that fate, Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the "n" word (as well as the "in" word, "Injun") by replacing it with the word "slave."
"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind," said Gribben, speaking from his office at Auburn University at Montgomery, where he's spent most of the past 20 years heading the English department. "Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."
The idea of a more politically correct Finn came to the 69-year-old English professor over years of teaching and outreach, during which he habitually replaced the word with "slave" when reading aloud. Gribben grew up without ever hearing the "n" word ("My mother said it's only useful to identify [those who use it as] the wrong kind of people") and became increasingly aware of its jarring effect as he moved South and started a family. "My daughter went to a magnet school and one of her best friends was an African-American girl. She loathed the book, could barely read it."
Including the table of contents, the slur appears 219 times in Finn. What finally convinced Gribben to turn his back on grad school training and academic tradition, in which allegiance to the author's intent is sacrosanct, was his involvement with the National Endowment for the Arts' Big Read Alabama.
Tom Sawyer was selected for 2009's Big Read Alabama, and the NEA tapped NewSouth, in Montgomery, to produce an edition for the project. NewSouth contracted Gribben to write the introduction, which led him to reading and speaking engagements at libraries across the state. Each reading brought groups of 80 to 100 people "eager to read, eager to talk," but "a different kind of audience than a professor usually encounters; what we always called ‘the general reader.'
"After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach this novel, and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable." Gribben became determined to offer an alternative for grade school classrooms and "general readers" that would allow them to appreciate and enjoy all the book has to offer. "For a single word to form a barrier, it seems such an unnecessary state of affairs," he said.
Gribben has no illusions about the new edition's potential for controversy. "I'm hoping that people will welcome this new option, but I suspect that textual purists will be horrified," he said. "Already, one professor told me that he is very disappointed that I was involved in this." Indeed, Twain scholar Thomas Wortham, at UCLA, compared Gribben to Thomas Bowdler (who published expurgated versions of Shakespeare for family reading), telling PW that "a book like Professor Gribben has imagined doesn't challenge children [and their teachers] to ask, ‘Why would a child like Huck use such reprehensible language?' "
Of course, others have been much more enthusiastic—including the cofounders of NewSouth, publisher Suzanne La Rosa and editor-in-chief Randall Williams. In addition to the mutual success of their Tom Sawyer collaboration, Gribben thought NewSouth's reputation for publishing challenging books on Southern culture made them the ideal—perhaps the only—house he could approach with his radical idea.
"What he suggested," said La Rosa, "was that there was a market for a book in which the n-word was switched out for something less hurtful, less controversial. We recognized that some people would say that this was censorship of a kind, but our feeling is that there are plenty of other books out there—all of them, in fact—that faithfully replicate the text, and that this was simply an option for those who were increasingly uncomfortable, as he put it, insisting students read a text which was so incredibly hurtful."
La Rosa and Williams committed to a short turnaround, looking to get the finished product on shelves by February. Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn: The NewSouth Edition will be a $24.95 hardcover, with a 7,500 first printing. In the meantime, Gribben has gone back to the original holographs to craft his edition, which is also unusual in combining the two "boy books," as he calls them, into a single volume. But the heart of the matter is opening up the novels to a much broader, younger, and less experienced reading audience: "Dr. Gribben recognizes that he's putting his reputation at stake as a Twain scholar," said La Rosa. "But he's so compassionate, and so believes in the value of teaching Twain, that he's committed to this major departure. I almost don't want to acknowledge this, but it feels like he's saving the books. His willingness to take this chance—I was very touched."
Kiwipete says:
Would some people change words in the Bible because they are offensive or do not like them? I think you have to be very careful that you are not trying to change history itself. We all know the word 'nigger' was and still is an offensive word to many people - but it is a derivative of the word "negro", which is certainly not offensive because it is a racial noun. A commenter below calls it 'whitewashing history' and I would have to agree. They could continue to change the word when reading aloud to children of an impressionable age. To censor the books is totally unacceptable.
Reader Comments:
How idiotic to change a classic of American literature for a word usage that can be explained to young readers. Simply moronic. I find it deeply offensive. R.L. Stine
--by: @ 20110103133332
Gribben appears to hold a profound lack of understanding for the Huck novel and Twain's reason for writing it. If he really is a Twain scholar, he should resign. I suspect, however, that the motives cited in the article are a smokescreen and the motivation held by most of those involved is moneymaking. How sad. Makes me a little sick. Lyle Blake Smythers
--by: @ 20110103134936
What these arrogant, narrow-minded fools are doing is disgusting. White-washing history to ignore the bad bits doesn't help anyone to learn from the past. Rather than taking the opportunity to use the text as a discussion on history, race, identity and social mores, this group of self-entitled PC tyrants are trying to erase classic literature. Part of what made Mark Twain so amazing was that he exposed the hypocrisy of the times; i.e., calling someone a friend, yet using a derisive term for that person. What's next to be whitewashed? Remove the curse words from Catcher in the Rye? How about erasing the sex from DH Lawrence, Ernest Hemingway or Henry Miller? How about removing the drug use in Jack Kerouac or Hunter S Thompson? How about removing the gay from Oscar Wilde, Evelyn Waugh or James Baldwin? Life isn't all PC, white and middle class. In fact, much of it is quite the opposite. Changing literature to reflect current attitudes of a specific group has only one name, that is and should be reviled by anyone who calls themselves a book-lover: it is CENSORSHIP.
--by: @ 20110103141950
I find this truly offensive. The justification of editing the book in order to make it more appropriate for the here and now is just, simply put, a crock. I began reading long before my schooling started and I have maintained a strong passion for all things literary ever since. Thankfully my mother raised me to read freely, books of any nature and on any subject and I believe this literary freedom is mostly responsible for the open-minded, tolerant, and free-thinking adult that I have become. Reading is something that enriches our lives, not hinders it and the historical issues that are contained in books such as this one are truly important. As someone has stated, life is not politically correct and okay, so as a white person it could be argued that I don't understand how offensive such terminology can be but I see this issue from all sides. Were I a person of colour, I would STILL be outraged at this. People of different races have all had their struggles and heaven knows that the struggle to defeat slavery and to obtain equal rights was one hell of a battle. I would find it truly offensive that anyone could choose to downplay the horrors and problems that my ancestors had to deal with. Leave history alone! It doesn't make it any less offensive by doing this to a work of fiction rather than a history book, rather, it makes it worse. The works of fiction are usually where our children begin to learn about the harsh realities of the world but in a safe and informative way. This act is truly abominable.
