It’s Banned Book Week again, when we give a hard look at censorship and what it does, and what it costs us.
What interests me this year about censorship is we all have our threshold of appropriate. I look at some books, banned because of language or sexuality (homo or hetero) or witchcraft or what have you. Some of them I can see the reasoning behind (books with hate crimes or sexual violence make me very uncomfortable) and then others would make me laugh, if censorship were funny. Harry Potter for witchcraft. Lois Lowry’s Anastasia Again for bra snapping.
(I honestly wonder if anyone who claims Harry Potter teaches kids witchcraft has ever read it. One thing about censorship is the people calling for it have rarely read the books- and probably would refuse to because they already know it’s evil. I’ve read Harry Potter, many of the books several times. Still can’t do a summoning charm to save my life.)
Censorship is myopic. It’s taking your own personal views, “A is offensive, B is okay” and applying them to everyone around you. Those with lower thresholds, well, they are simply deviant, since they don’t have your good sensibilities. Those with higher thresholds are prudes. It has to be more than just protecting your own household, because you could do that, take interest in what your kids are reading, right?
I was reading about banned books this morning and one objection made my blood run cold: (this was in reference to The Giver, also by Lowry – I have not read this book) One parent said, “Everything presented to the kids should be positive or historical, not negative.”
Well. First, history is rarely “positive.” The things people often cite as objectionable in books: wars, blood, genocide, rape, conquest, displacement of natives, cannibalism, dysentery on the Oregon Trail, homosexuals, adultery, divorce, dogs and cats living together… they’re all there. Secondly, stories without conflict, without negative aspects, aren’t stories. They’re vignettes. They’re little petits fours with no substance or weight. Positive, happy stories are forgotten and blow away on the wind. Animal Farm would not be so powerful without the nightmarish ending. Neither would The Tell-Tale Heart. [Ed- this paragraph edited for clarity. I personally do not think homosexuality is on par with violence, etc. Or bad at all.]
I think children should be explorers. They should go out in the back yard and root through leaves and lift up rocks. And if they see a wriggling worm, or a many-legged-beastie, they should go to their parents and say, “What’s that?” And the parent should tell them. Knowing that a part of the world is scary, or different, or simply unexplored, doesn’t mean they will jump headfirst into it. People make the best decisions when they’re fully informed.
Censorship implies that the government/libraries/book stores have the responsibility to keep our children from finding out things that we don’t want them to. Censorship seems to be a covering-the-eyes wish that if we don’t let our kids read about homosexuality (seemingly the majority of books banned these days are LGBT themed) or sexual exploration or drugs or violence, those issues will cease to exist once our kids grow up. “Homosexuality? What’s that?” will make it all go away.
It is our job to keep our kids safe. But it’s also our job to prepare them for life in the world, and life is full of wonderful and not wonderful thigns. And the things you find objectionable may even be seen as happy and normal by other people (homosexuality and other religions, I mean. Violence, rape, etc are not okay, but they’re in the world, and knowledge is a weapon against them.)
Schoolhouse Rock said it best: Knowledge is power. Are there books inappropriate for kids? Sure, there are books I don’t want my daughter reading at this stage in her development. She’s eight. But that’s my personal household decision, not the decision I will force my school and county libraries to follow. And through her childhood, as she reads books with more topics that include things she hasn’t encountered in her life yet, I’ll be there to talk to her about them.
Lastly, as authors, we should all oppose censorship. You may think you don’t write objectionable books, but take a look at the Banned Book List. If Lois Lowry could be challenged because of a bra strap, there’s no telling what a parent might focus on in your book.
Blog about censorship. Read a banned book. And if you’re in a position (librarian, PTA, etc) to stand up directly to someone calling for censorship, then do so. If you don’t do it, who will?
Share and Enjoy!
9 Responses to On Banned Book Week
Subscribe!
ISBW Endorsed Programs
New from the Murverse- ISBW Special #46 – Stonecoast Writer’s Residency January 31, 2012
- ISBW #230 – Feedback January 30, 2012
- Short Story Alert- Gimme Shelter January 27, 2012
Hi Mur. It’s not necessary for this comment to be visible, if things are hidden by default. I just wanted to point something out to you that I think and hope is an accident.
You say that history is rarely positive, and then you list a bunch of things to illustrate the less-than-postive bits of history. In that list, along with those decidedly negative things like rape, genocide, dysentery and cannibalism, you’ve listed homosexuals.
I know the point you’re trying to make (and I agree with you about censorship) but I’m hoping that crept into that particular list by accident.
Thanks.
@Shelley – Not by accident. My point was that things that are often challenged in books also take place in history. I personally do not think these things are equally “bad” (note the “dogs and cats” and “oregon trail” references).
Sorry if that wasn’t clear- I am a die hard liberal and I’m all for LGBT books in school – only by knowledge can we get rid of discrimination.
@Shelley I’ve edited the paragraph for clarity. Thanks for the note.
Thanks. The addition of: “The things people often cite as objectionable in books” makes all the difference.
@Shelley- Thanks yourself. I sometimes think I need a editor to help me with clarity, etc.
Hi Mur – just a note – censorship is not limited to the book banning efforts brought by parents, school districts, libraries, etc. One might also consider the degree to which the major publishers limit the literary books they bring to the table as a form of censorship. Samuel R. Delaney comments on this in the followign excerpt:
“When I talk to people with MFAs who are now working as editors for literary publishers, they say, ‘What we learned in college is a kind of writing that our current bosses do not want to let in the door.’ They want nothing to do with ‘good writing.’ These are places like Random House; Harcourt Brace; Knopf; and Farrar, Straus & Giroux, who are the epitomes of literary publishing in this country, yet they’re willing to say, ‘I’m sorry. That’s not what we’re interested in anymore. We have a couple of slots a year for novels like that.’
“This is not a healthy situation for writing in general. It’s not healthy for science fiction, not healthy for anyone. I think we have five publishers left in New York, and 25 years ago there were 79! So when we’re talking about ‘commercial’ versus ‘art’ publishing, we’re using a leftover vocabulary. We’re still looking at the world through 1955-colored glasses.â€
(http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2010/03/samuel-r-delany-grammar-of-narrative.html)
I think this kind of book banning is perhaps the more insidious. – Peter Damian Bellis
Peter- While unfortunate, I don’t think that’s censorship; that’s a business decision. Whether it’s good or bad is up for debate, but it’s not direct censoring of ideas, instead it’s deciding what will and will not sell.
Hello Mur, what you have described is merely the reason for the censorship. Anything that limits the expression and fre flow of ideas, is a form of censorship.
According to the Academic American Encyclopedia, “Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who “censor” themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.”
–Academic American Encyclopedia
@Peter- if you’re going to call every publisher a censor for deciding what to put their money behind to release, then every publisher, including me (Escape Pod), is a censor.
Publisher are not required to give every single author money for their books. They don’t owe authors exposure.