| Author |
Comment
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(2/21/02 2:49:15 pm)
|
Censorship
Karen,
Censorship arises in all kinds of environments in the United States; typically, however, it is fueled by a group or individual that finds some work of literature or art offensive in a cultural or religious manner. When I say "cultural," the book Huckleberry Finn is an example for its depiction of Jim, the escaped slave. The librarians and authors can back me up on this, but censorship is often attempted to "protect" children and the target is the local school or public library since those institutions as quasi-governmental. Sometimes the censored material is made unavailable to people under a certain age, say 18, without parental permission. We all know that means that every kid is dying to get his or her hands on it. Sometimes the argument is that the quasi-governmental agency is advocating a certain religious belief, which violates the separation of church and state in our Constitution - I don't believe this argument has ever been successful, but I am not a first Amendment specialist (okay, I did tax law). Occassionally, we will have a politician advocate some form of censorship or identification of "offensive" material, especially in religiously conservative states (this is NOT necessarily the position of those that are politically conservative). Hence, we now have recorded music labeled for explicit lyrics. One can argue the pro's and con's of censorship or limited censorship. What most of us have difficulty with is the type of behavior the Fire Chief has exhibited, where he is attempting to force his opinions - and consequently censor HP - on children and THE PARENTS of children by refusing to perform his sworn duty. Have I thoroughly confused you?
I will let others elaborate.
Jess
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(2/21/02 3:01:08 pm)
|
Re: A question
Ah the book challenge -
I can respond about public school library challenges as that is what I am most familar with. A challenge to a book in a school library is when someone wants a book removed from the library. There is a lot more unofficial censorship - such as parents never returning books because they don't want them in the library, parents defacing or cutting out pictures they deem inappropriate, principals, teachers, or librarians defacing or cutting out pictures or simply removing books from the shelves and never returning them.
When a parent or community member or school staff member comes in to challenge a book, usually the librarian tries to calm their fears and talks about how the material meets selection criteria. Many challenges can be avoided this way. When they can't, the parent or community member or staff member wants a formal challenge. Usually the school has a form for the complainant to fill out asking them if s/he read the whole book, asking what parts of the book or other material s/he objects to, asking if s/he are part of a larger organization, etc. Then the school usually has a review committee made up of community members and school members. This committee reads or views the item, learns about the library's selection policy, learns about pertinent first amendment issues etc. The committee makes a recommendation for the item. If the complainant is unhappy with the result s/he can appeal to the superintendent, if s/he is unhappy with the result of the superintendent's ruling, s/he can appeal to the school board. School boards usually have the last word. The Supreme Court tends to stand behind them.
An interesting aside - a significant percentage of censorship comes from within the school - teachers, library staff, or administration.
Laura Mc
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(2/21/02 7:02:24 pm)
|
Censorship
Laura,
It is really disturbing to think that such vigalante censorship takes place. It of course undermines various freedoms we are all guaranteed at least in theory. Any school official who vandilizes or steals for the purpose of censoring items in a library should be fired or at least severely admonished. Part of a well-rounded education is being exposed to ideas with which you might not agree.
I would be very curious how many school boards completely censor works. I am aware of many cases of limited censorship, but few, if any, complete censorships except in the case of true pornography. Certainly fantasy shouldn't fall within this category.
Any thoughts?
Jess
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(2/22/02 11:21:51 am)
|
Censorship--threat or menace
Karen,
During the Clinton-Lewinsky debacle, I heard a sage Australian gentleman say that he was glad his country had gotten all the criminals and the USA had received all the religious fanatics. I knew exactly what he meant.