--by: TheLiteraryWord @ 20110103164659
Censorship of Huck Finn?!? Censorship and sugarcoating of history and literature does a disservice to students and will only serve to produce ignorant, naive people with an inaccurate sense of, well, history and literature. The censored version should be banned not for its language but rather for irresponsible editorial alterations and for its lack of balls to tell the story like it is.
--by: talpage @ 20110103180229
This is absolute craziness! Because of people like this I grew up thinking that the last line in the film Caddyshack was actually "Hey everybody, let's all take a shower!". I could never understand why anyone would want to shower at that particular moment in the film. Even today I am still ostracized by people who think "Caddyshack is the funniest movie ever". I just don't get it. Just goes to show you that one little word can have such dire consequences.
--by: Hoople @ 20110103220549
I live in Montgomery and happen to know both the editor and the publishers. 1. Alan Gribben is one of the most innately decent and compassionate persons I have ever met. He is a superb scholar and teacher and a very kind man. He loves Twain; his whole adult life has been devoted to the study of Twain. He would not be producing this edition if he did not love Twain so much and want Twain's works to reach the widest possible audience. Many young people begin by reading "abridged" or otherwise altered versions of the classics. (Remember the Charles and Mary Lamb retellings of Shakespeare? They are classics now in their own rights.) Young readers who become "hooked" on Twain by reading these slightly modified editions will surely go on, at some point, to read the "real thing." There is no danger, especially in the age of the Internet, that the "original" Twain will ever be lost to us (thank goodness). Gribben knew the risk he was taking by publishing this edition; he could easily have sat back and done nothing and watched Twain's books continue to disappear from reading lists across the country. He will now suffer a lot of abuse for trying to nurture in young people a love for the books he has loved and worked on throughout his career. 2. Anyone familiar with NewSouth Books will know that it is a small press that routinely loses money on many of the books it publishes. It publishes these books precisely because it believes in presenting obscure and under-represented voices of this region, especially the voices of those closely associated with the Civil Rights movement. Williams and LaRosa could be making MUCH more money doing something else. They are publishers with genuine convictions, just as Gribben is a man of genuine convictions and, frankly, courage. Twain is in no danger of being "censored." He is simply being presented in a way that will not cause immense pain on first reading to many, many young persons. Once they learn to love his books with 200 words changed, the best among them will want to read his books for all their original richness. If anything, the controversy provoked by this edition will spur people to want to read the original. I trust the motives of both the editor and the publishers. Why not wait and read Gribben's preface before leaping to condemn a good man?
--by: Frank @ 20110104002602
So, instead of actually teaching that THIS was the way people thought in that time period, that this was the language they used, let's just change it so it's not offensive to the few morons who just don't get it. If not censorship (which I think it is), it is certainly contributing to the dumbing down of America.
--by: Ogre1 @ 20110104090454
To Frank and Gribben: It is admirable to want to reintroduce Mark Twain to young readers in public schools. However, it is unacceptable to shield them from the reality Mark Twain captures in his writing. By creating a censored, or abridged if you prefer, version of the text, you are enabling public school districts to continue dancing around political issues and correctness rather than address and educate students on controversy. Let's take the opportunity classics like these offer us to educate our students on the historical and social development of such derogatory language. Let's get these classics back in the classroom with less PC and more education.
--by: AL @ 20110104113019
We should be offended by 'nigger' and the rest of the story, as one of Mark Twain's intents, but now we will not get the chance. 'Slave' has its own meanings, it is not neutral, and Huck was confounded by it and ignored it, and Jim vehemently rejected it. I guess we should no longer call Mr. Gribben a scholar, we should merely refer to him as a unfaithful scribe. How sad.
--by: qrp @ 20110104130349
Please, please, do not cave into the elements in our society that censor this book because of the language used. You are just telling them that their actions are OK.
--by: Susanna @ 20110104143152
Did you ask Mark Twain's permission? There is a reason the word is in there and you skew and misinterpret the literature if you change it. I think Mark Twain would be proud that his book is on the most banned list, and it only helps open the conversation of banning books in the first place. If we change the language, you are only letting those that would censor free speech win. Challenge the banning of books, do not let them do so.
--by: jackiesobsession @ 20110104143253
Communists do this too, rewrite history. I prefer the ugly truth over pretty lies. This is a crime against literature and the truth.
--by: LAWriterChick @ 20110104153539
Excerpt from Gribben's preface: http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html
--by: Frank @ 20110104160552
erpt from Gribben's preface: http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html
--by: Frank @ 20110104160635
An excerpt from Gribben's preface can now be found on the NewSouth Books web page.
--by: Frank @ 20110104160733
So...then can we assume that this same daughter's friend also hates rap music, since rap has liberal use of the "N" word? What a load of garbage! REFUSE to purchase anything from this publisher - including any imprints they have!
--by: Yoshimi25 @ 20110104161451
How very sad and so less than wise; to think that by rewriting a historical classic, one is able to expunge wickedness from the human heart. Clemens exposed the raw unfiltered bowels of mankind of that age. It was utterly distasteful to behold. So it should remain. The "offending" word should be relegated to historical literature. It, however, is not. The gnome project has proven that racism is the province of the ignorant. Any who use racist terms are among the most ignorant of people, whoever they may be; no exceptions. Those who believe they can rectify such ignorance by rewriting history are themselves ignorant, if only so, concerning human nature.
