Beem Weeks's Blog - Posts Tagged "ban"
Censorship In The Writing Community
We all know the titles: Lolita, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Naked Lunch. Each of these books have, at times, been the banned by various governments around the world. Today, all three of these works are considered classics among literary scholars.
When first released, The Diary of Anne Frank found resistance in Lebanon due to it's favorable portrayal of Jews and Israel.
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath met with a brief banning (in the region of California in which the story is set) for its unflattering portrayal of local residents.
It seems just about any book has the potential to offend someone somewhere in the world. These bans range from the silly (Alice's Adventures In Wonderland was banned in China for its depiction of talking animals), to the scary (A death sentence is still in effect against author Salmon Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses).
Let's take a look at some other notable victims of super zealous governmental overreach: Brave New World was banned in Ireland for references to sexual promiscuity; Green Eggs and Ham became forbidden literature in The People's Republic of China due to it's portrayal of early Marxism; Frankenstein was labeled "obscene" by the apartheid government of South Africa, rendering the classic horror tale banned.
We can look back at a multitude of other amazing works that were once forbidden in various parts of planet: All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Farm, Uncle Tom's Cabin. But what about the world in which we live today? Are we still facing far-reaching governmental control over what we are or are not allowed to read? And who are these people making such decisions?
The war to keep smut or politically sensitive materials out of your hands is still being fought in virtually every nation on Earth.
I've read several articles online in recent weeks dealing with attacks on those books commonly known as erotic fiction. Oh, there aren't any outright bans on the works, but, with a growing list of e-retailers refusing to stock these titles, the result is the same: A book unavailable to the public is effectively banned.
But even in this there is the stench of hypocrisy. Where a book dealer will refuse to carry erotic titles by indie authors, they have no problem stocking a big money-maker like Fifty Shades of Gray. Some retailers are even equating shape-shifting werewolf romances with bestiality, thus refusing to carry these novels. Have they refused to sell any of the Twilight series? Not likely; there's too much money to be made.
I don't read erotic fiction. I'm just not a fan. But that doesn't mean I want to see these titles banned or ignored by retailers. These writers work hard to create and market their stories to an ever-growing market. It's a shame to hear about this retailer or that one refusing to sell books, which more often than not, are written by indie authors.
The only form of censorship I can ever agree with is self-censorship. Allow me the chance to check myself. I don't need some politician or religious figure or business person to determine what words will come from my pen.
If you're a fan of erotic fiction written by indie authors, stand up for your rights and the rights of said authors. Let those retailers know you won't be doing business with them as long as they refuse to give you a choice in what you will or will not purchase and read.
When first released, The Diary of Anne Frank found resistance in Lebanon due to it's favorable portrayal of Jews and Israel.
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath met with a brief banning (in the region of California in which the story is set) for its unflattering portrayal of local residents.
It seems just about any book has the potential to offend someone somewhere in the world. These bans range from the silly (Alice's Adventures In Wonderland was banned in China for its depiction of talking animals), to the scary (A death sentence is still in effect against author Salmon Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses).
Let's take a look at some other notable victims of super zealous governmental overreach: Brave New World was banned in Ireland for references to sexual promiscuity; Green Eggs and Ham became forbidden literature in The People's Republic of China due to it's portrayal of early Marxism; Frankenstein was labeled "obscene" by the apartheid government of South Africa, rendering the classic horror tale banned.
We can look back at a multitude of other amazing works that were once forbidden in various parts of planet: All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Farm, Uncle Tom's Cabin. But what about the world in which we live today? Are we still facing far-reaching governmental control over what we are or are not allowed to read? And who are these people making such decisions?
The war to keep smut or politically sensitive materials out of your hands is still being fought in virtually every nation on Earth.
I've read several articles online in recent weeks dealing with attacks on those books commonly known as erotic fiction. Oh, there aren't any outright bans on the works, but, with a growing list of e-retailers refusing to stock these titles, the result is the same: A book unavailable to the public is effectively banned.
But even in this there is the stench of hypocrisy. Where a book dealer will refuse to carry erotic titles by indie authors, they have no problem stocking a big money-maker like Fifty Shades of Gray. Some retailers are even equating shape-shifting werewolf romances with bestiality, thus refusing to carry these novels. Have they refused to sell any of the Twilight series? Not likely; there's too much money to be made.
I don't read erotic fiction. I'm just not a fan. But that doesn't mean I want to see these titles banned or ignored by retailers. These writers work hard to create and market their stories to an ever-growing market. It's a shame to hear about this retailer or that one refusing to sell books, which more often than not, are written by indie authors.
The only form of censorship I can ever agree with is self-censorship. Allow me the chance to check myself. I don't need some politician or religious figure or business person to determine what words will come from my pen.
If you're a fan of erotic fiction written by indie authors, stand up for your rights and the rights of said authors. Let those retailers know you won't be doing business with them as long as they refuse to give you a choice in what you will or will not purchase and read.
Can Words Influence Acts of Lawlessness and Evil?
Do words truly have the power to incite riots, lawlessness, and acts of evil? The police department in East Lansing, Michigan, USA, seems to believe so. This past Saturday night (December 7) the Michigan State Spartans football team (American football) defeated the previously unbeaten Ohio State Buckeyes in the Big Ten Conference championship game, earning the Spartans a trip to the Rose Bowl for the first time since 1988.
During the course of the game, a television camera, panning the crowd, captured a young man holding up a sign that read Burn The Couch. For those who are unfamiliar with Michigan State University celebration tactics: every time a Spartan team (basketball, football, hockey) wins a big game or loses a big game, idiot students—just a few, mind you—rush wildly into the streets of East Lansing, where they set fire to sofas and chairs and other assorted pieces of furniture. Where this furniture comes from is anybody’s guess.
