Bowdlerizing Huck Ain’t a Good Idea


Professor Alan Gribben, who teaches at Auburn University in Montgomery, has introduced a sanitized version of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  Controversy has gathered around the book’s latest incarnation due to its substitution of the word “slave” for the “n-word.”  Somehow lost in the controversy is the editor’s decision to change “Injun” to “Indian.”  At any rate, Gribben’s book has become a media sensation and has resurrected long-buried arguments over the legacy and import of one of American literature’s greatest works. 

So much has been made of the words “political correctness” that it is difficult to know just what meaning they retain.  If they mean anything, surely they apply to Gribben’s editing that seeks to satisfy modern taste and decorum at the expense of accurate knowledge about the past.  Of course the novel is problematic—American history is problematic—but erasing problems of the past will do little to aid our understanding of history and culture in the present and future.  In light of the number of scholars working at the intersection of race and culture, America today hardly risks, as it once did, suffering from historical amnesia, but bowdlerizing texts could affect the way we remember racial history. 

Twain probably wished his novel to, in part, address the multivalence of racism through the eyes of a prepubescent boy.  Doing so would allow him to comment on Southern race relations while avoiding offense, and while nevertheless critiquing race relations.  This unfortunate edition, however, undercuts Twain’s critique.      

None can challenge that the “n-word” is hurtful and strong.  But editing it out of Huck Finn, however understandable and well-meaning that may be, simply removes the book from its social and historical context.  The book is an historical text—not just a delightful work of fiction.  It follows that reading Twain’s text can give us insights into the past.

Twain’s prose mimicked the vernacular of folks in the Mississippi Delta.  What other word would someone in Huck’s time and place have used to refer to black people?  Apparently the editor thinks the answer to that question is “slave,” but I’m not so sure.  The study of language in Huck Finn is the study of language in a particular region at a particular time.  Huck, like many if not most of Twain’s contemporaries, used the “n word” casually.  Examining the use of the “n word” in Huck Finn is more than an exploration of authorial intent.  It is studying a way of life in a world grappling to overcome racial strife.  Twain’s book has that overcoming as its goal.  Twain’s use of the “n word” is ironic.  He isn’t endorsing the word.  He’s criticizing it.

If Huck Finn is a narrative seeking out racial understanding—and this is a plausible and common reading—then Gribben’s editing undermines themes of racial and cultural understanding.  Jim is a courageous and complex figure in the novel.  His place in Southern culture—both the fictional culture of the novel and the real one upon which the novel was based—is critically compromised by a whitewashing of offensive diction.  

The “n word” may mean one thing to Huck at the beginning of the book, but it means something different to him at the end.  At first, Huck never considers what the word might signify to Jim, but as Huck develops, and as his bond with Jim grows stronger, he begins to think, well, differently.  Huck decides to “steal Jim out of slavery” despite his belief that he’ll go to hell for doing so (“All right then, I’ll go to hell,” Huck says).  That grave decision seems less morally significant when Huck’s culture becomes, with the sweep of an eraser, less racist. 

It will not do to pretend that distasteful epithets did not exist in history.  Nor will it do to sugarcoat history or historical texts to validate one man’s legacy, even if that man is our cultural and literary father (Faulkner called Twain the “father of American literature”).  Twain hardly needs us to validate his legacy, especially since his sophistication is apparently far beyond today’s editors who seem to miss the irony and critique loaded into a particular word.  The way the “n word” is used in Huck Finn suggests that Twain himself never would have applauded that word in “real” life. 

I suppose the editor has a point when he claims to want to avoid teaching children that the “n-word” is okay because Twain used it.  But Twain himself did not think the word was okay.  Besides, this minor touch up—substituting “slave” for the “n-word”—risks undoing the racial tension in the novel and in the culture that influenced Twain.  The deepest understandings come from investigating tensions.  Even Huck learns that as he challenges racism in subtle and nuanced ways.

We are not products of culture, but we are, all of us, influenced by it.  Culture does not excuse our actions or beliefs, but it does explain them.  Readers of Huck Finn would benefit from understanding the culture of the novel and of the novel’s author.  How can we understand the present if we don’t understand the events and attitudes that shaped the present?  Rather than altering Twain’s text, we should teach the novel, with all its fraught diction, to students who are mature enough to handle it. 

The edited version of Huck Finn forces young students to skip over critical thinking about race relations in America.  Yet the classroom is the very place where students are supposed to confront harsh realities and to learn from them.  Is not the point of critical learning to hold social and cultural phenomena under a microscope to understand them better? 

If students in schools or universities are not allowed to consider harsh truths about the past, even truths about offensive lexica, where will they learn about those truths?  Contemporary and popular film, television, and music are rarely great sources for learning about the past.  These media are usually studies in their own right and not so revealing of history as conveyed by historians.

Changing the “n word” to “slave” does not redeem Twain or Huck Finn—not that they need redeeming—but it does rob students of the opportunity to learn from history.  Worse, it robs students of the opportunity to become, like Huck, more racially sensitive as they experience, à la Huck, life on and around the Mississippi—as they read, in other words, about Huck’s gradual coming to “terms.”       

That’s what this whole debate is about: coming to terms.  The term at issue: the “n word.”  I’m not sure I would say that the bowdlerized novel sets us back because I’m not convinced we’re moving in the right direction anymore, but I would say that blotting out history never lends itself to positive social progress.  Removing the “n word” from Huck Finn sidesteps critical questions about why Twain used the term, and why we, students and teachers alike, should not use the term today except as part of an intellectual discussion about our past.                 

 Allen Mendenhall is an editor of The Mendenhall.  Visit his website at


Tell Us What You Think! (Commenting policy is available on our About page for new users)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s