--by: offensiveandpeculiar @ 20110104161503
An excerpt from Gribben's preface: http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html
--by: Frank @ 20110104161733
We appreciate all the concern expressed for Mark Twain's work; we feel strongly about Twain's writing and certainly we neither advocate censorship nor book banning. As a previous commenter noted, our purpose is to give teachers another tool among many with which to teach Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn when they might not otherwise have been able to, and indeed allow them to have this discussion about the controversial language if they so choose. We invite you to read Dr. Gribben's introduction to the volume, available at http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain, which specifically addresses the controversy; no attempt is made in the book to hide what changes have been made, but rather the introduction will serve to foster discussion about the changes for readers of the book.
--by: newsouthbooks @ 20110104163947
Mr. Gribben gives his logic for this insane act far more credit that it deserves. "Textual purists will be horrified"? How about "anyone who likes truth will be horrified"? Is he really banning the word "injun" too? Please tell me that's a joke. Kids today hear the N word everyday in music...and we censor Huck Finn? What a nation of pansies we've become.
--by: justinrubner @ 20110104165603
I think this guy makes an impassioned argument, it's just not the argument he thinks he is making. Stop making kids read it. You can't censor the book, that obviously won't help anything, and replacing the word is akin to rewriting the book to your own ends. So the simple solution is keep kids out of it, let them read it later or whenever they feel they can deal with it.
--by: Fenrox @ 20110104171327
Dear NewSouth Books: Thank you for not being the publishers of "To Kill a Mockingbird."
--by: bluicebank @ 20110104171343
Samuel Clemens's whole point in using the "n" word was to show how people's humanity was being submerged by that word. The fact the word is "hurtful" (New South Books and Gribben's word) and that slavery and subjugation are "hurtful" is the whole point of the novel. At that time few blinked at the term, only perhaps thinking it a bit coarse to put in print. Huck's dawning realization of Jim's humanity indicts the mindset of those who spoke such insults, participated in slavery and denied African Americans a proper place in society. Removing the word removes a large part of the historical context and the point Twain was driving home. If a teacher can't explain that to a class, I question his or her ability to teach. Once that understanding of the novel is established, the use of the word "Injun" is also able to be seen in a similar light. Bowlderizing Twain is bowing to ignorance.
--by: poemblaze @ 20110104175411
Simpler still would be abbreviating them to n-----. and In---. This simply makes it ok to change masterpieces, and the idea that the internet is sacrosanct is lunacy. When they get total control they will scrub out anything that they don't like, forever. Finally, who wants to go back and reread anything just to try and figure out what was missing? This is why I don't watch movies on broadcast TV for the first time. I'd rather see the director's intent. Later I will watch it again when I am just keeping the TV on for noise. I am an author and film director. This is abhorrent.
--by: tedbaldwin @ 20110104175934
I give up. Thank God I have about 5 different publication of this book. My children will be reading it the way Twain wrote it. They will be better off for it.
--by: lute70 @ 20110104191531
I continue to be offended by the moronic, politically correct stupidity of a third world nation intent upon totally rewriting history to fit its vanilla "I just wanna be loved oh and can I be black too? world view! Nearly 60 years ago I read about Huck's adventures with Nigger Jim and fell in love with Clement and his tales. I have reread Huck's and Tom's adventures even as an adult and still find them thrilling, losing myself in the stories. I grew up in a mixed racial setting and, until I left the service after the war, seldom had negative contacts with races other than my own. I discovered that blacks, filled with hatred and that hatred fan to white heat by race baiting "leaders" who became rich fanning those flames, were something different. As I grew older and had more negative contact with blacks, always at their prompting and goading, I became prejudice, first disliking then hating them and what the stood and stand for. It is not the individuals but the the People that I cannot stand. I have many black friends but will not tolerate their racial bigotry and moronic stupidity. Much of this is prompted by our failing educational system and much by a corrupt press that will do anything to make money and notoriety. So, I still love the charactor Nigger Jim as one of my boyhood heroes and refuse to allow Progressive Socialist Democrats and their spawn to destroy our legacy and history. David Stanley.
--by: papo826 @ 20110104192543
Frank: If you edit Twain's work without Twain's consent, it isn't Twain's work any longer. If the true work is wiped from reading lists, let the students find the work using your internet solution and then turn around and ask the idiots why they have left them out. If that is the problem, then fix the problem. Don't homogenize Twain.
--by: Screenname @ 20110104205902
No one has the right to in America to deny a citizens right to be heard. No matter what they say. Would the learned Prof. ask us to edit John Lennon's "Woman is the nigger of the world"??
--by: peobody @ 20110104212529
If schools provide the book "as written" to students today (and providing books should be one of the primary functions of schools, imho) then they must spend an appropriate amount of time making sure that the students understand that official sanction is not being given to use of the n-word. And there's one major reason for this. Though musicians and performers have been given a certain amount of license by our society to use that and other objectionable language,surely in every school across the country it is grounds for disciplinary action (suspension I would hope) for any student to use the word on the school's property. Thus I can see why certain school boards are going to decide to keep it out of most classrooms (and maybe even the school library.) But there are other reasons why school boards in the South, like some of those in Texas that have been in the news recently, may decide to keep Twain's views out of the classroom. And that is because they do not like the way Twain (not a racist, and writing about a time before the abolition of slavery) exposes certain parts of the shameful history of the "peculiar institution." Now these folks will not have any excuse to protect the innocents from the truths revealed by Huckleberry Finn, which has been called by some the greatest American novel. And for those who argue that words and symbols have only as much power as we choose to give them, that's precisely the point. It is because of the power that our society, with its centuries of history of oppression of blacks under slavery and Jim Crow, has given to this word, that it needs to be banned from the public schools for most purposes. The word today has a destructive power that Twain could not have imagined. If he were with us, Twain would be the first to tell us to handle the language in his book with care. If school libraries etc. are not using the book because of Twain's use of "nigger" this is a sensible compromise, especially if sufficient explanation is provided in a notation contained in the forward section. In fact, this can be used as a teaching point in schools for many different purposes, in the English / communications, political science / civics, and history curricula, among others. Even when writing this comment, I hesitated to spell out the "n-word," and only decided to use it because I was certain that its use would not be offensive in the context of the comment I intended to make, and as long as I made it clear that a white person (anyone actually) should have some special reason for using it or spelling it out, and should make the rationale perfectly clear when she/he does so. I was sickened by the way "Dr. Laura" used the epithet, over and over again, on her radio show, and happy when she decided to leave the show at the end of her contract. On the other hand, I remember laughing my a$$ of when Richard Pryor and Chris Rock did the same thing. This editorial decision made when putting out a new addition for schools does not amount to censorship, as I see it. One publisher has decided to bring out a "sanitized" volume, for a particular purpose. Better that students have access to this bowdlerized version, knowing how and why it has been "altered", than never to be exposed to it at all. I agree that this project is courageous, especially in light of the kinds of comments found here. I know most here are defending the principle of freedom of expression and the reputation and legacy of Samuel Clemens/ Mark Twain, but never forget that there are others who will come out in defense of this book and the "n-word" for entirely different, and wholly execrable reasons.
--by: kokuaguy @ 20110104222656
Oops. The last sentence of the above comment should read as follows: "I know most here are defending the principle of freedom of expression and the reputation and legacy of Samuel Clemens/ Mark Twain, but never forget that there are others who will come out in opposition to this book, and in defense of the use of the "n-word", for entirely different, and wholly execrable reasons.
--by: kokuaguy @ 20110104223236
I think what bothers me the most about this is that there are obviously situations that these words are innapropriate, but Twain's books aren't a part of that at all. All we are teaching kids and teachers by censoring Twain's novels (you should be ashamed of yourselves by the way) is that we should hide things so that we don't have to deal with them. Slavery was a reality for many people, and while the words being changed in this edition may be harsh and innapropriate for most conversations, Twain's novels are a reflection of the struggles that people had with slavery during that time period. The novels deal particularly with the confusion and guilt that white people experience regarding slavery in their own society. Making these novels something that people "can handle" reading simply reinforces the bubbles that we force children to live in. And I'm sorry... WTH! is the "new" classroom? Forget censorship; these teachers need to work on their ignorance.
--by: MelReads @ 20110104232356
Seriously; what exactly would a teacher consider to be the "new" classroom? That is frightening.
--by: MelReads @ 20110104232647
In 100 years it will be politically incorrect to say Afro-American.
--by: phryingphish @ 20110105002213
The term "nigger" was not meant to be detrimental to the Negro race in the 'old days'. It was used in the South and that was simply their way of speaking back then.Until WWII when industry began moving into the South there was different dialects all over the nation.
--by: yogiman @ 20110105010656
What sad nonsense, this kind of nanny censorship. And what gall. I wonder who Mr. Gribben thinks we should take on next. Shakespeare? Dostoevsky? T. S. Eliot? Lots of authors have said lots of things that sound offensive, so in the name of supposedly wanting to make texts accessible, I imagine we should get to work. I am truly offended and saddened.
--by: Roger @ 20110105011122
This quite simply put, should be illegal and if ever there was a reason for book burnings this is it. To paraphrase Mark Twain: "The person who (edited/censored the book) is without doubt the most ignorant person now alive on the planet; also without doubt he is an idiot, an idiot of the 33rd degree, and scion of an ancestral procession of idiots stretching back to the Missing Link." -Mark Twain
--by: sparkles @ 20110105021240
Dear NewSouth Books: I am deeply offended by your comment "...we feel strongly about Twain's writing and certainly we neither advocate censorship..." Except well, you're censoring it. No getting around that. As if changing a word used specifically for impact that drives the entire storyline giving a new reader an entirely different take would foster a relevant discussion about said change. Come on! As an editor I can change the meaning of a sentence just by changing the punctuation. And to do this to an author, and a beloved one at that, who isn't here to defend himself? IMHO this act is deserving a public shaming/shunning/complete intolerance and is bullsh*t of the 33rd degree.
--by: sparkles @ 20110105025429
Folks, please read the excerpt from Professor Gribben's introduction, if you haven't. Nobody is talking about rewriting books or deleting content. Check out the excerpt from Professor Gribben's introduction to Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn: The NewSouth Edition. That's where its use in elementary school curricula is discussed. http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html And for "Melreads" -- I have no association with NewSouth and never heard of Professor Gribbens until today on the Huffington Post website. Neither they nor I have done anything to be ashamed of. They are creating a tool that may make these works accessible in elementary school classrooms and elsewhere in places where it has been banned. In light of the kind of prejudice and hysteria I've seen displayed here and on other websites, my hat is off to these courageous scholars and publishers.
--by: kokuaguy @ 20110105033553
It's unfortunate that "educators" are no longer willing to educate. Whether due to lack of ability, or polical correctness, it's no wonder today's kids can barely read, can't write a coherent sentence, or perform simple mathematical functions. Two years ago, when my son was 8, he and I sat down and read Huckleberry Finn together. He had never heard the word "nigger" before, as it is not used in our home, and he is not allowed to listen to that schlock called music. It was explained, along with the history, and he learned a lot. Contrast that to some poor kid who will read the sanitized version in a class with a lousy teacher. What will that kid learn?
--by: Sheila @ 20110105064707
Just like the Taliban blowing up statues in Afghanistan, or Nazis burning books outright. Political correctness is social terrorism.
--by: Beowulf @ 20110105075514
This isn't about literature or racism, it's about money and the publishing industry. If a publisher can get their version of the book into every classroom, they stand to make tons of money. If the demand for the book isn't there, the first print run won't sell out and this experiment won't work. If schools and teachers buy into this, I'm going to publish a Bible that makes the God of the old testament less of a jerk and more gay friendly.
--by: mutinyinheaven @ 20110105090324
Aside from this horrible act of political correctness, the replacement word "slave" clearly shows the ignorance of some professors today. I don't care if this guy is "nice" or "means well." He is wrong; plain and simple, and needs to go back studying English for his own good. My English teachers did a great job teaching this book in its original form. "Slave" is not the correct replacement in the context, and completely throws the true themes of the book away. Frankly, I don't know at what point in time did adults, especially in my generation, decide to treat children as weaklings who are incapable of learning the right history. It's definitely embarrassing. I'm more inclined to believe that pulling apart our history is intentional. There is no way that this guy is shocked at the negative reactions to this publication. He knows what he is doing.