Saturday’s big win saw this ritual unfold once again. Local authorities anticipated this ridiculous drunken reaction and called in extra police officers from neighboring jurisdictions—which did little to stem the loss of yet more helpless furniture.
Jump ahead to the next morning. There they are, on TV, on Facebook. Police officers were asking for help in identifying the above-mentioned sign bearer. Seems East Lansing’s finest are entertaining the notion that this young man, by simply hoisting a sign in a football stadium hundreds of miles away in another state, is somehow responsible for this latest round of couch immolation. The mere suggestion that a conspiracy is afoot is laughable.
I’m not going to argue against the stupidity behind such misguided “police” work. Nor will I address the obvious First Amendment freedom-of-speech issue. Instead, let’s discuss the idea that one person’s words, whether written or spoken, have the power to influence others to act in disregard to the law of the land.
Charles Manson claimed the Beatles were telling him through their music to commit atrocities. Mark David Chapman assigned partial blame for his murder of John Lennon to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Others have used the Salinger novel as motivation for violent crimes as well. In the early 1980s, Canadian authorities briefly banned a music video of the Oingo Boingo song “Little Girls,” claiming the track influenced a serial child-rapist they had trouble capturing. There are dozens of examples scattered throughout history.
Do words really have that sort of control over individuals? Yes—if the person being influenced suffers from mental issues. These things do indeed happen. Should we ban or burn those created works that just might set off the unstable?
I recall, back in the 1980s, a couple of instances where distraught parents sought to blame heavy metal music for the suicides of their children. The members of Judas Priest found themselves in court over one such case. The story goes: Two boys claimed to hear Priest singer Rob Halford repeating the words “do it” over and over in a song that, at the time, was nearly ten years old. Just what did Mr. Halford intend for them to do? In the minds of these two boys, the obvious intention was suicide. The song itself? No mention of suicide. One boy succeeded, the other managed to blow his face off—though he eventually died of an infection several years later. Classmates of these kids claimed the boys had issues reaching beyond a Judas Priest song.
My point in writing this piece is simple: I am responsible for my own actions. I cannot blame Jimmy Buffet’s song “Why Don’t We Get Drunk and Screw” for cheating on my wife. (And no, I did not; it’s just an example.) Mark David Chapman chose to pull that trigger. Charles Manson chose to become a monster rather than a productive member of society. Suicide does not dawn on a person because of a song; its roots run much deeper than a recorded piece of music.
Should we get rid of The Catcher in the Rye before another misguided soul gets a hold of a wrong notion through its pages? There are some who will answer yes to that question. I am not one of them. Let that young man hold up his sign! Those couches would have burned with or without him.
During the course of the game, a television camera, panning the crowd, captured a young man holding up a sign that read Burn The Couch. For those who are unfamiliar with Michigan State University celebration tactics: every time a Spartan team (basketball, football, hockey) wins a big game or loses a big game, idiot students—just a few, mind you—rush wildly into the streets of East Lansing, where they set fire to sofas and chairs and other assorted pieces of furniture. Where this furniture comes from is anybody’s guess.
Saturday’s big win saw this ritual unfold once again. Local authorities anticipated this ridiculous drunken reaction and called in extra police officers from neighboring jurisdictions—which did little to stem the loss of yet more helpless furniture.
Jump ahead to the next morning. There they are, on TV, on Facebook. Police officers were asking for help in identifying the above-mentioned sign bearer. Seems East Lansing’s finest are entertaining the notion that this young man, by simply hoisting a sign in a football stadium hundreds of miles away in another state, is somehow responsible for this latest round of couch immolation. The mere suggestion that a conspiracy is afoot is laughable.
I’m not going to argue against the stupidity behind such misguided “police” work. Nor will I address the obvious First Amendment freedom-of-speech issue. Instead, let’s discuss the idea that one person’s words, whether written or spoken, have the power to influence others to act in disregard to the law of the land.
Charles Manson claimed the Beatles were telling him through their music to commit atrocities. Mark David Chapman assigned partial blame for his murder of John Lennon to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Others have used the Salinger novel as motivation for violent crimes as well. In the early 1980s, Canadian authorities briefly banned a music video of the Oingo Boingo song “Little Girls,” claiming the track influenced a serial child-rapist they had trouble capturing. There are dozens of examples scattered throughout history.
Do words really have that sort of control over individuals? Yes—if the person being influenced suffers from mental issues. These things do indeed happen. Should we ban or burn those created works that just might set off the unstable?
I recall, back in the 1980s, a couple of instances where distraught parents sought to blame heavy metal music for the suicides of their children. The members of Judas Priest found themselves in court over one such case. The story goes: Two boys claimed to hear Priest singer Rob Halford repeating the words “do it” over and over in a song that, at the time, was nearly ten years old. Just what did Mr. Halford intend for them to do? In the minds of these two boys, the obvious intention was suicide. The song itself? No mention of suicide. One boy succeeded, the other managed to blow his face off—though he eventually died of an infection several years later. Classmates of these kids claimed the boys had issues reaching beyond a Judas Priest song.
My point in writing this piece is simple: I am responsible for my own actions. I cannot blame Jimmy Buffet’s song “Why Don’t We Get Drunk and Screw” for cheating on my wife. (And no, I did not; it’s just an example.) Mark David Chapman chose to pull that trigger. Charles Manson chose to become a monster rather than a productive member of society. Suicide does not dawn on a person because of a song; its roots run much deeper than a recorded piece of music.
Should we get rid of The Catcher in the Rye before another misguided soul gets a hold of a wrong notion through its pages? There are some who will answer yes to that question. I am not one of them. Let that young man hold up his sign! Those couches would have burned with or without him.