The true objection to literature as found in libraries, as Laura states, can be controlled to some extent because there is a system of steps that the complainant has to go through. However, the rabid ones bypass the system and simply, as she says, steal the books, thereby eliminating the problem. This is, on a literary front, the equivalent of harming someone who works in a clinic that offers abortions. The fanatic does a complete end-run around civility and humanity, and in effect becoming a supreme hypocrite for taking a life in protest of the taking of lives. The book-thief thinks that by removing the book, they will stamp out the repugnant/objectionable idea. I could probably do a twenty minute stand-up routine that drags this kind of behavior into the melting pot of people who ignore traffic signals, who attack or kill in road-rage or soccer-dad-rage or any other sort of categorized rage...all of which boils down to the simple fact that there are people who have, for whatever reason and however they care to phrase it, decided that they personally are more important than God and therefore have the right to act with supreme authority. Don't ask me which wheels of reason snapped off the axle to produce this phenomenon, but we're seeing it in the news almost daily somewhere in this country.
Anyway, that's probably way off topic and a personal rant that I'll apologize for now before everyone recommends I up my medication.
I find censorship in general seems to take two forms: the first is censorship by someone who has read the book, seen the movie, heard the song and legitimately objects to it on moral or ethical grounds. The other form is a kind of mob mentality that is censorship by people who fall in behind the objector but have no actual idea of the thing they're protesting. They haven't read, seen, heard anything, but by God they are going to destroy it. The Catholic Church in the US has a long history of attempting both, providing its congregations with lists of books and movies they should not see on--for them--legitimate grounds; and members of the congregation themselves going out and protesting, calling public attention to the "evil" thing. This latter behavior tends to backfire. As the members of Monty Python have said many times, their film "The Life of Brian" would not have done nearly so well as it did without such protests. And the effect of Tipper Gore's warning labels on CDs has been to save children a lot of time figuring out which disks contain the stuff that makes their parents apoplectic.
Greg
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(2/22/02 11:41:28 am)
|
Re: Censorship
Jess -
I guess the biggest issue is not if books are legally designated pronographic, but if they are "age-appropriate." School libraries are supposed to have age-appropriate books. Judy Blume's books are often challenged becuase they have frank depictions of sex, sexuality, menstruation etc. Some people don't consider them "age appropriate" for children. Some people also don't think that education is about being exposed to ideas with which they don't agree - and some of these people run for school boards.
According to the American Library Association (ALA), between the
years 1990 and 2000, librarians in the US reported 6364 challenges.
This does not mean these books were taken off the shelves, just
that someone tried hard to have them taken off the shelves. I didn't
find figures for actual bannings. Of these challenges, 71% were
in school libraries. 60% of challenges are made by parents. For
more info on official challenges, go to www.ala.org/alaorg/oif
(ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom's page)
or
www.ala.org/bbooks/index.html
(ALA's Banned Book Week page)
As to book censorship and fantasy, like all books designated as Young Adult, fantasy books can have frank sex scenes. The top reason for book challenges is sexual content. Some people don't think the depiction of sex is "age appropriate" for teens. And, again, some of these people are elected to be school board members. If you're interested in the powers granted to school boards by the Supreme Court and First Amendment rights in schools, ALAs Office of Intellectual Freedom describes pertinent cases and rulings.
As to vigilantism - the most extreme example, in my personal experience, happened in a school near by. School board member comes in. He's heard about the Briar Rose challenge a few towns over. He asks if the K-8 library has any Jane Yolen books. Librarian pulls them for him. He looks at them. He says he's taking a few and will be right back. He doesn't check them out and won't let librarian see the titles. He never brings the books back, and won't tell which ones he's taken. This is extreme example, most examples are more like never returning the books and refusing to pay the bill or blacking out swear words or images, or, in the case of an administrator, avoiding the challenge policy and just pulling the book when a parent complains.
Sorry so long - the short moral to the long story is get out and vote for your local school board.