--by: Cristabel @ 20110105113036
It would make more sense to properly educate students on the historical signifigance of the word "nigger" rather than just hide it from them.
--by: Ang @ 20110105121908
What puzzles me is how replacing the word "nigger" with "slave" is supposed to prevent offending readers. They are poised to read a story about a society that condemns humans to lifelong servitude with a cultural approbation so powerful a young boy must be willing to sacrifice his own eternal soul to follow his humane conscience. This is the power of the book, a social reality so heartbreaking and dramatically portrayed that it reduces adults to tears. "Nigger" barely raises more than a sneer these days.
--by: ChurchofReason @ 20110105123021
I'll never fully support a decision like this, as I feel that censorship on any level is wrong. However, I will, as a teacher, defend the publisher's platform on a certain level. I teach younger kids, kids that are not at an emotional level yet to understand Huck Finn and the atrocities of the time period - kids who are not intellectually capable of processing Shakespearean language - kids who are not going to be able to digest Dickens or Beowulf or Jack London on the same level as an older student or adult would. However, I understand that the power of literature doesn't come from the words alone - it comes from the characters, their emotions, their stories, their ideas. Sanitized children's editions of Beowulf, Oliver Twist, MacBeth, Hamlet, Call of the Wild, Tom Sawyer, and Huck Finn have allowed me to cut through some of the difficulties my younger students have with the texts written in the language of yesteryear while still introducing them to the classic characters and stories that fill our libraries and hearts. I'm all for a well written children's edition of a text. This is not that. This is the elimination of a single word that holds a lot of power in the story. This is the censorship of ideas. This is not the simplification of a text to make it accessible to a new audience, this is the dumbing down of society - the excuses that people make - the lack of accountability - the fear - the laziness. This is more than a single act of censorship, this is representative of what is wrong with our country today. We are too lazy to explain the past, to stupid to understand each other, and too quick to point fingers at other people for our own faults. Unfortunately, however, as a public school teacher, I have to defend Gribben a little bit here. While I loathe what he's done - we live in a society that has made the need for his text necessary. When I decided to teach Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn in my classroom, I was bombarded with complaints from ignorant, uninformed parents who decried Twain's language - some of them accusing me of racism for choosing a book with the language Twain uses in the original texts. Nevermind the fact that I teach 11 year olds and was using children's versions of the books to simply introduce them to classic lit. Nevermind that my texts didn't include the "n" word. Nevermind the idea that I was using these stories to teach character growth and development, time period, setting, and narrative structure - it was not my place at this level to teach 19th century politics or race relations or the power of words like these. I simply wanted to introduce my favorite characters to my students - to use them as a vehicle for discussion of development, and hope that I'd instill a love of lit in them, so that maybe later in life they'd pick up these books and enjoy them in their full versions. Still, I was attacked. I was called into the principal's office and my methods were called into question. All because some uninformed people were fearful. What's my point? That's easy - Gribben and his "new Huck" are a product of our new classroom - a classroom that is not led by curriculum, by educators, by what's right for students, but a school curriculum that is dictated by ignorant, uniformed, fearful parents that have knee-jerk reactions and a lack of respect for educators. In turn, because a vocal minority speaks up, administrations react (not defend), and we end up pulling great stories from the libraries. We are an ignorant and fearful society. The masses are dumb and afraid - the leaders are afraid of the dumb - the dumb rule the roost. This is the downward spiral we live in in today's America. Gribben is not the downfall of society, the downfall of society has made Gribben's work "necessary."
--by: Curtispfs @ 20110105125049
Who can read Chapter 31 without being overcome? And who could stand having the edge taken off it by removing the word "nigger" from Huck's innocent conscience-driven ruminations?
--by: ChurchofReason @ 20110105125721
Incredibly terrifying in this electronic age as 10% of books are e-books stored in the "cloud" and many libraries are digitalizing catalogs & collections (particularly antiquities & scholarly). Think how the Orwellian future is as close as the Pharos are far, with Stalin & Hitler between. This is worse than a book burning as it is not as visible, it is more insidious. As Twain noted the great San Francisco earthquake was justified by his being fired from the S.F. Chronicle as the sole way the Chronicle could be punished due to depleted readership, what might he say about this?
--by: Concerned @ 20110105132717
Curtispfs: as an educator you should be offended most of all. There's nothing about society that makes Gribben's hack work necessary. Negating language -- even negative, hurtful, or offensive language -- does nothing but hurt our chances to evolve as a society. Issues need to be discussed, not ignored. Our history needs to be discussed... all of it, not just the nationalistic hype. We have done terrible things, and terrible things have been done in our name... and those must be addressed. Taking the "n-word" (how is that LESS offensive, anyway? It's still a signifier.) out of Twain's work is destroying it, pure and simple. Twain did not use the word "nigger" because he endorsed the racist view of the south. He was being honest in reflecting how people talked. If anything, the text needs to be spared because it's part of our history, it's part of our literature, and it's part of the discussion about race in America.
--by: MickP @ 20110105151237
The idea seemingly behind this is to provide a “light” version of this book to be used for children not yet mature enough to handle the content, which is wrong on so many levels. If your audience doesn’t have the comprehension abilities then wait till they do! Maybe you don’t get to teach this work if you’re a teacher of young students. Don’t screw with their heads and ruin the impact of this great work then hope someone fixes/teaches the real thing later. If a vocal minority is dumb – educate them, invite them to learn the content too. The dumb only rule if one allows it. Don’t. To say doing anything about it is hard, well most things worth doing are hard...and it’s a pretty offensive excuse. Personally, I will be seeking out the holder of the rights to Mr. Twain’s books and if there is a fund to contribute towards a lawsuit or other means against this act – I will do so. BTW, I have read Professor Gribben's introduction, and his attempts at rationalizing this blasphemy only glaringly shows the error of his ways and his deep ignorance of the depth of the storyline, but it might of course play to those dumb folks mentioned trying to rule the roost. So it falls to us who are not fooled, to save them and all the rest from themselves.
