Internet Erases Some References to "N-Word" in Faulkner Short Story

As our histories and memories move more and more into the digital space, we're at the mercy of the cloud to maintain our history. So, what happens when the internet gets it wrong and re-works a piece of literature?

As our histories and memories move more and more into the digital space, we're losing the physical copies of texts and histories. Site like Wikipedia are now edited by a community of contributors, but there have been times when false information has gotten through. Likewise, our ebooks are largely under the control of corporations that can revoke our privileges to read them at any time under DRM. But for every copy of one book on Amazon, there are a million digital ones out there being preserved. Yes, but don't believe everything you read on the internet. David Streitfeld from the NY Times made a recent discovery showing that even these community-managed books can become perverted.


He found in the short story A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner, the author uses a  controversial term (most know as the “N word”) several times to describe some minor characters in the story. However, these words are removed in the free web version that Streitfeld found and substituted for the word “rigger.”

The altered passage reads as follows:

“The town had just let the contracts for paving the sidewalks, and in the summer after her father's death they began the work. The construction company came with riggers and mules and machinery, and a foreman named Homer Barron, a Yankee--a big, dark, ready man, with a big voice and eyes lighter than his face. The little boys would follow in groups to hear him cuss the riggers, and the riggers singing in time to the rise and fall of picks.”

Indeed, if someone were to casually Google “A Rose for Emily” this version is the first that pops up. There's no annotation calling out that a correction was made, it just is that way now for anyone who searches for this particular short story. The controversial slur hasn't been completely removed from these few online versions that are circulating the web, so some may think nothing of a few words being changed for the sake of ridding the world of a disgusting word. But it has muddied a little bit of history.

Perhaps it's fitting to leave off with a passage from 1984 by George Orwell:

“For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory? He tried to remember in what year he had first heard mention of Big Brother. He thought it must have been at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be certain.”

Read more at NY Times

Photo Credit: jvoves/Flickr

A dark matter hurricane is crashing into Earth

Giving our solar system a "slap in the face"

Surprising Science
  • A stream of galactic debris is hurtling at us, pulling dark matter along with it
  • It's traveling so quickly it's been described as a hurricane of dark matter
  • Scientists are excited to set their particle detectors at the onslffaught
Keep reading Show less

Are we all multiple personalities of universal consciousness?

Bernardo Kastrup proposes a new ontology he calls “idealism” built on panpsychism, the idea that everything in the universe contains consciousness. He solves problems with this philosophy by adding a new suggestion: The universal mind has dissociative identity disorder.

We’re all one mind in "idealism." (Credit: Alex Grey)
Mind & Brain

There’s a reason they call it the “hard problem.” Consciousness: Where is it? What is it? No one single perspective seems to be able to answer all the questions we have about consciousness. Now Bernardo Kastrup thinks he’s found one. He calls his ontology idealism, and according to idealism, all of us and all we perceive are manifestations of something very much like a cosmic-scale dissociative identity disorder (DID). He suggests there’s an all-encompassing universe-wide consciousness, it has multiple personalities, and we’re them.

Keep reading Show less

New study reveals what time we burn the most calories

Once again, our circadian rhythm points the way.

Photo: Victor Freitas / Unsplash
Surprising Science
  • Seven individuals were locked inside a windowless, internetless room for 37 days.
  • While at rest, they burned 130 more calories at 5 p.m. than at 5 a.m.
  • Morning time again shown not to be the best time to eat.
Keep reading Show less