Laura Mc
Edited by: Laura McCaffrey at: 2/22/02 2:51:09 pm
|
oaken
mondream
Registered User
(2/22/02 12:19:50 pm)
|
Re: Censorship
Laura,
i think that you're right on the issue being more "age appropiateness" than anything else, or its seems to be that way based upon my exprience. For years I've watched my father, a school libraian, bring home books and read them to decide if he can put them on the shelves. The school he works for has two libraries, one being designated K-6 and the other for 7-12, and because of this he is very careful with what he puts out. So in his office there's a shelf filled with books that he doesn't feel are acceptable for his younger students, they're still available but one must ask him to be able to get them.
He claims that this isn't censorship, but looking at it from an outside view it feels like it is. Yes, the books are still available but would a seventh grader want to ask for a book that's not on the shelf, or even know that such books are there?
|
Karen
Unregistered User
(2/22/02 6:50:45 pm)
|
The Body snatchers
Thankyou all for your detailed, thoughtful replies! It is *terribly* interesting to hear about the mechanisms other countries have in place, the controversies, etc. I'm not sure I could make any broad sweeping comment about the influence of the church in Australia as opposed to the US historically- the missionary urge was by no means mild in this country either and the vast majority of convicts weren't exactly hardened criminals: they were working-class people who were punished exorbitantly for trivial offences of the stealing-bread-to-feed-one's-family variety (An ancestor of mine was sentenced to 14 years transportation, so I figure she must have stolen a whole stick of celery!)- so the early days were not as "godless" as the Australian gentleman's comment might seem to suggest. The churches have dabbled in our political processes in the past, even though their influence now is practically zilch. Indeed, many of our religious controversies are concerned with the abuse of children by priests (The Governor-General, a former archbishop of Brisbane, is besieged by this issue at the moment, charged with a failure to take accusations seriously and to treat the victims with respect) and the role the churches played in the forced separation of aboriginal children and their parents. I suppose you could say the boot is on the other foot in this country, to a large extent, and I would still maintain that most of our censorship cases are politically motivated. The only book that springs to mind whose sale is restricted in the manner people describe above is "American Psycho"- they wrap it in a plastic bag and you can't buy it unless you're over 18, but it's easy enough to acquire it in a library. Generally, objections are raised not to depictions of sex, but to depictions of sexual violence, especially when children are the victims. I know, for instance, that Jane Yolen's "Briar Rose" was on the New South Wales school syllabus 2 years ago (I don't know if it still is- they tend to change the texts every two years) and there were no "challenges". Perhaps part of this has to do with the fact that we don't have localised school boards determining what books the children read- everything is administered by one state level education board. Do others think that this might be a factor? The proliferation of lower level bureaucracies?
As for the "age appropriateness" question- when I was in my final year of highschool I studied a play called "Top Girls" by Caryl Churchill. A couple of years after I'd finished, a state politician came across the play and denounced it as "filfth", largely due to the rather extensive and creative use of the f and c words, but also due to a scene featuring the ingestion of menstrual blood. Naturally, the politicians were blind to the play's innovative theatrical techniques and the sophisication of its understanding of the postion of feminism within Thatcherite Britain, the main reasons why my feminist-orientated girls' school had selected the text from the list in the first place. The Sydney theatre community responded to the challenge with a new production.
I can remember thinking at the time how extraordinary it was that anyone would think that the f word, the c word and menstrual blood are not part of a seventeen or eighteen year old's daily experience- that we would somehow be contaminated by what we could hear in the street or see in the mirror whenever we wished. More peculiar still, at the same time I was studying "The Floor of Heaven" by Australian poet John Tranter, a work in which (among other things) a son murders his father by ramming a carving fork up his nostrils. This book stayed on the list for years and was never 'exposed' by any morally questing politician- and rightly so, I would argue (I should probably specify that I am vehemently opposed to all censorship). My point- it seems to me that in many of these debates the onus is not on protecting children from the "unpleasantness" of violence or drug use, but on divorcing them from the messy physical reality of the human body. All these would-be "Gods" aren't simply trying to control what you can see or read- they're trying to tell you (or not tell you, as the case may be) what you can do with your own body. And I would contend that their little battle is futile, that they truly are "heroes in their own lunch hour".