--by: sparkles @ 20110105151557
You know, "textual purists" can start pretty young. When I was five, my grandmother gave me the abridged THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS for my birthday. I read it happily until I discovered that my older sister had the unabridged version. I started reading that, furious at everything they'd cut out. I was even more angry when I found that my edition of CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY was not the same as the first edition, and Dahl had bleached the Oompa-Loompas due to public pressure. I corrected that by getting a copy of the 1st edition at a garage same. I had the same fury in high school when I discovered that our textbooks had Bowdlerized versions of Shakespeare. And a few years later when the editor/publisher of Books of Wonder sold me a copy of E. Nesbitt's The Enchanted Castle, he lied to my face and said he'd only modernized some of the spellings, not realizing I had the memory of a well-read child and would immediately notice that he'd changed the Edwardian slang of "too much fag" into "too much work." Modernized? No. Bowdlerized. Any modern child who chooses to read a book written over a hundred years ago should be smart enough to realize that language changes over time and figure out how to parse words in context. I realize I cannot stop publishers from doing this with works in the public domain, but I would dearly love if it were a law that the publishing industry had to put "abridged by" and "Bowdlerized by" on the title pages of all relevant works along with the names of those responsible for mangling the original author's intent. Huck Finn without the N-word? This misses the entire point of the novel.
--by: KevinAndrewMurphy @ 20110105152457
I think that Jocelyn Chadwick's essay about "Why Huck Finn Belongs in Classrooms" (I include most of it below) best sums up my thoughts. I am appalled that someone would take this outstanding piece of literature and taint it. We love Mark Twain because he transcends the racial issue by creating a fully-acutalized black male in Jim, a feat that no other white male tried to achieve at that time in history. Mark Twain uses Huck Finn as a lens into the society that perpetuated slavery and to diminish any part of that experience, is a slap in every African American's face. We need to be reminded that there was a time when this kind of injustice occurred on a regular basis and within the law. We need to remember that this was one of the black marks on American history that needs to be taught to our students. We also need to ensure that our students know that using the "N" word along with Injun, is inappropriate and unnacceptable behavior. Why Huck Finn Belongs in Classrooms By Jocelyn Chadwick, African American Education Professor at Harvard University In the American Library Association’s recently published list of the 100 most frequently challenges books of the 1990s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ranked fifth. In fact, Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain had the dubious distinction of having written two of the only three pre-twentieth-century books on the list. Clearly, much controversy remains about whether Mark Twain had racist attitudes and whether he displayed those attitudes n his works, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Stereotypes in his portrayal of the character Jim, excessive use of the racial slur “nigger,” and a paternalistic attitude toward African Americans are among the charges made against Twain by his would-be banners. Are these charges valid, and if so, do they implicate Mark Twain as a racist? Twain scholar Lou Budd has asserted that Twain had “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” about the racial issues of his time. And while I acknowledge the likely truth in Budd’s assertion, I would also argue that, given the time in which Twain wrote, this can be seen as a minor indictment of Clemens the man and an even lesser one of Twain the writer. As an African-American, I know that I would rather be in a room with a person who is working through his position on race and inequality than with an incorrigible racist. Certainly racist attitudes of any kind, even if they stem from “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” and membership in a culture steeped in racial oppression, are unacceptable. But what are essential and substantial are the decisions we make and the concomitant actions we take as a result of our attitudes. We cannot, therefore, overlook the works of Twain that do address the issues of race and stereotype. Clearly, Twain used his writing to work through issues of race for himself and his society, and when I read Twain’s satires, I feel that he “gets it.” Despite the culture surrounding him, Twain understood deeply that racism is wrong. For Twain to have depicted in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a young hero who questioned racial inequality and an African American who was caring, compassionate, and strongly committed to his freedom was revolutionary indeed. By now, I’m sure it’s clear that I believe The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn must remain in classrooms throughout the country. It is educative not only for African Americans, but for anyone sitting in an American literature survey course. Does it stand in lieu of a good, substantive American history class that addresses African Americans’ experiences under slavery? Of course not, but it certainly rounds out that experience. This is especially true in school districts that for budgetary or other reasons do not have access to many novels by African Americans who were Twain’s contemporaries. But even if a district does have a budget that allows it to purchase class sets of Frances Harper’s Iola Leroy, for example, it is still important to include a Twain novel, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in the curriculum. Through the controversy surrounding this book alone, Twain brings into school what all of us in this country desperately need, yet fear, most: discussions-frank discussions-about race, race relations, interracial relations, race language, racial stereotypes and profiling, and ultimately, true and unadulterated racial equality. Does he ask all the pertinent questions and provide effective and lasting solutions? No. How could he? How could African American writers such as William Wells Brown, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Ralph Ellison, George Schuyler, or even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do the same? In no way am I asserting that this novel is the ultimate answer to discussing race relations in this country or even in the English/language arts classroom. What I am asserting is that change begins, must begin, with one individual. And while that one individual who connects with someone else will not cauterize the racial chasm, the connection does create a ripple in the great racial ocean that continues concentrically. By questioning racism in his own time and provoking discussion in ours, Twain provides just such a connection for man students.
