Rarely do I agree with the New York Times editorial page; today I mostly do. The Times editorialists are ?horrified? by the new, bowdlerized version of Twain's masterwork:
He [Alan Gribben, editor of version in question] has also acknowledged that what he calls ?textual purists? [again with the purist slander!] will be horrified by his sanitized versions of the two classics.
We are horrified, and we think most readers, textual purists or not, will be horrified too. The trouble isn't merely adulterating Twain's text. It's also adulterating social, economic and linguistic history. Substituting the word ?slave? makes it sound as though all the offense lies in the ?n-word? and has nothing to do with the institution of slavery. Worse, it suggests that understanding the truth of the past corrupts modern readers, when, in fact, this new edition is busy corrupting the past.
If you want more on all this, the Times's Room for Debate has it.
?Liam Julian, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow