Censorship In Books

      In honor of National Banned Books week, I decided to make this blog post. This was an essay I wrote in November of last year for a college English class I was taking. It was my final project - a three part argumentative essay. We were not allowed to state which side of the argument we were on until part three (which was actually kind of difficult) and by the time I had finished, the essay was 16 pages long. Luckily we were allowed to pick our own topics, so I chose one very near and dear to my heart. So, without further ado, my essay: Censorship In Books.

       Mark Twain once said, “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” While there is some dispute over whether or not he actually said this, it would make perfect sense considering Mark Twain is one of the most banned authors in America.

This essay is about censorship in books here in America and the different stances taken on it. Censorship and banning in books is not a new practice. Some consider Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe to be one of the first majorly banned books in America, when the Confederacy would not allow its people to read it during the American Civil War. In fact, Abraham Lincoln had approached Stowe at one point and said something to the extent of, “So, you’re the little lady that started this great war.” As years have gone on, the entire world has seen its fair share of banning and censorship in many different ways from pulling books off of shelves (like some schools, libraries, and bookstores do even today) to literally setting piles of books aflame like the Nazis of WWII, depicted in the novel The Book Thief, and also portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s chilling novel Fahrenheit 451. Many different books have fallen victim to book banning all over in America including but not limited to The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and even (prepare yourselves) Harry Potter. It is quite literally a war of words.

            But why is censorship such a big deal? What is it about discouraging certain books that causes such debate between people? Each side puts up very good reasons as to why they are correct. The side that promotes censorship in books argues that there should be a standard of cleanliness in books that discourages profanity, excessive violence, or immorality. According to an ALA article on book banning, within the past ten years the top three reasons for censorship as given to the Office of Intellectual Freedom were, “1. the material was considered to be ‘sexually explicit.’ 2. the material contained ‘offensive language.’ 3. the material was ‘unsuited to any age group.’” (“About Banned & Challenged Books.”) Many critics see censorship and banning as a way to stymie the moral decay that can be seen happening in society. One of their main concerns is the protection of children who may read some books and rightly so, for there are many books out there that are not very appropriate for children, teens, young adults, and even adults themselves. But this is where the question needs to be asked: whose responsibility is it to protect our children from that? Is it the societies, the governments, or the libraries? Or does that responsibility lie with the families of those children who will be exposed to such literature? It is a widespread controversy over who should decide what we read and is fiercely debated on both sides of the argument.

            On the other side of the debate you have those who are against censorship in books. One of the biggest arguments that this side puts up in favor of anti-book-banning is a little thing called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which thus states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (emphasis added.) The First Amendment remains the anti-book-banning side’s secret weapon in the fight for freedom to read according to the dictates of the reader’s own conscience. Is book banning an infringement of the Constitutional right to free speech? Should various books be banned regardless of the fact that what might be offensive to some isn’t to others?

            The issue has risen and fallen in significance as years have gone on. According to an article on lithub.com, “[I]n general, the 1960s and 70s witnessed a simultaneous drop in instances of book bans and rise in more explicit art.” (Brady.)  Sometime after the election of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the Supreme Court was facing approximately 700-800 challenges to books per year. (Brady.) Now, in an America where the call for “respect” of all races, orientations, and genders is so prevalent, book banning is as controversial as ever – especially concerning such books as To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn where uses of the N-word are used quite frequently. One side calls for the preservation of the original language while the other calls for reform to “clean up” the literature that our children will have the opportunity to read.

            These are the sort of things that I will be addressing throughout the rest of this essay and encourage all who read it to do their own homework in order to determine which side of the issue they stand on.

(Part 2)

            Imagine walking through the hallways of a typical high school in Utah and finding yourself strolling past their library. The only thing separating you from a room full of books are a few floor-to-ceiling windows, which, to any bookworm, is not much of a barricade. Nevertheless your view of the interior is blocked by several posters of someone raising their fist in the air as their face is hidden behind an open book. Above this person’s raised fist is the phrase, “Words have power! Read a banned book!” There are multiple posters promoting the exact same message all with the same empowered reader on the front. On the news a couple of days earlier you had heard that it was Banned Books Week in Utah from September 24^th through the 30^th. Though you had heard of it before, it is still astounding to think that there was an entire week devoted to the reading of books that many people in society had deemed unreadable for any number of reasons.