Before I pop a vein and stray too far from Greg's original post,
Karen.
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(2/22/02 9:16:48 pm)
|
The Rose is Off the Blume
Karen,
Don't blow a vein yet.
This is such a volatile topic in so many ways--I've already gone off on a froth, and it seems to be provoking that all around.
The question of what's appropriate I suppose will always be something people have to make on a case by case basis, and should do, for themselves. I was amazed a couple years ago when I read Donna Jo Napoli's "Sirena", that this novel was considered a YA. The sexual content was not graphic, yet it was surprisingly honest and not hidden. It was firmly anchored within the story, such that no one, I think, could make the argument that it was in any way gratuitous. However, I can see a parent arguing that it might not be appropriate for their child.
When I worked in my aforementioned bookstore, Judy Blume was all the rage. Kids came in all the time to buy her books. Their parents often did not accompany them. And eventually a couple of kids chanced upon her novels in the adult section. I hadn't read them, I had no idea how explicit they were. The kids seemed to know what they were buying... and you can see where this goes. Child goes home, reads graphic sex scene, furious parent returns novel with a "how dare you sell this to my child" rant. Indeed, the book wasn't appropriate. But as no one working in the store had read it, we had no idea it was anything more than another Judy Blume book. I can blame the publisher, I suppose. On the other hand, that the child knew they'd fallen into something they weren't supposed to be seeing, and told the parent, was probably a good thing. Provided the parent wasn't armed, that is.
Greg
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(2/22/02 10:49:49 pm)
|
Age appropriateness
I guess I am niave, but what is age appropriateness anyway? Here I am with my small children watching the Olympics and there are advertisements showing people being blown to bits, children rising from the dead, etc., etc. This is during a sporting event which should be "age appropriate." I think that the wise parent realizes that his or her child will be exposed to things that they may not wish that child see until later. When these things arise a frank discussion is in order. But what one child can handle another may not be able to handle.
Perhaps what we should do is have parents that are aware of what their children are reading and help their children discover good books. Sometimes those books might introduce sexually explicit material, violence, religiously objectional material, but censoring that book completely for everyone is not the right approach. Actually, I am opposed to censoring of any kind, but I suppose if I found my 7 year old reading Lolita, I would probably steer him in another direction mostly because he would not understand the book, not necessarily to shield him. I have found that really young children (10 and under) are pretty good about determining when a story is not age appropriate - they get bored and put it down.
I also find it curious that schools that take it upon themselves to have frank discussions with children about abuse, drug use, and other frightening but real topics would then censor books that also discuss these issues because they are inappropriate. I guess the point I am making so inarticulately is that censorship is used by people who are afraid to make decisions for and with their own children and communicate with those children. (Okay, I am not going to let my kids watch Natural Born Killers - but we certainly are going to discuss why if the topic comes up). I, as a parent, need to know what my child is reading, but I am not going to tell you what your child should or should not read, and I certainly am not going to put your child at risk because I dislike YOUR decision to allow him to read something. But I am going off on a tangent.
Jess
|
cloudshaper
Registered User
(2/24/02 2:04:15 am)
|
It ISN'T fantasy vs. religion, some of us have room for both
"What I'm wondering is--first, how did Christianity get so looney that it sees all things fantastic in the arts as demonic; and how, given our own bent for fantasy, do we answer credibly against such outrageous charges when they're made"
Hmm, with a couple of word substitutions I can easily see this type of blanket generalization coming from the mouth of one of the book burners. Do you know what YMCA stands for? Obviously some of the christians didn't have a problem with fantasy if they were reading Harry Potter.
Do you also honestly believe that if somehow a fire DID break out that the firemen would watch the kids burn up?! Please.
I've met at least as many rabidly anti-religious fantasy lovers as I have anti-fantasy christians, and I must say that I feel sorry for both groups. I think that the desire to create is the most holy part of who we are as humans.