--by: iK8 @ 20110105183432
Why Huck Finn Belongs in Classrooms Jocelyn Chadwick In the American Library Association’s recently published list of the 100 most frequently challenges books of the 1990s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ranked fifth. In fact, Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain had the dubious distinction of having written two of the only three pre-twentieth-century books on the list. Clearly, much controversy remains about whether Mark Twain had racist attitudes and whether he displayed those attitudes n his works, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Stereotypes in his portrayal of the character Jim, excessive use of the racial slur “nigger,” and a paternalistic attitude toward African Americans are among the charges made against Twain by his would-be banners. Are these charges valid, and if so, do they implicate Mark Twain as a racist? Twain scholar Lou Budd has asserted that Twain had “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” about the racial issues of his time. And while I acknowledge the likely truth in Budd’s assertion, I would also argue that, given the time in which Twain wrote, this can be seen as a minor indictment of Clemens the man and an even lesser one of Twain the writer. As an African-American, I know that I would rather be in a room with a person who is working through his position on race and inequality than with an incorrigible racist. Certainly racist attitudes of any kind, even if they stem from “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” and membership in a culture steeped in racial oppression, are unacceptable. But what are essential and substantial are the decisions we make and the concomitant actions we take as a result of our attitudes. We cannot, therefore, overlook the works of Twain that do address the issues of race and stereotype. Clearly, Twain used his writing to work through issues of race for himself and his society, and when I read Twain’s satires, I feel that he “gets it.” Despite the culture surrounding him, Twain understood deeply that racism is wrong. For Twain to have depicted in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a young hero who questioned racial inequality and an African American who was caring, compassionate, and strongly committed to his freedom was revolutionary indeed. Moreover, The Tragedy of Pudd’head Wilson more than nods at Twain’s interest-or, rather more appropriately, his concern-about race. In this novel Twain turns on its proverbial ear the misconception of racial inferiority as evidenced through language acquisition. Roxy, a salve woman who gives birth to a child sired by the slave master, switches her baby with that of the slave master’s wife to avoid having her son sold down South. Both children grow up adapting perfectly to their environments. Through the strength of Roxy’s character and the results of her actions, Twain makes clear that racial inferiority is not inherent (as many in his time believed) and that voice and language can be acquired by anyone who is put in the right environmental circumstances. Twain’s views and depictions of African American must also be considered in the context of African Americans’ changing notions of themselves between 1835 and 1910. We know concretely through African American periodicals published during the period and through slave narratives published both during the period and during the early 1930s through the WPA project that African Americans viewed themselves and their place in the North and South in varying ways. But one constant that emerges over and over again-from the precise and articulate periodicals such as The Elevator to the narratives transcribed in heavy Southern dialect-is the desire to be understood and appreciated as a thinking individual. This is a view of African American that Twain, especially in Pudd’nhead Wilson, depicted strongly. Paralleling this view, too, was an abiding and deep appreciation among African Americans for any white person who displayed a scintilla of concern, let alone a proclivity for voicing or displaying that concern. If the African Americans of Twain’s time could recognize the extraordinariness of whites who dared question the prevailing social structures, can’t we as contemporary readers do the same? By now, I’m sure it’s clear that I believe The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn must remain in classrooms throughout the country. It is educative not only for African Americans, but for anyone sitting in an American literature survey course. Does it stand in lieu of a good, substantive American history class that addresses African Americans’ experiences under slavery? Of course not, but it certainly rounds out that experience. This is especially true in school districts that for budgetary or other reasons do not have access to many novels by African Americans who were Twain’s contemporaries. But even if a district does have a budget that allows it to purchase class sets of Frances Harper’s Iola Leroy, for example, it is still important to include a Twain novel, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in the curriculum. Through the controversy surrounding this book alone, Twain brings into school what all of us in this country desperately need, yet fear, most: discussions-frank discussions-about race, race relations, interracial relations, race language, racial stereotypes and profiling, and ultimately, true and unadulterated racial equality. Does he ask all the pertinent questions and provide effective and lasting solutions? No. How could he? How could African American writers such as William Wells Brown, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Ralph Ellison, George Schuyler, or even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do the same? In no way am I asserting that this novel is the ultimate answer to discussing race relations in this country or even in the English/language arts classroom. What I am asserting is that change begins, must begin, with one individual. And while that one individual who connects with someone else will not cauterize the racial chasm, the connection does create a ripple in the great racial ocean that continues concentrically. By questioning racism in his own time and provoking discussion in ours, Twain provides just such a connection for man students.
--by: iK8 @ 20110105183739
Why Huck Finn Belongs in Classrooms Jocelyn Chadwick In the American Library Association’s recently published list of the 100 most frequently challenges books of the 1990s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ranked fifth. In fact, Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain had the dubious distinction of having written two of the only three pre-twentieth-century books on the list. Clearly, much controversy remains about whether Mark Twain had racist attitudes and whether he displayed those attitudes n his works, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Stereotypes in his portrayal of the character Jim, excessive use of the racial slur “nigger,” and a paternalistic attitude toward African Americans are among the charges made against Twain by his would-be banners. Are these charges valid, and if so, do they implicate Mark Twain as a racist? Twain scholar Lou Budd has asserted that Twain had “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” about the racial issues of his time. And while I acknowledge the likely truth in Budd’s assertion, I would also argue that, given the time in which Twain wrote, this can be seen as a minor indictment of Clemens the man and an even lesser one of Twain the writer. As an African-American, I know that I would rather be in a room with a person who is working through his position on race and inequality than with an incorri9gible racist. Certainly racist attitudes of any kind, even if they stem from “conflicting, conflicted attitudes” and membership in a culture steeped in racial oppression, are unacceptable. But what are essential and substantial are the decisions we make and the concomitant actions we take as a result of our attitudes. We cannot, therefore, overlook the works of Twain that do address the issues of race and stereotype. Clearly, Twain used his writing to work through issues of race for himself and his society, and when I read Twain’s satires, I feel that he “gets it.” Despite the culture surrounding him, Twain understood deeply that racism is wrong. For Twain to have depicted in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a young hero who questioned racial inequality and an African American who was caring, compassionate, and strongly committed to his freedom was revolutionary indeed. Moreover, The Tragedy of Pudd’head Wilson more than nods at Twain’s interest-or, rather more