Language Lounge
A Monthly Column for Word Lovers
Life on the Mississippi (Improved)
Last month a new edition of Mark Twain's classic novels was published: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in one volume, edited by Auburn University professor Alan Gribben. The book has attracted some press attention for the editor's decision to systematically change two words that occur in both of Twain's books.
In place of Injun, Gribben uses Indian, and in place of nigger he uses slave. Injun occurs mainly in Tom Sawyer where the character Injun Joe (now Indian Joe) figures prominently. Nigger occurs mainly in Huckleberry Finn, where one of the main characters is Jim, a runaway slave.
Why the change? Professor Gribben, who is a Twain scholar and has taught the books for many years in many different contexts, has written a lengthy and thoughtful introduction to the book. In it, he lays out his editorial thinking and how it developed; it seems to boil down to this:
In this edition I have translated each usage of the n-word to read "slave" instead, since the term "slave" is closest in meaning and implication. Although the text loses some of the caustic sting that the n-word carries, that price seems small compared to the revolting effect that the more offensive word has on contemporary readers.
Toning down Mark Twain for mass consumption has a long and full history. The brilliant success and huge penetration into Anglophone culture of his two great novels about 19th-century boyhood arise mainly from the fact that they are masterpieces; but among English speakers who can give you a thumbnail summary of one book or the other, how many have actually read them?

Soon as it was night out we shoved; when we got her out to about the middle we let her aloner and let her float wherever the current wanted her to; then we lit the pipes, and dangled our legs in the water, and talked about all kinds of things—we was always naked, day and night, whenever the mosquitoes would let us—the new clothes Buck's folks made for me was too good to be comfortable, and besides I didn't go much on clothes, nohow.
There you have it: unsupervised same-sex, interracial, intergenerational nudity, under cover of darkness, with tobacco use thrown in for extra kick. It's probably safe to say that no high-school drama-club production of Huckleberry Finn has hewn very close to the original in this respect. There may well be, among aspiring young thespians, one or two who would like to go out on a limb and tell the story like it is; but adults, in their sober wisdom, would override such a rash choice. Professor Gribben has joined the long line of sober adults in deciding how doses of Mark Twain should be administered to students.

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free slave there from Ohio—a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane— the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the state. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could vote when he was at home."
Gribben's editing here results in the rather odd oxymoron "free slave." More to the point, however, it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance, suggesting that Huck's racist, good-for-nothing father, in the midst of a besotted rant, would have the thoughtfulness and sensitivity to avoid "the more offensive word" – though it is surely the only one that he would ever use.
Many of the uses of nigger in Huckleberry Finn are in fact reported speech of Jim, the slave – it is the only word he uses for people of his own kind. Here, for example, is Jim's speech in a passage from the book in the original version:
You know that one-laigged nigger dat b'longs to old Misto Bradish? Well, he sot up a bank, en say anybody dat put in a dollar would git fo' dollars mo' at de en' er de year. Well, all de niggers went in, but dey didn't have much. I wuz de on'y one dat had much. So I stuck out for mo' dan fo' dollars, en I said 'f I didn' git it I'd start a bank mysef. Well, o' course dat nigger want' to keep me out er de business, bekase he says dey warn't business 'nough for two banks, so he say I could put in my five dollars en he pay me thirty-five at de en' er de year.
This passage points up a use of nigger that is perhaps the most awkward and difficult for today's scholars and readers alike to countenance: its one-time use as an English dialect word for Negro or black, without any pejorative sense intended. Can it be used this way today? Certainly not. But neither can it be erased from history. Here is Twain's explanatory note at the beginning of Huckleberry Finn:
In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
Few authors state their intentions so clearly, but here Twain has told the reader that he wrote, painstakingly, exactly what he meant. It would be hard to argue that, in the mouth of the character Jim, the word nigger is anything other than the word for black in what Twain calls the "Missouri negro dialect."
