Editing literature to conform to current custom

[cindysphynx]

Mary Ann wrote:

> :::::bangs head on computer desk:::::  That was *not* phrased 
>properly, was  it?  

Clarification understood and accepted.  No offense intended or taken.

OK, a very quick aside before I take on some inflammatory issues 
quite directly.

I was thinking more about this view that an author's words shouldn't 
be touched no matter what, that they are owed tremendous deference, 
etc.  I was wondering whether the people who feel that way have the 
same view of other forms of art.  Two that come to mind for 
discussion are music lyrics and movies.

Lyrics first.  My niece came over recently, and she was singing the 
song from _West Side Story,_ "I Feel Pretty."  Now, I believe the 
original lyrics contain the phrase, "I feel pretty, and witty and 
gay."  But lo and behold, the sheet music had something else 
like "pretty and witty and *bright*," I believe.  "Gay" had been 
dropped.  I assume this change was made because "gay" now has a very 
different meaning when the lyric was first written.  It would strike 
modern audiences as rather off for a young woman in a story in which 
she falls in love with a man to be singing that she is "gay."

So is this change offensive?  

Similarly, there is a state in the South in the U.S. (Virginia?) 
that has a state song that does or did have the word "darkies" in 
the original version.  Would it be wrong to change that lyric on the 
ground that it is offensive to some citizens of the state?  Or 
should the state retain the racist language on the ground that that 
is what the original lyricist wrote?

Lastly, movies in the U.S. are routinely edited for broadcast 
television in the U.S. to delete offensive language and sexual 
scenes.  I have heard this is not done quite so much in Europe, but 
this is required in the U.S.  So does this sort of editing rape the 
vision of the director and screenwriter, or is it OK?  How is it 
different from deleting the N-word from Kipling?  

Anyway, let me get on to the other issue I wanted to address.

Amanda wrote:

>I have just been sitting here bemused at how many people are using 
>the euphemism "N-word." 

I believe "bemused" means "bewildered" or "confused" or "deep in 
thought."

Maybe I can clarify things, then.  I think it is rather plain that 
some people type "N-word" rather than typing out a vile, offensive 
racist slur because they wish to be considerate of those who *are* 
deeply offended by that slur.  That's one reason why *I* do it.  It 
strikes me as the considerate and kind thing to do.  I was taught 
that typing "N-word" or finding a way to re-phrase your thoughts 
when you can do so rather than using a horrific racial slur is just 
common courtesy.  

Like all matters of courtesy, however, it is not mandatory.  I mean, 
we do have free speech.  So anyone who wishes to use the slur in 
question rather than seek out and use well-understood alternatives 
is free to do so, I guess.

Amanda:

>Here I must say that I categorically don't use that euphemism. "N-
>word.  How have you let a set of sounds have such power over you, 
>that you won't even type it out? To quote Dumbledore, "Always use 
>the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the 
>thing itself." It is not a pleasant word, it is offensive, it 
>represents reprehensible things--but for that very reason I will 
>*not* give it such power as to fear to say or type it.

I really don't think the issue is whether you are allowing the N-
word to acquire some power it doesn't otherwise have by using it.  I 
would suggest that the oppression of people with dark skin and the 
ugly usage of this word to facilitate that oppression is what causes 
the word to be terribly offensive and creates its power.  Believe 
me, whether you say it or type it is *not* the source of its power, 
and your usage of it will in no way divest it of its considerable 
power to wound.  I wish it were that easy.

I would guess that some people are reluctant to use the slur when 
they can readily avoid it is not because they are "afraid" of a 
word.  That's a plot device JKR uses in a work of fantasy fiction.  
In the real world, many people choose not to use offensive language 
not out of fear, but out of consideration for the sensibilities of 
others and to avoid giving the impression that they personally 
approve of the word.


>Even if you are avoiding the usage in order to avoid giving offense,
>"N-word" gives so much power and strength to a set of sounds! I 
>can't think of another single word that is treated with such 
>deference. 

Did you ever stop to think about why that might be?  Could it be 
that the N-word carries with it the baggage of segregation, slavery, 
lynching and all manner of horrors visited upon the people who have 
been forced to hear this slur all too many times already?  Could it 
be that *to this day* people of color *are* all too often subjected 
to this particular slur by people who are not at all well-meaning?

>We sound like the frightened students of Hogwarts, discussing You-
>Know-Who.

Uh, no.  I think those like myself who use the N-word rather than 
use the slur "sound" like they wish not to give offense if they can 
possibly help it.  That could be because some people are all too 
aware that, to this day, usage of the N-word is *very* hurtful to 
those people who have had to suffer its usage.  And it is especially 
hurtful to children, which is why we ought to seize every 
opportunity to demonstrate to youth that the N-word has no place in 
a polite and racially diverse society.  

And perhaps some people are more than a little worried that tossing 
about a racial slur like this will cause others to conclude that 
their own political beliefs are similar to racist individuals who 
use the slur with great frequency and personal enjoyment.

Cindy (noting that Amanda's post somehow managed *not* to use the  
slur in question even once)