appropriately, his concern-about race. In this novel Twain turns on its proverbial ear the misconception of racial inferiority as evidenced through language acquisition. Roxy, a salve woman who gives birth to a child sired by the slave master, switches her baby with that of the slave master’s wife to avoid having her son sold down South. Both children grow up adapting perfectly to their environments. Through the strength of Roxy’s character and the results of her actions, Twain makes clear that racial inferiority is not inherent (as many in his time believed) and that voice and language can be acquired by anyone who is put in the right environmental circumstances. Twain’s views and depictions of African American must also be considered in the context of African Americans’ changing notions of themselves between 1835 and 1910. We know concretely through African American periodicals published during the period and through slave narratives published both during the period and during the early 1930s through the WPA project that African Americans viewed themselves and their place in the North and South in varying ways. But one constant that emerges over and over again-from the precise and articulate periodicals such as The Elevator to the narratives transcribed in heavy Southern dialect-is the desire to be understood and appreciated as a thinking individual. This is a view of African American that Twain, especially in Pudd’nhead Wilson, depicted strongly. Paralleling this view, too, was an abiding and deep appreciation among African Americans for any white person who displayed a scintilla of concern, let alone a proclivity for voicing or displaying that concern. If the African Americans of Twain’s time could recognize the extraordinariness of whites who dared question the prevailing social structures, can’t we as contemporary readers do the same? By now, I’m sure it’s clear that I believe The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn must remain in classrooms throughout the country. It is educative not only for African Americans, but for anyone sitting in an American literature survey course. Does it stand in lieu of a good, substantive American history class that addresses African Americans’ experiences under slavery? Of course not, but it certainly rounds out that experience. This is especially true in school districts that for budgetary or other reasons do not have access to many novels by African Americans who were Twain’s contemporaries. But even if a district does have a budget that allows it to purchase class sets of Frances Harper’s Iola Leroy, for example, it is still important to include a Twain novel, especially The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in the curriculum. Through the controversy surrounding this book alone, Twain brings into school what all of us in this country desperately need, yet fear, most: discussions-frank discussions-about race, race relations, interracial relations, race language, racial stereotypes and profiling, and ultimately, true and unadulterated racial equality. Does he ask all the pertinent questions and provide effective and lasting solutions? No. How could he? How could African American writers such as William Wells Brown, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Ralph Ellison, George Schuyler, or even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. do the same? In no way am I asserting that this novel is the ultimate answer to discussing race relations in this country or even in the English/language arts classroom. What I am asserting is that change begins, must begin, with one individual. And while that one individual who connects with someone else will not cauterize the racial chasm, the connection does create a ripple in the great racial ocean that continues concentrically. By questioning racism in his own time and provoking discussion in ours, Twain provides just such a connection for man students.
--by: iK8 @ 20110105183840
Mark Twain showed us just how cruel and ignorant the human animal is. He knew this was not a novel for children. If the word nigger is replaced with the word slave then the entire story is out of context. The greatest moment in the book is when a white, poor, ignorant boy decides to go against everything he has been brought up with and believes to help Jim go north. And Huck does this even though he believes it will cost his salvation! Maybe the book is for older children for them to read on their own.
--by: andy @ 20110105190000
Isn't this a little bit like changing the language of To Kill a Mockingbird? It also uses the
--by: TxTeacher @ 20110105191536
Not censorship but expurgation, sanitizing, tidying, neutering, and reduction to the mean. If this be textual purity - let it begin here.
--by: eremite @ 20110105211701
I, FOR ONE, WILL BE AMONG THE FIRST TO BUY THIS BOOK! I'm currently reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer with my 8th grade classes, and next up is Fahrenheit 451. A copy of this "abridged" version will serve nicely to illustrate Captain Beatty's point about how the criminalization of books began with publishing companies trying to make books more appealing to "the masses" by eliminating anything that could be offensive. Thank you, Mr. Alan Gribben, for helping this teacher answer that ever-present and infernal teenage question: "Why do we have to read this?" Your book will serve as a contemporary and concrete example of how censorship is still finding its way into these modern times of free information. As a side note, not even three weeks ago I proposed an essay question to my students: should the casual use of the word "nigger" be dropped from chapter 4 of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in future additions? The collective response was a resounding NO! Or as one student summed it up, "you don't call something a classic and then cut it up. Who are we to decide what to cut off and what to keep?" Want to convince literary puritans that the real intention of this new publication is to save a classic rather than just make a new dollar from repackaging it? Sell it at cost, not at $24.95! At that price, my school would have to invest $748 just for ONE class set.
--by: Gootch78 @ 20110105213015
@MickP I am offended by this text. I am extremely bothered by the idea that people feel this is necessary, but I'm telling you from the trenches of public education - it's become necessary. I'm not a school board or a superintendent, I'm just a classroom teacher who wants to expose his students to classic literature, but when I attempt to (at any of the multiple levels I've taught at), there are always ignorant and fearful people that resist. They don't listen to reason, they don't care what the lesson to be taught is, they have knee jerk reactions to a word in a book that is taken out of context. I don't have the power to fight them, and when parents in today's society complain, administrations react. The admin is fearful of the public opinion. The choices suck, but the choices for many of us in education are limited - use the sanitized/censored text, or don't use the book. In today's world of video games, internet, and instant gratification everything - a vast majority of kids will never pick up a piece of classic literature without being prompted by a classroom teacher. Of course I'd rather have my students read the real thing, but in reality that's not an option in class, so I'd rather get them hooked with an edited version and encourage them to read more on their own - than to deny them any access to Mark Twain at all. Texts like this aren't hurting our chance to evolve as a society - our society is devolving, making texts like this an evil necessity. What makes no sense to me is that TV shows, movies, and video games are becoming increasingly violent and graphic, but literature - in many incarnations - from fairy tales to the classics - is being rewritten to make it more friendly to our "sensitive" PC society. Believe me, I think that censoring literature on any level is a travesty, but Gribben is a product of the downfall of society, not the cause.
--by: Curtispfs @ 20110105220009
Something as horrible as this doesn't deserve comment...but I did it anyway. www.loveunitymagic.com
--by: PatrickMArthur @ 20110105222836
@sparkles. I don't know if your comments were directed at me, but I feel the need to respond regardless. Sure, as an educator I feel the responsibility to try and change the world, but I can only do it one student at a time. I don't have the power to change beliefs of a parent. Some difficult things are worth doing, but taking on parents and school boards is career suicide and then I can't help any students. To say that a children's version or abridged version of a book has nothing to offer and causes other teache
..
...