Lurking behind Gribben's editorial choice, and his lengthy defense of it, one senses his hope that actively removing offensive words from the notice of young readers might contribute to their demise in English. But words don't die so easily, and in fact the use of nigger in the works of Mark Twain is one of the very few places in which its appearance may provide teachable moments par excellence: about the power of words, their history, and their ability to mean different things to different people in different contexts. If not in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, where else are young readers and listeners going to encounter this word? They may hear it in the form nigga or niggaz in a rap song; they may see it scratched into the paint in a truck stop toilet stall, or hear it spat out of the mouth of a truncheon-wielding cop in some video gone viral on YouTube. None of these contexts are likely to provide a supervisable opportunity to learn something about the history of the most loaded word in English and why it cannot be used in any neutral way today.
Fortunately for us all, the texts of Twain's works, without 21st-century improvements, have long been in the public domain and are available as free eBooks: here's Tom Sawyer and here's Huckleberry Finn. There are numerous other full editions available online. The books are as refreshing, hilarious, and engaging as they were when they were written 150 years ago, and no English speaker should forgo the pleasure.


Join the conversation
Comments from our users:
Mark Twain was reflecting the thinking of his environment. To try to "correct" or censor him is dishonest and hypocritical. And the reader will not be dumb enough to accept it, not in the long run.
Twain used that word with deliberation and intent. A psuedo-scholar who doesn't know how to teach Huck Finn should just leave it alone.
All "niggers" weren't slaves in Twain's time. Gribbens editorial decision is more offensive than the loaded n-word.
There was a movement in legal circles about 10 or 15 years ago to add (sic) after every use of non-gender-neutral language in cited case law, because the ignorant judges of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries didn't know they were being offensive.It was--fortunately--short-lived.
Thanks to Brenda S. for pointing out the "faint-heartedness" behind gribbenizing.I will never forget the climactic moment of Huckleberry Finn, when a raft of slave-catchers hailed Huck and asked him whether his passenger was white or black. After contemplating the consequences, including the likelihood that he would go to hell for abetting the theft of Jim, another person's property, Huck answered: "He's white." In that short passage Twain said everything that can be said about friendship, and about doing the right thing even when the consequences might harm your personally.Censor the guts from the book like Gribben has, and that moment in the book becomes almost nonsensical.
Certainly the book should be taught with sensitivity. But it should be taught as it was written.
But I wonder: How many high school hearts does it break? Who feels its depths in English III? Why is it taught in American high schools? Or Gatsby? Or The Scarlet Letter? All great books, but their inclusion in the high school canon seems likey to drive the habit of reading into the deep mud of analysis, symbolism, and "hidden meanings." I worry that no one really learns to talk about the reading of books as lived experiences, or to experience reading as the evocative, consequential dreaming it ought to be. Or worst: reading is for English class, not life in this moment. How is it possible for these works to be living experiences for a fifteen year old?
I am not arguing against a canon, nor do I deny the gifts of great teachers, but I am arguing against English class as the equivalent of Auto Mechanics. My suspicion is that little in the classroom teaching of these books will help to determine a life's commitment to reading. And as my first high school English Department chairman told me in my first week of teaching: "If they never read a book again, we've failed."
The stigma does not seem to attach when used by the black culture as it does with the white communicator today.
Instead of rewriting Huck Finn, we should be using it as a teaching moment to explain cultural changes. To do otherwise is to "dumb down" our children.
The comments by readers are wonderful.
It is the word 'white'.
It makes me appear as some blood-drained ghoul ! Revolting !! And there it is, right there in the slave-catchers' question called over the water : "Is he black or white?" and Huck's supposedly well considered response of "He's white."
How offensive ! It invites the worst kind of segregation as false terminology exposes me and my children to derision. (How dare they draw attention to, and separate me for, my skin which is far from being the colour of white? )
Even worse than being classified as something so odious as 'white' is that name still heard in some places and certainly printed in so many different books that it might be a Herculean task for our hero Gribben to erase: the name "Whitey".
How many others must this master of revision bend his [benighted] efforts to ? One supposes he is obliged to wait for the copyright to run out....
[which brings the realization that the correct word for what the gentleman does might not be 'editing' but 'plagiarism']
It is the word 'white'.
It makes me appear as some blood-drained ghoul ! Revolting !! And there it is, right there in the slave-catchers' question called over the water : "Is he black or white?" and Huck's supposedly well considered response of "He's white."