Have you never read C.S. Lewis? I bet that the Chronicles of Narnia would draw at least as many objections these days in public schools as Harry Potter, mostly from NON-christians afraid of the religious elements.
As someone who has lived all over the world, I can say that most of America is far MORE tolerant of differences of opinion than many Americans seem to realize.
Parents SHOULD have something to say about the values presented as acceptable to their children by other adults. Who else should make that decision?
It AMAZES me that the assumption is that these kids can't read anything not given to them at school or by some organization. If they want to read Harry Potter, Briar Rose, or even the BIBLE (heaven forbid), and can't do it in the classroom, let them read it at home! Maybe they could even talk to other members of their family about it!
I might not agree with those who are afraid that after reading Harry Potter their children will try to cast spells to solve problems, instead of turning to prayer or using their own mind and muscle, but I think they have a right to that opinion, just as we have a right to ours.
Edited by: cloudshaper at: 2/24/02 2:19:05 am
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(2/25/02 7:41:36 am)
|
Re: It ISN'T fantasy vs. religion, some of us have room for
Cloudshaper--
My apologies for the form of my original question "how did Christianity get so looney..." As I intimated in an earlier post, it was simplistic and provocative, in effect to see what it would provoke.
Others have touched on C.S. Lewis's books, although not on the idea of non-Christians objecting to the religious elements of the books. You're right, it's not a question of religion's relationship to fiction necessarily, so much as it is the relationship of something that is in some way self-restrictive and therefore socially fearful on many fronts. That's why my post was "when reality breaks down". It seemed to me, and still does, that it's more to do with a conflict that lies between a certain denial of the world and, as a result of that denial, an unreasoned fear of things that aren't part of that real world, and which had they not isolated themselves experientially, if you will, they would *know* weren't real, or promoting something inherently satanic or whatever you want to substitute for that term.
The denial cuts both ways, as you say. Rabidly anti-religious fantasy fans are refusing to recognize reality, too, in insisting that all religion must simply go away, or in assuming it is all one thing, i.e., "all religion is bad." And as I said previoiusly, I've talked to a number of friends with strongly held religious beliefs who don't have issues--well, not *these* issues--with Harry Potter or fantasy in general.
There are so many facets to this problem of censorship and denial, belief and desire to both protect children and to guide them, that no cluster of posts here can probably address the matter fully. But the more opinions and positions, the better.
Thanks,
Greg
|
Terri
Registered User
(2/27/02 6:16:22 am)
|
censorship
Censorship comes in all kinds of forms, and here's another one:
Delia Sherman has written an exquisitely beautiful Young Adult fantasy about a young girl who goes back in time to the slave-era American South (where Delia's family hails from). She's a white child, but in the past she is believed to be a light-skinned slave, and thus learns about the culture of slavery first-hand. It's a wonderful book -- excellent as a fantasy adventure, and excellent as an historical work. Delia has a good publishing track record in adult fiction, leading various YA editors to be interested in this book. They read it, they love it...and then they send it back to her agent, saying: "This is wonderful. But we can't publish it. If we publish a book by a white author, not a black author, on the subjecy of slavery, we'll get too much flack."
|
cloudshaper
Registered User
(3/5/02 4:32:09 am)
|
Re: censorship
Greg, no problem.
Terri, argh, I hate hearing things like that!
The "you can't possibly understand" attitude always amazes me. We might imagine ourselves as birds, people from ages long ago, beings from other worlds, even gods or demons, and write convincing stories from those points of view, yet it is somehow supposed to be beyond us to see the world through the eyes of someone of another sex or skin color, as if their experiences as humans were so utterly alien to us as to be uncomprehensible. How can we ever have a meaningful dialog as a society about the important issues if we refuse to believe that we capable of empathizing with each other?
All I can say is that I really hope we are the last generation who
will have to face that silly belief so frequently, but somehow I
doubt it...
|
|
