One of the most basic ideas of the modern world is literacy; countries strive for an educated populous derived from nearly perfect rates of reading proficiency. Yet, we find ourselves in the midst of a controversy regarding classic works of literature and the sensitivity of today’s modern society. By editing classic literature to diminish it ‘offensiveness’ we deprive writers of their individualistic voice, uncensored truth that encompasses classic works of writing, and reign of artistic freedom.
The purpose of an editor within the view of a writer is to provide an external understanding of the author’s work devoid of any preconceived notions and ideas. However, when editing the works of authors that can no longer input their discretion, the difficulty of the task increases. In the recent discussion over the revised, and supposedly less offensive, version of Huckleberry Finn, Richard Greener reflects that “this piece of editing — the removal of the word “ni**er” — goes over a line no editor should ever cross. This has nothing to do with the word itself. It relates to the form in which the word appears in the manuscript.” The vernacular of a story’s parameters is not an element of literature within the scope of alteration from an editor. Authors like Twain aimed at authenticity and factualness of the time period to be reflected within their writing. So, to change the jargon of the piece is to disregard the truth and to disrespect the historical elements of the writing. Furthermore, “To censor… is a form of denial: shutting the door on harsh historical realities — whitewashing them or pretending they do not exist,” (Kakutani) By changing an author’s words to less offend a certain group because of its negative connotation in history is asking for the past to change. Although the modification may seem like an attempt to expand the work's audience; in reality, you are asking history to be hidden. In his own preface to the controversial novel, Mark Twain explains that the use of vernaculars such as “the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last.” The beginning of the original writing of Huckleberry Finn included Twain’s own desire to express the reasoning for the contrasting vernaculars within the book. Therefore, expressing that altering the language of the novel, even in the slightest is impudent to Twain and his work on the classic novel. The role of editors in the completion of a novel or item of writing is to enhance the words of the author and not alter the characterization of the author’s fictional individuals.
Scholastically, by undermining the authenticity of classic works of literature through censorship, the editor is masking the historical truth that is often revealed through classic works. Often, “the urge to expurgate (if not outright ban) comes from the right, evangelicals and conservatives, worried about blasphemy, profane language and sexual innuendo,” (Kakutani). When writing an author is not focus on the exterior opinions and feelings of potential readers. The author’s purpose is to explicate a lesson or story that they believe as important to relay to the world. Yet, modern editing divulges from the honest works of literature into politically correct vessels of consensus writing. The general consensus of writers is that in places like America “we don't have censorship, we have, you know, freedom to read, freedom to write, freedom of the press, we don't do this, we don't ban books. But then they did," (Flood). Writer Judy Blume who expresses the trials and tribulations of growing up through her writing, discusses censorship and editing of literature, specifically to a child audience, as an un-Americans practice. The reflection of life-like scenarios in literature is meant to portray truth to readers, by changing the message expressed through the writing, editors deprive the educational value of the writing. Throughout the succession of conflict dealing with the levels sensitivity within society, the world has forgotten the literature does not only rely on literacy “defined as providing students with specific technical skills related to reading, writing and speaking,” but also as becoming, “culturally literate; that is to be bearers of certain meaning, values, and views,” (McLaren). Removing the honesty seen in classic literature, rising generations are spared from the details and vulgarities man-kind has endured, thus increasing their probability to repeat the occurrences.
Despite the editing that occurs before initial publishing, works of writing undergo rigorous editing and modification the ensure its integral meaning and the importance of each motif within the writing. Despite this, the most influential voice is the author’s. Even during editing the text remains authorial an therefore the main voice of reason lies within the author, “Among scholarly editors of the mid-twentieth century the prevalent view has been that the work of art is the author’s –that the artist has the right of revision and the publishers, editors, friends, and responding readers may influence the work legitimately only if the author approves.” (Shillingsburg 11) Writers have an authorial right over their piece till it is published in order to maintain the artistic integrity of their writing. If publishers are allowed to alter any and all writing within their discretion, no piece would be original because of the influence of a single person recurring ideas, themes and speech patterns. Furthermore, the originality of a works complete essence would be altered into the perspective of a completely different entity. Often, the modern form of editing classic literature revolves around the preface and introduction of the works, "by packaging a novel in a certain way, one inevitably makes, implicitly at least, some kind of argument about it. Therefore, most professors approach these projects with certain goals about how they might shape the text for their audience.” (Bromley) When items of classical literature are undergoing editing by university personnel, personal preference and consequentially, changes are made that are foreign to the text; thus, altering the meaning and progression of the work. Writers create works of literature with a certain intent in mind, by prefacing the piece with the opinion of a separate entity, the reader is immediately influenced in term of the work with words other than the authors. Ergo, changing the piece through third-party editing. The editing of elements within a piece of writing dilutes the meaning, especially through the characters language, “characters say things that were grammatically incorrect, or vague and unclear, or actually misleading, and yes — maybe offensive to someone, somebody, somewhere, for some reason,” (Greener). The editing of language within a book alters the characterization of the individual saying it; this act changes the meaning of their statements, the aura of their person, and they’re overall moral standing as a character. Also, the words of characters within a story reflects the characters position and overall takeaway from the story; a character may be written as being incredibly racists to portray prejudice or other societal wrongs. An author’s intent and vision for their work should not be altered to spare the frail emotions of potential readers, the purpose of literature is to inform and expose readers to conflicting views of universal issues.
To truly prosper and experience the extent of knowledge that comes from being part of the most advanced society in history, we must allow the lessons of our forefathers guide us. Altering classic literature, simply because we cannot handle the brutality once faced by humankind shows a great deal of defectiveness in society when confronted with the accounts of history. The only thing at stake if tyrannous editing of classical literature is ended, is the hypersensitive emotions of those who refuse to view history as a method of learning and self-improvement.