Topic: Censorship in Literature, should it be imposed upon us...or self imposed?" My Guest Author, J D Revene

   Please welcome my guest today, Author JD Revene

When I was a teenager I had a poster on my bedroom wall emblazoned with the legend:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Attrib. Voltaire]

As a writer and a small ‘l’ liberal I still ascribe to that belief. There are few things dearer to my heart than freedom of speech.

And yet, as I grow older I’m more inclined to questions the limits of that: should all things be free game? I deplore racism, and I’m not sure how willing I am to stand up for the Klu Klux Klan’s rights of expression. I’m a parent now and I worry about the things my children might be exposed to. I have no problem with the classification of films, even books. Not long ago I bought American Pyscho, which came shrink wrapped, that struck me as odd, but I didn’t object, after all it’s published and available, even if the audience is restricted.

And surely there are some things we simply should not be allowed to write about. But what exactly would they be and who would decide? An obvious candidate might be paedophilia—remember the recent furore over a self-published ‘how to’ guide on Amazon?—and yet when I think that the following words come to mind:

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, an initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea.

Would the world really be a better place without Nabokov’s Lolita? You know, I don’t think so.

So where does the answer lie? Is it, as suggested in the prompt for this posting, in self-censorship?

It has long been my belief that rights—like that of freedom of speech, which is essentially at the root of all argument against censorship—necessarily imply duties. I should stress this is neither an original idea nor a new one. I studied philosophy at University College London in the mid 80s, a college that was established by Jeremy Bentham, one of many philosophers to have argued this point (and if you would like to explore it further I recommend the paper The Correlativity of Rights and Duties, David Lyons, Noûs, Vol IV February 1970).

Thus, one might argue that whilst writers have the right not to be censored, there is a corresponding duty to exercise that right responsibly. However, this in itself raises questions. After all, if writers never test the limits then in what sense is the right real? And, as I said before, who decides what is and is not responsible?

These are not easy questions. And the answers may vary from writer to writer.

Perhaps, though, there is some higher duty. William Faulkner in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech said:

The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

By these things he means, the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths. Echoing Voltaire, I may not agree with him as to what those truths are—I am not so positive—but I cannot argue against the proposition that it is a writer’s duty to strive for the truth.

And that, I think, is my conclusion on this matter: as writers we should not accept censorship, whether imposed on by others or by ourselves, but rather we should strive to tell the truth, knowing that we must also accept responsibility for doing so—just as it is our responsibility if we fail to do so (my apologies for the convoluted syntax of that, such is the nature of a philosopher’s conclusions, which are rarely without caveat). This is not an easy burden to bear, but those of us who love writing, who are passionate for our art and believe in free expression, already know this.

The link I gave to Faulkner’s speech opened with a quote from J.B. Priestly and I shall close with it:

No matter how piercing and appalling his[or her] insights, the desolation creeping over his [or her] outer world, the lurid lights and shadows of his[or her] inner world, the writer must live with hope, work in faith.

 JD Revene is an Anglo-Australian writer. His style is minimalist. You can find some of his short stories in the anthology Words to Music (also available for Kindle)

Please join in the discussion, your thoughts and insights are most welcome.

Topic: "Censorship In Literature; should it be imposed upon us, or self imposed?" Discuss. My guest today, Author Mark Stone.."

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.

Topic: "Censorship in Literature; should it be ' Imposed upon the writer?" OR Self imposed?" My guest Author Jessica Degarmo.n

  

Topic: "Censorship in Literature, should it be imposed upon the writer? OR Self imposed?"

My Guest today; Author Jessica Degarmo

This topic is one that I’m spending more and more time lately considering.

Really, the whole topic stems from a rather disturbing series of articles
and news videos I’ve seen lately involving a couple who wrote some books
on child discipline. Although I haven’t read the books, the articles I did
read said that the books suggested the only way to raise a “good” child in
the name of the Lord was to beat it to the point that pain was inflicted.
And to use a switch to make sure.

Apparently, there are some people out there who believe everything they
read, and this whole media story culminated with a couple who have been
charged with beating their  young daughter to death in the name of God.
It’s appalling, shocking. Sickening.

Books can be wonderful things. They transport us to places we’d never get
to see. They allow us a little escapism indulgence. They teach us and help
us to grow. But when a book tells its reader to beat little defenseless
children, I draw the line.  I cannot imagine reading a book of that nature
and believing enough to try it.

Authors have a responsibility to their audiences. I understand all about
free speech and freedom of the presses, but what about our basic rights
and freedoms? The right to live? The right to exist in a pain-free
fashion, raised by love instead of violence? How can an author sleep at
night when he or she encourages such brutality, in the name of God or not?
How can an author in all good conscious say, “Beat your kid. It’s what God
intended”? God is kind. God is good. God would not condone the senseless
beating of one of His Children.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Authors are wonderfully creative
people who paint vivid pictures with words and enlighten the general
public. Writers are storytellers, crafters of alternate realities and
lively discussions. But authors have a responsibility to remember what
their readers may think. Some may argue that this mere thought is
censorship, and I suppose it is, but really, what choice do we have? If
there are those out there who think that just because they read that it’s
acceptable, or even commendable to beat children with switches when
they’ve done nothing more than be children, don’t we have a responsibilty
to not add fuel to the fire? Don’t we have to publish carefully,
responsibly, so that we don’t cause needless suffering?

Now I’m not saying, per se, that the book was the sole reason those people
allegedly beat their children. The media tied a nice neat bow on the story
and insinuated enough so I don’t have to. But in my humble opinion, it was
highy irresponsible to publish such material, knowing that there are those
out there who would try it. I’m certain the writers of that book believe
in their words, but that doesn’t make them right. And it doesn’t make
anyone right who reads that material and thinks that their children would
benefit from a beating.

You can disagree with me all you want, and you can argue that censorship
will ruin writing and publishing, but there has to be a line. I know we
all have our own beliefs, but I cannot imagine why anyone would think that
beating a child with a switch is what any God would want us to do. Let’s
reverse the situation. Put yourself in that child’s shoes. Does he or she
know that Mommy and Daddy read a book that told them this was ok? No, that
child is simply terrified, hurt and confused. Would you want to be beaten
with a switch?

Obviously, there is a reader responsibility as well. Readers cannot
believe everything they read. They have to understand the difference
between fact and fiction, between opinion and rule. But readers can’t
always make that distinction, and it’s up to us as writers to guide them.
And it’s up to publishers/presses to ensure that objectionable material
doesn’t go mainstream.

Consider the way that TV shows were once moderated. Even mild swear words
were frowned upon. If I’m not mistaken, those were simpler times when we
didn’t have such awful violence on TV, and crime rates were lower. It
seems as though anything goes now, and the lack of sensorship is resulting
in increases in crime and horrendous misdeeds; indeed, a downward trend in
morals and kindness.

The bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that children are our most
valuable natural resource. Protect them. Love them. Give them every chance
to grow up into healthy, productive adults. We have a responsiblity to
them to protect them from violence, religiously-sanctioned or not. We need
to make sure that there are no more senseless deaths due to modern
literature. We have a responsibility to carefully consider what we read
and follow the Golden Rule.

And for everyone’s sake, please don’t believe everything you read.


Please join in the discussion...your views on the topic are most welcome.