            Throughout history there have been multiple arguments for why different books should or shouldn’t be banned or censored. Because books are so diverse, reasons for and against banning have to be thrown into different lights and lenses depending upon the book’s subject. But I think through my research I’ve been able to boil it down to the three most widely-used lenses: political, religious, and historical.

            In the political lens of book banning there have been two major debates: is book banning constitutional, and if so, whose place is it to do the banning? All sides of the debate have different views on it. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan created a system that allowed people to challenge books that they did not find suitable or appropriate. The result was a flood of challenges of epic proportions. In an interview on lithub.com, Chris Finan, the Director of ABFE (American Booksellers for Free Expression), said, “Suddenly we were facing 700-800 challenges a year.” (Brady.) In response, the ALA (American Library Association) instituted “Banned Books Week” in 1982, the point of which is literally to encourage people to read books that have been banned or censored.

Some of those who are against book-banning have argued that censorship is against the First Amendment. Some debate that if the government decides which books can or cannot be read, it would be an infringement of those authors’ right to free speech. Meanwhile many of those for book censorship believe that the only way to see certain books removed from reading lists is to go to what they see as an indisputable source – that is, the Federal Government. A particular case that set a legal standard for book banning came in 1982 during the court case Island Trees School District v. Pico. A number of books were facing the threat of banning for being “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy[.]” (“Banning Books and the Law.”) Eventually the court ruled that school officials could not legally remove a book from their libraries just because they disagree with the ideas in the books. The banning of the books could only be accomplished if the information in the book posed an actual threat to those reading them, for example, a highly inappropriate and profane book in an elementary school library. Such a ruling has allowed for books to be removed from shelves only for legitimate reasons.

The second widely-used lens has been that of religion. Over the years a number of books have been banned, censored, or withheld from the public eyes because they have been considered detrimental to the potential reader’s spirituality or, a few hundred years ago, detrimental to the power of those doing the withholding. Back in Europe during the 1400s and 1500s, the common people were unable to read the Bible itself, not because of illiteracy, but because those in high society were then able to use it to give themselves power. In fact, in some cases they would chain their Bibles to the pews in order to keep them from ever leaving the churches. This changed in the 1520s when a man by the name of William Tyndale began to translate the Bible and distribute it to the common people, a grievous crime punishable by death if he were to be caught. In many cases they had to smuggle the translated books page by page in bags of rice. Eventually, though, Tyndale was caught and sent to prison where, in October of 1536, he was burned at the stake. Such was a case of the religious withholding of books and how some fought against it. It is relevant today because it is an early example of words and ideas being withheld from people who it could directly affect and, according to those against censorship, has snowballed into banning on a much wider scale.

While disagreeing with banning is not punishable by death anymore, thank heavens, banning for religious reasons is still very real – and in some cases, for very good reason. Really it’s all about protecting children, teens, and young adults from spiritually detrimental topics in books, such as profanity, immorality, alcohol and drug usage, and even witchcraft.

Such are the cases of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien. Both worldwide bestselling series have seen their fair share of revocation from school, library, and household shelves over the years, and both for very similar reasons. People all over the nation have called for the banning of both series because they allegedly promote witchcraft, paganism, and undermine Christian and other religions’ values. In fact, since its American publication, the Harry Potter series has been on ALA’s list of most banned books in America, and even took the top spot as the most banned books in America since the year 2000 (“List of 100.”). The Lord of the Rings has also been deemed “satanic” despite the fact that the author, J.R.R. Tolkien, was devoutly religious and claimed that his series was a “fundamentally religious and Catholic work.” (qtd. in Carpenter.) Such an example shows that readers all view books in completely different ways.

Despite the religious reasons for books being banned, there have been many religious reasons for them being preserved as well. In the case of Harry Potter, according to an article on the Huffington Post by Deji Olukotun, “But while there are Christians who decry the celebration of witchcraft, there are other Christians who consider Harry’s journey an edifying allegory for Jesus Christ.” (Olukotun.) He then goes on to say, “That is another problem with banning books: it obscures the diversity of viewpoints within its potential readership.” (Olukotun.) Despite the outcry, with over 400 million copies in print for Harry Potter (book seven sold approximately 11 million copies in its first 24 hours) and over 150 million copies in print for Lord of the Rings, neither of these series will be leaving anytime soon. It once again reaffirms the fact that though we all might read the same words from a book, the ideas we get from them differ vastly.

