Please join in the discussion with my guest; Author Peter B Morin.
I’m
honored to offer my thoughts on censorship in literature. I’ve followed this discussion
for a while now. It’s fascinating to read opinions from writers who inhabit so
many different parts of the world.
Of
course, “we Americans” think that the USA is the world’s standard-bearer for
free speech. Why, we have it in our Constitution. In fact, it’s so important,
it’s the very first amendment to that sacred document. How arrogant and naïve,
both.
First,
let’s settle on a definition of censorship. Prior posters suggest that
censorship may be imposed by public and private entities alike. I don’t buy
that.
A
newspaper, television station, billboard company, etc. is –and should be - free
to accept or reject whatever speech they want. Am I happy that news
organizations pick and choose their news, and the way they present it, to
achieve a particular slant? No, but you can’t legislate intellectual honesty
any more than you can legislate content. That point applies to National Public
Radio as well as Fox News. There are members of the United States Congress who
want to take away radio station licenses because they air conservative talk
shows, and others who want to defund public arts programs (like NPR) because of
their liberal content. All of them should be strung up by their thumbs.
So
– for the purpose of this discussion, I employ the narrow definition of
censorship: when the GOVERNMENT decides what you can say in a public forum (or
how you say it).
In
literature, the public debates have raged over notable examples, most of
which occurred quite a while ago. Still here in the States, there continue to
be a fair
number of censorship requests, although not many of them are obliged.
According to the American Library Association, they’ve logged 9,600 book ban
requests since 1990 (these don’t include the ones “handled quietly”), but those
are requests – many from parents or idiot politicians – and relatively few of
them are granted. These do not all relate to literature - a fair number of them
pertain to sex education material.
Here
are a few fascinating incidents pertaining to the removal of contemporary
literature:
-
Harry
Potter books have been excluded local school libraries in California, but
retained in Gwinett County, Georgia (that’s amusing!).
-
Huck Finn was recently (2007) removed from some
local school libraries in Michigan and Washington, but was retained in
Minnesota.
-
Curtis
Sittenfeld’s Prep: A Novel was removed from the Yorba Linda school
libraries after a parent complained about it being “pornography.” (N.B. Yorba
Linda was the birthplace of Richard Nixon.)
-
Both
Jody Picoult’s The Tenth Circle and James Patterson’s Cradle and All
were removed from the 9th grade reading list the Westhampton Beach
schools for sexual content (2007).
-
Toni
Morrison’s Beloved was removed from the AP English class reading list in
Louisville, Kentucky (2007) for sexual and racial themes.
-
Cormac
McCarthy’s Child of God was removed from the Tuscola, Texas school
library. I’m assuming for sexual violence.
And
what’s up in Wilsona, California? In 2006, they banned Disney’s Christmas
Storybook and Clifford the Big Red Dog from the school library. I
might understand their concerns about the perniciousness of Christianity, but
does Clifford have some animal cruelty I’m not aware of? Or did someone feel it
was degrading to canines?
Many
or most of these instances involve efforts initiated by parents of students in
small rural communities whose motivation is the protection of their children
from sexual content or violence.
Take
the Blue Valley, Kansas group, Citizens for Literary Standards, which in 2004
petitioned the school district to remove 13 books from school libraries and
reading lists. Among them is Cormac McCarthy’s novel, All the Pretty Horses,
which won the National Book Award in 1992. They conclude their laughably ignorant plot
summary of the novel with this:
It’s hard to understand what redeeming educational value the Blue
Valley School District found in this book.
Among
the novel’s putrid language they cited in their denunciation is this:
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Give
the school district credit, though. The campaign went nowhere.
A
more focused effort at book
banning was undertaken in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where parents targeted 35
works for their explicit sexual content and profanity. Among them were works by
Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and E.L. Doctorow. If you review the
content examples, you might have some sympathy for parents who would not wish
their (in some instances) 8th and 9th grade children to
be reading that material. Still, this campaign appears to have gone nowhere
either.
What
we don’t see here is any grassroots effort to ban from public libraries literary
works that contain strong religious content. Why is that? Does the very same First
Amendment that prohibits public entities from banning literary work with
immoral, sexual or violent content also prohibit those entities from carrying
Christian fiction? I might have thought the argument would have been made
already, but perhaps not. One
study suggests that the availability of evangelical Christian-themed
fiction in schools and libraries is at least in proportion to that demographic
group’s relationship to the population served.
I
searched Amazon for the bestselling “Christian fiction” works and then searched
for them online through the regional public library network.
The
Amazon #1 ranked “Christian fiction” book is a short story collection titled A
Lineage of Grace. Published in 2009, it is ranked #1,160 in the “books”
category and #39 in the “religious and inspirational” category. How many copies
of this brisk seller does the regional library have on hand? One. One to serve
a population of over a half million. I must live in an unusually irreligious
region.
How
many copies of Curtis Sittenfeld’s Prep: A Novel (2005) are available in the
same network? Five. It is ranked 28,228 in the same category.
The
second top seller on Amazon in the Christian fiction category is SCARS
– An Amazing End-Times Prophesy Novel. It is ranked #5,262 in the paid in
Kindle store (#3 in the “Biblical” category). Not available anywhere in the
library network.
There
is an ongoing campaign to exclude religious-themed books from public schools –
text books containing what one
advocate refers to as “sectarian propaganda, clearly intended to
indoctrinate students.” The list of such texts includes history texts published
by the world’s largest publishers.
One
place that doesn’t suffer a dearth of Christian fiction is Burwell,
Nebraska. I’m betting Toni Morrison’s Beloved isn’t there.
I
mention these instances to demonstrate that efforts to censor literature here
in the U.S. are alive and well, are always brought by or on behalf of some
group who object to a particular viewpoint, and are, in the vast majority of
instances, unsuccessful.
That
said, a few of the successful ban efforts really bother me. Huck Finn is
one of them.
The
objection to Huck Finn, we all understand, is that some people have an extreme
sensitivity to the use of the word “nigger,” no matter what the venue, context
or objective of its use is. That Clements employed it in a different era, or
for the purpose not of promoting racism but condemning it, is of no
consequence. It is time, they say, to erase the word from existence in any form
or content, as though it never existed. Except, of course, in the rap music
industry, where it will continue to be tolerated, if grudgingly. This is
nonsense – both the idea of erasing a word and carving exceptions to it. We
must give the speaker the courtesy of employing the meaning and purpose he
intended.
The
objection to fiction that contains violent sexual content is, to me, a more
sympathetic case, especially where the venue of its exposure is a public school
serving a constituency of “impressionable minds.” But even in that case, unless
the offensive work is one that is forced upon the student, as opposed to simply
made available to him, there is nothing so righteous about the opposition to it
that would justify banning the work altogether.
Still,
there are rare instances in which the farthest extremes of the political
continuum can agree – such as the case of child pornography. Right? Or have
they not been informed of the instances of child sexual abuse in Cormac
McCarthy’s Child of God? Has McCarthy succeeded in producing a rare
instance in which the portrayal of such vile behavior has redeeming literary
merit? I’ve read all of McCarthy’s work. I thought Blood Meridian was
gruesome. Child of God is truly depraved. I loved it.
The
purpose of fiction (I think, anyway) is to provide a vehicle in which we may
examine ourselves and our environment, and (forgive me for the use of the
phrase) glimpse a unique view of “the human condition.” That
covers a wide spectrum, and no one can deny that humanity can be both utterly
depraved and equally beatific. It can evidence the existence of a perfect
morality or its complete absence. In my mind, nothing is out of bounds if it is
within the imagination. That’s simply the fact of life. We don’t have to like
it, but closing our eyes doesn’t make it go away.
This post was truly depraved....I loved it!
ReplyDeletePete did what Pete does best: argue cogently, with sentience and with wit.
I have enjoyed observing the way that censorship is dealt with in different ways by different people and that certain parts of the question are focussed on by one person and not at all by another.
Well done, Pete for your smart and well researched post.
My ultimate admiration must go to Sooz for giving us the soap box in the first place.
Hear, hear, Gary! Thanks to Sooz for the soapbox.
ReplyDeleteThank you, guys. I derive a great deal of pleasure from being able to provide a platform for these topics. I appreciate all the work my guests put into their posts, and I have learned a great deal about the perspectives of other people along the way. A win win situation. x
ReplyDeleteThanks Soooz and good post Pete
ReplyDelete