Editing literature to conform to current custom

[lupinesque]

Mary Ann wrote:

> IMO there are strong points on both sides of the argument.  I'm 
going to do 
> my customary thing, which is wimp out and suggest a compromise.
> 
> A child who can read Kipling is probably old enough to understand 
the basics 
> of the concept of "race" and discrimination.  On that basis, it 
would make 
> sense to (a) keep the text true to the original and include 
> footnotes/endnotes explaining that e.g. "nigger" was an acceptable 
term when 
> Kipling wrote his stuff but that this term is now highly offensive, 
or (b) 
> change the now-offensive words and include footnotes/endnotes 
explaining 
> what the original words were and why they have been changed.  If 
the child 
> is still confused, he/she can approach the parents for an 
explanation.

I gravitate toward compromise too (I prefer to think of it as boldly 
mediating between two fierce opponents rather than wimping out <g>), 
and I was thinking of (c), leave in the now-offensive words and 
include footnotes/endnotes explaining that the words are offensive 
and what they connoted (if different) in the original.  But then, I 
don't object to children reading things that I think are offensive; I 
figure they will sort it all out with the help of wiser readers, just 
as they must sort out stupid ideas and learn that even the best 
authorities shouldn't be accepted blindly--not even Grandma, not even 
Mom and Dad.  It does dismay me that they will be embarrassed along 
the way (shudders at the thought of child-Elkins meeting an Ethiopian 
and trying out her new word), and it dismays me more to think of 
black kids reading such things and feeling the shame that the words 
were intended to impose.

One thing I dislike about just changing offensive terms is that it 
gives an inaccurate picture of the author.  I have a collection of 
writings by a religious essayist, James Luther Adams, whose writings 
spanned the 20th century, and they have been edited to make would-be 
neutral "he" and "his" gender-neutral.  At first read I thought the 
author was way ahead of his time.  IIRC, I only learned that it was 
the editor's decision from asking about it--it wasn't footnoted or 
even noted in the preface (I could be wrong about this; the book is 
at work).  It really bothered me, as I felt that JLA had been 
misrepresented--not that he would have objected to the changes, but 
that they made him look like a groundbreaking feminist when in fact 
his language was conventional.  It also would have been interesting 
to see when, if ever, he began to use gender-neutral language, but 
any such evolution is erased by the editor's sweeping changes.

When I quote an author I may make changes like this, for the simple 
reason that I believe constantly referring to human beings as male 
sends girls and women a message that they are some kind of special 
case, or--and the theologians I quote sometimes literally believed 
this--not fully human.  I want to quote these authors (not just 
abandon them to the ash-heap on account of their sexism), but I don't 
want my own speech to be sexist, so if they are talking about 
humanity I will often change their "man" to "human," e.g.  However, I 
always explain that the changes were mine.  The history of language 
is like any other history:  we may bemoan it, but it's dangerous to 
rewrite it.

To swing back to the other side in true wimp, uh, I mean masterful 
mediator, fashion, Amanda asks how young a child needs language 
adjusted.  Well, I do adjust language when I talk to young children.  
I don't swear in their presence, for example, and if I'm reading them 
a book way beyond their comprehension, I bring the language down to 
their level as I go.  Likewise, although I couldn't name an exact 
age, I can see myself deciding that this particular child is too 
young to deal with the complexities of "nigger" (or any other not 
necessarily painful, just conceptually difficult, word) and 
editing 'til a later date.

Amy
who doesn't get what any of this has to do with Dean Thomas--guess I 
should catch up to the main list