Now as years have passed, the standards and reasoning for book banning has changed alongside society. Some things that sell today would have been strictly taboo 100, 75, or even just 50 years ago. Nevertheless, some books that have never left the limelight of controversy still find themselves being pulled from shelves left and right. Much of the time, I’ve learned over the course of my study, the standard of what should be banned changes with society’s ideas of right and wrong. Following are some examples.

During the American Civil War, the Confederate states nationally banned Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe because of the view it takes on the life of black slaves in America. It was one of the first nation-wide book bannings ever to take place in our growing country. In fact, some speculate that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was quite possibly the catalyst that turned the focus of the war to slavery. In 1862, when Abraham Lincoln met Stowe, he commented, “So this is the little lady who started this great war.” (Stowe.) This is an indication of how the words of just a single person have the ability to affect an entire civilization.

Between The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain has definitely seen his fair share of banning, censorship, and challenges against his books. In an article titled “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer: Why It Isn’t a Book for Kids,” Diane Bartz described reading the humorous novel with her young children and how upset they were at the use of the N-word being used in it. “The word “n[*****]” is insulting. It was demeaning when Twain wrote it, and it’s demeaning now.” (Bartz.) A library once even banned the mischievous Tom’s adventures purely because they found his moral character “questionable.” But while Tom Sawyer has been widely banned in various schools, its censorship is nothing compared to that bestowed upon its own sibling, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. No matter what list of banned books you might look at, you are sure to find the story of good ol’ Huck Finn right up there near the top. If people thought Tom was questionable, then they are in for a shock when they read of Huck’s exploits. That and the all-too frequent use of the N-word have earned it prime placement on any banned books list. But, offensive as the language may be, those against the banning of books pull the history card. To summarize some points given in an article on post-gazette.com, those against censorship claim that the usage of the N-word, though a vulgar slur, is being used historically rather than in a derogatory sense. They claim that in Missouri in the 1840s, the N-word was the word to use when referring to blacks. They say that many people used it back then not even truly believing it was vulgar. Those for banning the book are mainly focused on their children, believing that if their child is subjected to such language, they might pick it up themselves. (Levin.) Nevertheless the argument stands and the book is still as widely-read as it is censored.

Some in the argument against book censorship and banning have compared those who are for it to the Nazi book burners of WWII. While it may seem rather intense, burning is still a route taken by some for the censorship of certain books even today and, scary as it may seem, even in America. Not that book burning automatically makes the burners Nazis, but such an impulsive act leads to great controversy on both sides.

A major book to depict burnings, though not by the Nazis, is a classic by the name of Fahrenheit 451, so named because 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper catches on fire. This classic, published by Ray Bradbury in 1953, depicts a future dystopian America where books, being seen as dangerous and deadly things are burned along with the house of whoever owns them. The novel depicts those for the banning of books as closed-minded, power-hungry, cowardly, and willing to destroy anyone who does not comply with their own ideas. Perhaps this is the reason why Fahrenheit 451, a book on censorship, has been, ironically, censored and banned countless times since its publication. Another reason, which also fits in with the lens of religion, is that at one point in the story there is a depiction of the fact that Bibles are burned as well. Many of those for banning the book feel as though the depiction of such an atrocious act could lead younger readers to possibly pursue the same actions. Meanwhile those against banning see it has a haunting warning that if censorship goes too far, then burning Bibles could be a very real possibility.

Then we come to what is probably the literary pinnacle of the book banning argument – Harper Lee’s 1960 bestseller, To Kill a Mockingbird. According to a Library of Congress survey, Mockingbird is listed as the 4^th most influential book ever published. The book listed directly before it is the Bible, and the book directly behind it is the Book of Mormon. Ever since its publication, the book has stood in the No Man’s Land of the book banning battlefield, with each side fighting ferociously for what it believes to be the proper course to take. Published in 1960, the novel was thrown into the midst of the civil liberties debate that had swept the nation at a time when a black man and a white man could not even walk on the same side of the street. The story is of Scout, a young girl in Alabama during the Great Depression who is starting to understand racism with the help of her friend and her father, the lawyer Atticus Finch who is called to be the defense for a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. The setting, characters, and ideas of the book make the story real enough to know that even though it is a novel, the subject is far from fiction.

