Censorship in Literature
By
Mark Stone
As
a former Journalism Major, the subject of censorship has been a favorite of
mine for a long time. I mean, just say the word ‘censorship’, whisper it
softly, in any crowd of reporters and watch hackles rise, faces become flush,
and nostrils flare. Them’s fightin’ words, pardner.
Censorship
for the press should be, and is, handled by each individual owner’s guidelines
of taste and ethics. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to work for them.
Simple. But that is not the true topic of discussion here, is it? No, the true
topic is censorship on the writer or the writer’s self-imposed censorship and
here is where the waters become slightly muddied. For us writers wanting to
earn a living with Microsoft Word, it boils down to Commercial Speech.
Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a
company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political
speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection
under the First Amendment. This is why a publisher or owner of a magazine (of
the entertainment variety) may impose a modicum of censorship to writer’s work.
And like I said above, if you don’t like it, don’t work for those publications.
Books are a slightly
different matter, where magazines are tend to be merely weekly or monthly
affairs, books have a tendency to hang about for years, like annoying
relatives. Once you impose restrictions on what basically (for fiction) is a
work of art, or non-fiction (more information/press release combined with art),
where does the meddling end? I can think of one end, an end we have seen and
heard about all too often when the intolerant wish to govern our right to
write…the book burning.
There. I said it. You knew
it would come to that eventually, didn’t you? Hell, we burn Old Glory in the
U.S. of A., what are a few books compared to that?
Book burning, censorship
by a minority group protesting an idea or ideals expressed between the covers
of a volume of work. Simple. The burners would say they have a right to do so
(they do) to express their distaste and forcibly attempt the censorship of an
idea. Is it rational? No, but that doesn’t stop some people. Once we buckle
under the pressure of others to contain our art (who ever told Rembrandt he
could only use primary colors?), the discarding of past works becomes a
foregone conclusion. Personally, I find it repugnant that others would try to
exercise that kind of control over my mad scribblings. If they don’t like it,
don’t fucking read it.
And with that fine
expletive, I segue into censorship by the author (cool little transition,
huh?). Self-imposed censorship is merely the author’s way of hampering his/her
own self while writing. I am a huge believer in writing for logic, for
realistic motivation, and realistic dialogue. Swearing, violence, hate…they all
are part of our real world and if the writer feels they should be part of
his/her art, then so be it and more power to them.
As I am a fairly simple
man, I wear my heart on my sleeve and this is the most succinct article I’ve
ever written about this subject because it is, I feel, the simplest and most
emotional. Thus my conclusion will be simple as well: Do not, ever, by no
means, and I mean NEVER, let anything, anyone, compromise your art. It’s yours,
don’t soil it by compromise.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete