Editing the classics to make them more PC?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110104/en_yblog_newsroom/huck-finn-gets-some-changes

What do you think about this? Do you think that it's okay to edit books that have been around forever so they will be more up to date?

I think it's wrong to touch already done works that were created in and shaped by their era. If its commentary is "offensive", then just look to it as an example of an incorrect or primitive example against a more modern POV.

I was shocked tonight when I told my mother that and she said 'good!', I mean nobody likes the word, nobody is saying it's okay, but that's just part of the context, that's how it was at the time, and that's the point of books from 150 or 200 years ago, to give the readers an idea of what life was like back then. And this could lead to a whole can of worms, what's next? are they going to take the word out of To Kill A Mockingbird? And WHY is it Huckleberry Finn is being politically corrected up but there's no word of editing Tom Sawyer? It used the same language. And so have hundreds of other books that have been written.

I don't mind classic film being restored so that quality can be maintained, but they should not be CREATIVELY altered (edited for content or digitally enhanced with color.)

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

alan smithee wrote:"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Careful there dude; we don't wanna hear any word of hell freezing over.

They should just leave them alone if they are updated they are no longer the full writings of the original author.

Tony Marino wrote:They should just leave them alone if they are updated they are no longer the full writings of the original author.

Exactly, it's not like the Bible and we need translated for us all the soforths and thines and all of that, that we can't understand half of it...actually I tried reading Huckleberry Finn and I could only get about halfway through it and I DID only understand half of it, but that's on account of the way everything he said was spelled, I don't do well with blatantly poor spelling, but that was my only complaint with the book, how the language was spelled, not about the language used.

Shale wrote:

Ted Turner should burn in a multi-colored hell for destroying art to make money.

In this day in age I don't see the point is touching them for content....no one has to watch it if they don't wanna see it. The superiority of people thinking they need to be edited alone annoys me....

Marc™ wrote:In this day in age I don't see the point is touching them for content....no one has to watch it if they don't wanna see it. The superiority of people thinking they need to be edited alone annoys me....

Except we're talking about a book here, a book which is sometimes taught in schools...and I remember a few years back there was a BIG freaking deal over a 10th grader and her father not liking the language in Fahrenheit 451 so she was allowed to opt out of it and read another book, but I don't think all schools and all teachers are so lenient if a student complains about the contents of a book they're reading. But guess what? It's school, the general idea is you don't have a choice and you ARE going to learn things you don't like. That's why it's called school.

I'm against it as well. Classic movies and television are–in a way–historical landmarks that represent the circumstances and values of their time. To tamper with their content to make them more acceptable, or appealing, by the standard of today is treasonous. Akin to taking a photo of your grandparents from when they were young and digitally altering it to make the colors, background imagery and their clothes to look like it was taken today.

I'm against it, too. The book reflects the time and place in which it was set. There's no need to change it. Perhaps we should also change our history textbooks so that they are less offensive? Water it down and pretend it wasn't what it was? I wonder if they will tackle "Uncle Tom's Cabin" next and censor it, too - maybe Jim doesn't really die?

That's not too far off about changing our history. There was a significant civil rights Supreme Court case in 1967, called Loving vs Virginia. It is not being taught in the American history in the schools and very few in the US are aware of it, yet it ended an embarrasing moment of American Apartheid.

Here's something else they may want to change. A very popular song in the '40s that I grew up with watching old wartime movies. "Chattanooga Choo Choo" by Glenn Miller and his orchestra was featured in the 1941 movie Sun Valley Serenade. The opening verse is:

Pardon me boy, is that the Chatanooga choo choo,
Track 29
Boy you can give me a shine!

That was the language of the period. The US was segregated, blacks were oppressed and the movies were made for white audiences. It all seemed so normal - and black MEN who shined shoes were called boy. To change the lyrics of that song or the 1941 movie would be in effect changing history.

Now, in the obit for my uncle killed in the Pacific War in 1944 the St. Louis paper noted that "Pvt. Lynn had 26 Japs to his credit." Should Japanese be offended by such wording. I'm sure it is in the dialogue of WWII movies and books. Again, it was a period of time and just like Twain talking about niggers in the 19th Century it reflects the sentiments of that moment in our history.

To change that to appease the sensitivities of today is just wrong. It creates a lie to what was actually going on in the world in other periods.

I never understood WHY the word Jap is considered so offensive, it IS a part of the word their race is always addressed by. I mean think about it, any other racial or ethnic slur that exists, usually has NOTHING to do with what the members of that group are really called, you have gook, kike, limey, nigger, cracker, none of these have anything to do with the terms Vietnamese, Jewish, black, white, etc.


For that matter, I've also never understood the gay slurs, first time I saw An American Werewolf in London, I couldn't figure out why David was screaming Prince Charles was a faggot...I looked up the term, and it said a bundle of wood...that's offensive? Or you take the shorter version, fag...that's cigarettes, so it's very confusing with those words, and how the hell did they ever come to be used as an insult towards gays? That's what I want to know.