The Cult of the Book

In spite of the title of my blog, I actually am not a fan let a lone a member of the cult of the book. "-phile" just means you like or maybe love something, but I don't put that on the same level as adoration or worship. But I do think there is a dangerous trend toward this.

The inspiration for this post--it's something I've thought about a lot, but last night I began reading "Inkheart" by Cornelia Funke, which I've heard is excellent. But the cult came out loud and strong in the first chapter. Their house was covered with books, piles here and there and everywhere; the main character Meggie and her dad seem to be constantly reading; his profession is repairing old books.

Really, I don't see anything terribly wrong with this. But it does tend toward the border of wondering if these people live outside of their books. Isn't there also life outdoors? I guess I'm not 100% positive on any statistics to this effect, but is there any evidence that it's not just television but also reading that might encourage a lack of outdoor activity?

Aside from that, the more disturbing part (though still relatively mild) came when Meggie made a negative remark about the stuffy man who brought in Bibles to be repaired by her dad. On the surface there's nothing terribly wrong with this either. The man who brought in Bibles to be recovered might have been stuffy and unpleasant. But it's fiction--he's not real. And he has no other significance to the story. That's why I find it significant that of all the books she mentions, the one she associates with negative things is the Bible.

Of course I'll keep reading. It's not terribly offensive, just borderline. And it might have some redeeming religious relations later. Not likely, but maybe. It does stir up in my mind what I'd been pondering before--that there is this trend toward adoration/worship of books, and not just books generally, but books with the exception of the scriptures.

It's fairly common practice to include in young adult and middle grade books a character who loves reading--some promotion in one way or another of reading. Along with this, many reading advocates promote reading of anything and everything. As long as a child is reading it's great. And then as I've read on many blogs, read in the articles in that Judy Blume censorship collection, and heard more times than I can count, there's this idea that parents should not "interfere" with what their children are reading but let them read anything they want--with Bravos to parents who place no restrictions on their children and don't even give a hoot about what their children read.

Why? So of course, literacy is a concern, and I do understand that when children learn to love reading, their literacy will progress and we'll have more informed and educated citizens and this will all lead to the greater good. But everything? I'm not sure about that.

Why do these people have such confidence in the mass of books out there to instruct better than parents? Does it actually discourage literacy if parents are mindful of their children's reading habits? My guess would be quite the opposite. What children need more than book instruction is loving attention from their parents. Of course, not all parents are good parents, but still. Why should a parent be bravoed for not parenting over such a huge mass of potential influences on their child? That just doesn't make sense to me.

And why, at least in this one case, though it seems a broader feeling, should there be encouragement toward any books but the scriptures? Could it be that the scriptures would be one source that would discourage this cult of the book? Well, I haven't actually memorized the Bible, unfortunately, though I'm pretty familiar with it--had seminary and have attended Sunday School forever. But I haven't really studied the issue of books and such influences specifically in the Bible. In any case, I can't think of something in the Bible that would directly contradict the encouragement to read books.

But there is the verse in Philippians, (Philip. 4: 8) also referenced and reiterated in the Articles of Faith, that says this:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. "

I like the positive turn this gives to the subject, don't you? It doesn't say don't do this and don't do that, although we do sometimes need that kind of guidance as well (eg. The Ten Commandments do have a handful of don'ts). But it seems with so much good there is out there, as recognized, if we spend our time looking for the good, then why should we waste our time plundering in the bad stuff?

The Doctrine & Covenants, though not as widely familiar as the Bible, also talks to this same point, but actually does address books specifically: 90:15:
"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people."

So, there you go, another cool verse, --eeh, with a reminder that I shouldn't just be studying fiction, too--learning is a great thing, but it is specific to "good" books, not just any books.

While it doesn't directly address the definition of good here, I think the context as shown in the Philippians verse is revelatory--true, honest, just, pure. Definitely good things there. (In defense of fiction--since the question of truth comes up--I'll say, in case it isn't obvious, that some important truths are masked in tales--Jesus himself taught in parables for the benefit of the people to see at the level for which they were prepared.)

My favorite verse about defining good goes right along with these, the one in Moroni which I mentioned in my long essay about what makes a good picture book, (I think the first post I copied into this blog)--Moroni 7: 12-15:
"12 Wherefore, all things which are ^agood cometh of God; and that which is ^bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to ^csin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do ^agood continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and ^benticeth to do ^cgood, and to love God, and to serve him, is ^dinspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is ^aevil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to ^ajudge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night."

It sounds kind of black and white, doesn't it? Just like the definition of charity is broken up into all the things this means (actually in this same chapter, but also in Corinthians in the Bible)--patient, long suffering, kind, etc. I appreciate being able to combine this verse with the Philippians verse to understand better what does bring a person to Christ. Of course there's a feeling to it, some obvious things, or he couldn't say so easily the difference is like night and day, but still. I appreciate the details.

For one, accompanying these also with the D&C verse, we know that the scriptures, although the best at bringing souls unto Christ, aren't the only good books available. And indeed, we need to seek for all or many of the good books and good things there are to be found.

And so, considering the multitude of scriptures that talk about raising up your children well, (which I won't quote because there are far too many), I would think there's room for interpretation that parents might be wise to encourage their children in reading good books. And by personal extension, it would seem that this might best come about by their own reading of good books. As my interest lies in children's and young adult books, I'll put my plug in, too, that parents and other adults alike--particularly those with influence on children---might be wise to read some good children's books! :)

So there's my two cents. Parents can be good parents by reading and encouraging reading, of good books, and promote both literacy and parent-child loving relationships. Don't you think it's great how these things can work together? What do you think?

Roald Dahl

Since I've just finished a little parade of Dahl books, I thought maybe I'd make a few comments about his writing.
First the ones I read over the past week or two:
Matilda
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Giraffe, the Pelly and Me
The BFG
The Twits

In the past I've also read: James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator

Of them all, I would have say there is really no argument. Matilda is the best, hands down. The characters were best developed, the story line was most engaging, it was well paced and not overly didactic. It's funny to me that some critics get down on the early children's books for being didactic and remarking how far we've come, and though I haven't necessarily heard them compare the old to Dahl, I would say he kind of defies the idea of progress in that area. However, he definitely has advanced in the aspect of silliness, generally speaking. Of course Alice in Wonderland is pretty silly and so is Edward Lear's collection. Interestingly, however, neither of these earlier works is very didactic.

Well, I don't think my critique is getting too far, kind of hard to comment on the slew of them, but overall they're pretty good books. If anything, I was just surprised at how slow they were. Matilda was and I remember James and the Peach keeping up a good pace, but the BFG and The Pelly were terrifically slow. You'd think they'd be quick reads, being rather short books, but my attention wasn't as readily captivated.

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.