How offensive ! It invites the worst kind of segregation as false terminology exposes me and my children to derision. (How dare they draw attention to, and separate me for, my skin which is far from being the colour of white? )
Even worse than being classified as something so odious as 'white' is that name still heard in some places and certainly printed in so many different books that it might be a Herculean task for our hero Gribben to erase: the name "Whitey".
How many others must this master of revision bend his [benighted] efforts to ? One supposes he is obliged to wait for the copyright to run out....
[which brings the realization that the correct word for what the gentleman does might not be 'editing' but 'plagiarism']
The word is still around, and not just in pristine copies of Twain's books and graffiti in places where no one dares to go to wash them away. Which doesn't mean that I would ever use it. Then again, I'm an educated white person, I have no first hand experience in this. I must resort to literature to get a feeling for reality here.
Let's for a moment assume that “The Wire” is a contemporary form of the Great American Novel and its author David Simon is amongst Mark Twain's rightful heirs. He will certainly claim that the language makes accurate use of various Baltimore vernaculars as spoken during the past decade. What term other than “nigger” could a character like, say, Snoop possibly use to refer to her peers? For her, for her colleagues as well as for Huck's friend Jim it's the word that denotes “black person”, and it's not in the least derogatory. Incidentally, the cops in “The Wire” often use “yo”, which is.
A quick glance at the “Corpus of Contemporary American English” shows 1311 hits for “nigger”, which makes it pretty frequent. And that's written language only.
I think that words are more or less appropriate, right through to grossly inappropriate, depending on context, communication partners or target groups. But they are never “good” or “bad”, let alone “taboo”. This kind of distinction is for small children and elementary stage language learners. Twain, Simon and the like define their context clearly and for good. Search/replace operations like the one undertaken by Prof. Gribben are grotesquely out of line.
The potential loss of true depiction of times past, and also of concomitant teaching opportunities, is serious.
We must safeguard our heritage but particularly we have a duty to future generations.
These comments (mostly much better verbalized than mine), do not come from a mindless blogging segment of society.
Can we trust the provider and editor of these pages to get the message to publishers, book sellers, schools, and-- hopefully discouraging future meddling with our literary heritage--also to the Wizard Gribben ??
The potential loss of true depiction of times past, and also of concomitant teaching opportunities, is serious.
We must safeguard our heritage but particularly we have a duty to future generations.
These comments (mostly much better verbalized than mine), do not come from a mindless blogging segment of society.
Can we trust the provider and editor of these pages to get the message to publishers, book sellers, schools, and-- hopefully discouraging future meddling with our literary heritage--also to the Wizard Gribben ??
You can say that again! d:o)
It makes me wonder if we have raised children who have become adults so ashamed of their past that they attempt to change it to avoid their own feelings.
Works from Joel Chandler Harris are a national treasure depicting a historical time. We should be proud of his stories just like Mark Twain.
We should use them to teach cultural history.
I would just as well burn down a historical museum.
The point is: There's way more out there than just one culture. I quote a top entry from urbandictionary.com, that says it all:
“nigger - A word that everyone else is afraid to define except in utter seriousness, for fear of being branded a rascist, in total ignorance of the colloquial usage of the word, its characterization in popular culture, and the populations of people it is used most by.
(Example)
'You shouldn't ever say the n-word, you rascist cracker asshole.'”
(note: "rascist is not a typo!)
This entry got 45.000 “thumbs ups” and 14.400 “thumbs downs”. One way of bridging the insulation could be to occasionally have a look at sources like this one, amongst others.
True, participants of “discussions such as this one” never use the word. On the other hand, those “populations” who do use it are in no danger of ever reading this. At the end of the day, the attempt of eradicating any word, specifically a word like “nigger”, from the living language burns down to a call for cultural segregation.
In this sense it is diametrically opposed to the work of authors like Twain or Simon, who actually go to those places, dig into those cultures and use the language they find to tell their stories. I have the utmost respect for their courage, their candour and their capability. They should be defended.
First of all I think it's important to understand that even chronologically speaking words have a descriptive function before they accrue any pejorative currency. The word in question is of course "negro". Its evolution to the n-word may be a combination of two things.
The first is purely socio-cultural which is to say that negros did form the bottom rung of society for a significant part of American history. The second aspect is to do with two separate aspects of spoken English. The first is common to many English-speaking countries (not India though!) which is the process by which the "r" sound no longer grrrowls but purrs. (A strange reification if you like can be noted in the manner in which words like Asia and Australia, devoid of the letter "r" are often pronounced as "Ashier" and "Australier".)
The second is peculiar to US English, which uses both a vowel shift (if you don't come from certain parts of the US and come there for the first time it's practically impossible to to distinguish the word "black" from the word "block") and the second is of course the famous American drawl so exemplified by the Georgians (the US Georgians that is!) that can extend small sentnces to occupy exceptional durations. The last paragraph quoted by Orin has Twain's word "laigged" which typifies this.
The morality of usage is another matter entirely. Humans are not terribly nice to each other as a species. But you may have fewer riots and other forms of social unrest if some taboos on current usage are kept intact. Even so, that is a scant excuse for meddling in works written at another time, place and context.
First, I weighed whether to force-feed the entire book to my students who rate reading a very poor form of recreation compared to texting or playing video games. I decided that, instead of slogging through the entire book for a month, we would together read the first half of Chapter 16 in which Huck outwits some men looking for lost slaves, and protects Jim, by making up a story about a plague on the raft. Even to do justice to that small bit of the book, I presented a lot of context, showing students some of the Ken Burns show on Twain's life and on the impact of Huck Finn on post-slavery America.
Then I faced the same problem that we have been discussing in this thread: should we use the N-word in a mixed high school classroom as we read it out loud? My text was the original Twain. The students and I decided to substitute "black," "slave," or "brother," depending on the context, as they read out loud. This compromise protected everyone's sensibilities even as they read the text with their own eyes. Maybe that's diluting the literature, but one does face dilemmas when one teaches vulnerable young people.
Our Huck Finn class opened a rich vein of discussion. As we read, we looked at Huck's crisis of conscience: he realized by helping Jim escape, he was also creating a situation where Jim might even steal his own children back! We contrasted what Huck said to himself with what he actually did. Though we dipped into the book for just one class, I hope that my more curious students will explore more of the book for themselves.
A lesson on the history of the N-word would have provided even more background. A good idea for another year.
Yet if you value your own wisdom so much higher than the rapidly diagnosed ignorance of the uninformed masses, where did you get it from? When did you last share a toke with members of that inner city black community, from the next metropolitan limbo, to learn more about people's lives and language?
Seriously, if you are not into participant observation in that particular field, you might want to resort to corpus linguistics. And the coca (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/), your gold standard of contemporary American English, ranks the infamous n-word at around 20.000 on the frequency list, out of hundreds of thousands of words. Since it's predominantly used in fictional text, which only account for about 20% of the coca, one can safely say that it's really very frequent in today's American literature.
If someone took the trouble of creating and evaluating a corpus of (spoken) AAVE, I betcha the n-word would appear even much higher on the list. I wouldn't be surprised if that data already existed in some research project, does anyone out there have it?
That's quite amazing for a word that “shouldn't” exist at all. No, its use is not restricted to Twain's world and time. Facts can be really irritating, especially when they contradict pre-existing world views.
Now all that doesn't imply that the use of the n-word is unproblematic, not at all. But simply ignoring it won't help. I too applaud Jane M., for her thoughtful way of handling it in the classroom. Making use of the wisdom of the people, in this case the students, surely is the key.
As for "Song of the South," I loved the Disney movie of this when I was a child, and count myself lucky to be old enough to have seen it. Thank you, Donnave A., for bringing it back to mind. This is another example of senseless censoring. Perhaps because of where I was born (New York State), I saw nothing racial in this at all. The only thing that bothered me was that the Tar Baby (no idea what that was all about) was scary looking with those button eyes!
Great comments and discussion here. I have just discovered this site, and as a WerdNerd (as someone put it), a would-be Grammar Girl, and an Anglophile, I am in heaven. Cheers, all, and carry on the good work!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360065n
I do want to award the laurels to Jane M. Successfully avoiding the N-word, but not censoring the literature- you deftly managed both. You have my most sincere thanks, congratulations, and admiration.