Editing literature to conform to current custom

[cindysphynx]

Mary Ann wrote:

>"nigger" was an acceptable term when Kipling wrote his stuff 

Really?  I wasn't aware that this word was ever *acceptable.*  I 
thought it was *common* at one time, but I wasn't aware that it was 
ever *perfectly fine* with black people.  Maybe the history of the 
word in the U.K. is different than in the U.S.; I don't know.  Set 
me straight if I'm wrong there, but I would be surprised to hear 
that the N-word was ever intended to be a neutral term or an 
expression of endearment or some such.

Mary Ann:

> Cindy also has a good point in regards to the differing 
>translations of the Bible, but I would argue that translations are 
>*always* iffy.  Kipling, however, wrote in modern English, which is 
>why this situation is different from the Bible scenario.
 
Naama added:

> Paul wrote in Greek. So, ALL English versions of his writings are 
>in  any case translations of the original.


This is such a fascinating dialogue.  David has already addressed 
the fact that Kiping did *not* write for the modern ear, which is 
the very reason why we are having this discussion.

So, then.  To recap, Amanda kicked things off by objecting to the 
deletion of the N-word from "Just So Stories" on the ground that the 
author's original words should never be touched.  No exceptions, no 
excuses, if I read her post correctly.  This is a fairly extreme 
position and one that strikes me as rather difficult to defend.  
Elkins explained many of the reasons very well, so I won't attempt 
to re-state the reasons the deletion of the N-word strikes me as 
quite reasonable and justified in this instance.

Then, to make the point that we already *do* tolerate changes to 
authors' original words in other contexts, I suggested that no one 
objects to the many modern translations of the Bible that are done 
primarily to make it more accessible to the readers of today.  

Mary Ann responds that these translations are always iffy.  Yes, 
they are.  So if it is OK to flat-out change the language of the 
Bible (something that is already iffy before we start tinkering with 
it to make it accessible), how can anyone maintain that it is 
indefensible to delete a wicked racial slur from Kipling?  Indeed, 
the reasons to delete what I consider to be the most heinous, 
offensive, ugly racial slur that exists from "Just So Stories" 
strike me as far more compelling than the reasons to change an 
arcane phrase in the Bible like "Verily I say unto thee" to "Listen 
up, this part is important."

Naama points out that Paul wrote portions of the Bible in Greek, so 
we are already translating his words.  I think this is rather beside 
the point.  If the only appropriate policy is not to change the 
original words of the author, the logical conclusion is that Paul's 
writings should only be offered up in the original *Greek.*  I think 
that's rather silly, but that is where you wind up if you take the 
position that the author's words should *never* be changed.

In fact, there's ample precedent for changing literature to make it 
more accessible *for kids.*  There are many English-language 
versions of the Bible *for kids* where the text has been drastically 
altered and simplified.  So if it is just plain *wrong* to change 
the words of the author, these children's Bibles are entirely 
unacceptable, as they are *many* steps removed even from the English 
translations of Paul's original.

Naama:
 
> Kipling's text in English, however, is the original text that 
>Kipling wrote. Changing words in his stories is problematic since 
>the stories  are presented to the reader as the original Kipling 
>stories (or so I  assume. Are the books marked as "sanitized" in 
some way?).

This sounds like just a truth in advertising-type argument.  Sure, 
go ahead and add something to the title page explaining that 
offensive racial slurs have been deleted.  I don't object to that; 
it may already have been done with the work in question.  That 
argument really doesn't get to the core issue:  should the deletion 
of the N-word have been made in the first place?

As for the argument that Kipling's words shouldn't be changed 
because he originally wrote in English, it doesn't bear up well 
under scrutiny.  If Kipling had written the book in French with the 
same exact racial slur, and it had then been translated to English, 
would it then be OK to delete the N-word?  That seems like an odd 
place to draw a bright line.

Having a blanket policy that the author's original words are sacred 
and can never be changed is unnecessarily extreme and leads to 
rather silly results, IMHO.  Clearly, these issues have to be 
handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on many factors such as 
the historical setting of the book, to name just one possible 
factor.  

Now, I understand Amanda's suggestion that she wishes to expose her 
childen to the original slur in the text so that they can learn.  I 
think this argument collapses under close examination.  Readers can 
be divided into those who understand that the N-word has been 
deleted in the original text, and readers who have no clue about 
this and why it was done and what it all means.  If you leave the N-
word *in* the text, the readers who do *not* understand all of this 
may be badly misled about what Kipling was intending to say there -- 
and in the case of children, they really may get the wrong idea 
about the propriety of the N-word.  If you delete the N-word, 
however, people like Amanda are still free to explain the whole 
thing to their children, even to the point of explaining that she 
won't tolerate anyone uttering the N-word in her home.  Doesn't that 
indicate that the better policy might be to delete the slur in this 
particular case?
 
Cindy -- cheerfully suggesting that people who are terribly bothered 
by the deletion of the N-word from "Just So Stores" simply pencil it 
in