Censorship

For my class this summer, we have our reading list already so I've been reading ahead, as I have for the past four years. And for the most part, I've enjoyed the books I've read for school for the past few years. I mean my tastes varied for the different books, but I haven't been subject to anything too objectionable--until now, my final year. And now from the most objectionable children's author, Judy Blume. Actually she didn't write the whole book, mostly she was the organizer/editor type with an introductory essay. I suppose this is fitting since she is a highly censored author and the book is a collection of short stories by censored authors. But that fact alone makes me cringe to pick it up. I did though, even read her essay--

which thoroughly irritated me. I'll defend myself in a minute, but I have to say that she really wrote some amazingly closed minded things in an essay objecting to such. Additionally, this essay, as way too many I've read, indicated an unfortunate loss of Aristotle's great lessons of good rhetoric--but that's another entry/essay. (which I might actually write, because I do love the study of rhetoric).

In spite of her essay, I read a few of the short stories, mostly because I'm not convinced that all censored authors write about things as objectionable as Blume does. But some are, and indeed I had to stop with the third or fourth--complete trash.

Before I go further, let me give a little background about my views of censorship. First, I am against it, but well, not exactly in the way Blume and other anti-censors would hope.

I do believe I have some pretty high standards. I think they've been made event in my posts. But I don't consider myself closed-minded. I've read a good number of books that have been censored, because in fact, there are a number of censored books that are censored for reasons that I don't understand. I don't see anything really wrong with Huckleberry Finn, including its language, for example. But maybe if I were black, I would. I don't know. And I don't find Harry Potter's magic too objectionable. And back to Blume--I didn't even see anything really wrong with a book that addresses menstruation. It's one of those truly unavoidables.

But even for those books I hate, I'm all for the first amendment and all that, though I think there are some misunderstandings about the first amendment that tend to get promoted by the anti-censors, quite unfortunately. Still, I'm against it--for the first amendment, yes, but moreso as I was saying, for different reasons.

That is, because some of those who would promote censorship are ignorant of a number of things, including the impact of what censoring a book actually does, they effectivly create the opposite effect to what they'd hoped for. An objectionable book suddenly becomes a highly desired book.

Indeed, there are good reasons for this, aside from the curiosity about what the censors are up to and the scattered dirty minds. In fact, many censored authors are very talented, and the books wouldn't be objectionable at all if the author didn't have some rhetorical skills--the ability to get people to buy into their story--i.e. suspend their disbelief. Things are only objectionable if they're influential.

So, as I was saying--these books become highly desired, get upped on the sales charts, and publishers interpret that people like certain things, often assumed to be the things for which the book was censored. And so the envelope gets pushed even further. Effectually, thanks to censorship, things that would have been considered appalling 20-30 years ago (in the context of what children should read moreso than adults--there have been plenty of objectionable things in adult books much longer) are mainstream now--things that one is expected to see as admirable, perfectly normal, and unavoidable. Judy's essay actually honed me into this as I considered some of the things she included that caused eyebrows to raise at that time. I find those things rampant and mainstream now, 20-30 years later.

So what are we to do about it? We don't want to censor them, but it would be nice to reverse the trend, don't you think? Send the envelope backward? Let people publish their trash if they want to, but protect the people who don't want to read it or feel obligated to write it in order to get published.

As far as protecting people from reading things they don't want to, it seems like a pretty good idea to let readers know what's in the book that might bother them. And personally, I would certainly hope that I would not be forced to read these things or mocked for choosing not to do so. And yet this is another result of censorship. As I learned from the second introductory essay of this short story collection, the representative from the Coalition Against Censorship, because the anti-censors think that closed-mindedness is the cause of the censorship, they would like to respond by opening people's mind and forcing people to read the books and discuss them in schools, because this is supposedly a safe place for such discussions. Excuse me? I've completely lost the logic here. Force people to read things they know they don't like in order to open their minds? And then to discuss them in schools? I'm sorry but I have never found a secondary school a safe haven for discussion! Sure discussions are possible in school because a teacher is a pre-determined discussion leader, but there's no guarantee a teacher has the same values as children and thousands time less likelihood the children are capable of respecting each other's opinions. School is an environment where everyone is required by law to be, with no pre-sorting for different beliefs. School is the place where a number of children's books adequately and accurately portray much peer abuse--psychological and emotional. Why is this a safe place for discussion? Particularly since you've introduced the discussioin with a basis of coercion--forcing the people in class to read what you think is good for them and with which they may disagree.

As for the other point--even if a person isn't forced to read things, it would be nice to know what a book includes in order to make an informed decision about reading it. But, as Judy argues in her essay, she doesn't want her books to be rated. Let the children read what they want to read, she says. Well, I think my thesis indicates the first fallacy in that, but there are more, believe it or not. How can the children know they want to read it before they know what they're getting themselves into? And second, what about adults? Are children really the only ones who are allowed to be troubled by these things? Seriously, I would love a rating on adult books. Not like the movie system--PG, PG-13, R etc. --those too have imbedded the fallacy that age has something to do with it, and although it is content, not the age of the protagonist that produces these ratings on the particular film, the result is more pushing of the envelope (i.e. if it's not PG-13, no one over 10 will care to watch it). No, that's not the kind of rating system I'd like. I want to know what potential objectionable materials, the author and editor have tossed in. As I indicated earlier, I might not agree that it's really objectionable, but at least I'll know and can make an informed decision.

Of course, you might argue that there are a number of places that do book reviews and I could find such information by doing a little research in this way. But my argument again would be that things that were considered objectionable twenty years ago are mainstream now. You don't find that information in reviews because reviewers either don't find material objectionable or more likely they're afraid to admit it because the ideology has been thrust upon them by the years of envelope pushers.

Some kind of rating system, included on the cover of the book would be ideal--let the publishers be accountable for the material they're putting out.

But more than that, I just want some good authors to step out and stop tossing all the trash in. I'd like to see books that have "clean" written on their "label." Seriously. If you don't like profanity, don't write it! If you don't think extra-marital relationships are acceptable, don't give in! Don't contribute to making the world think that people who do immoral things need to be admired. Stop making us think that everyone does immoral things. Just stop it. If you're doing it because you think you need to capture reality--don't worry, we get. We your readers live in the same world as you. We know reality. Depict the good things in it, the way your real imagination will take you, and give us a break from the bad.