The debate surrounding the book has been fierce with no side seemingly gaining the upper hand. One of the greatest reasons having been presented for its banning, though, has been the frequent use of the N-word and other racial slurs when referring to blacks. Many people who wish to see it banned feel uncomfortable about the book’s topic and subject matter and are afraid that if their children are subjected to it, then they might start picking up the less than savory language held within the book. Meanwhile, those who are against its banning believe that the N-word within the book is a necessary evil. They state that they agree that the N-word is deplorable and must be eradicated from the English language, but the only true way to do that is by showing people how derogatory the word is and how vile racism is. At a 2017 production of To Kill A Mockingbird at the Hale Centre Theater in Utah, the director, John Sweeny, wrote a director’s note in the program where he stated, “To Kill A Mockingbird has offensive language. This story occurs in Maycomb, Alabama in 1935… The language used in the story reflects the time period, the attitudes and the truth of life in the author’s hometown. Offensive words are used with the intent of disfavoring a race of people and are indicative of the hatred that existed. While we do not erase these words in the telling of the story, our hope is that, in time, these offensive words will be erased from our language.” (Sweeny.) In those words are the sentiments of those who are against the censoring of Mockingbird, Huckleberry Finn, and the like.

The different lenses through which we found our reasons for and against book banning change according to the topic of the book. We mix-and-match our points of view in order to truly suit each individual book, much like Ben Gates combined and switched lenses on Ben Franklin’s bifocals to read the different messages in National Treasure. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird, historical, political, and civil lenses are all used when viewing the proper steps to take to preserve or remove the book from school, library, or household shelves. The debate for all banned books continues today with victories on both sides from city-wide bannings to a national Banned Books Week.

Not long ago, in the week of October 14^th, 2017, the Biloxi School District in Mississippi made national headlines by banning To Kill a Mockingbird from its coursework because, claims Kenny Halloway, the vice-president of the Biloxi School Board, the language in the book “makes people uncomfortable.” (qtd. in Nelson.) Those for the censorship of such a book took it as a major victory. Meanwhile those against were outraged that people were once again trying to “kill” the Mockingbird. This has been and is likely to continue being an ongoing debate.

We see the influence of book banning all over the place. People call from both sides for the revocation or celebration of different books. A war of ideas boils here in America. But in the end, we are faced with difficult questions: Is censorship beneficial or detrimental? Whose job is it really to decide what we can and cannot read? And does it really even matter?

(Part 3)

            To answer that third question: yes, it matters greatly. You know the phrase, “You are what you eat”?  Well what if we were to change that to, “You are what you read”? Would we think differently about what we read? Books have the power to change us for good or for ill depending on how we use them. They present ideas and help us to think up some of our own. We can learn and understand one another by seeing from the points of view of others. And for these reasons and many others I am against the censorship and banning of books.

            With diversity in books comes diversity in readers, and because of that, everyone has their different stances, views, and opinions on what is acceptable to read. While I personally do not feel that profanity, drug-usage, or immorality are enjoyable in books, I also do not believe that a book should be revoked from store or library shelves because of such content. Such a decision should be left to the discretion of the reader and their families. People should be able to read whatever they choose according to the dictates of their own conscience.

            Some might feel that me saying I don’t agree with profanity in books and yet feel To Kill a Mockingbird (an N-word heavy novel) must be preserved is me setting a double standard. But it’s not. Do I feel that the N-word is something people should say? No, not at all. Do I consider it vulgar? Yes, absolutely. So why do I believe we should leave it be? The answer is simple. To Kill a Mockingbird was not written to promote racism, it was written to destroy the awful practice. According to an article on neatorama.com titled, “12 Books That Have (Ironically) Been Banned in the U.S.”, Miss Cellania says the banning of the book is “[o]nly ironic because never, but never, in the entire history of literature has good and evil been so clearly portrayed and delineated. Real (not ersatz) racism is shown under a clear magnifying glass, in all its vicious cruelty.” (Cellania) In 1930s Alabama, where the novel is set, the N-word was part of the cultural language. Harper Lee used that slur to show people how bad it was for blacks in her day with the hopes that we will learn respect to all men regardless of race. Those who do not experience racism in this way run the risk of taking such an abominable thing far too lightly. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a phrase meaning “to kill innocence.” People sometimes ban the book because it makes people uncomfortable. If people are uncomfortable with the theme, then that is good, because it means that the “mockingbird” is still alive within them and only with the help of books like Mockingbird and Huck Finn can we continue to keep it alive.

            But what about drugs, alcohol, and immorality? Wouldn’t such degrading subject matter be bad influences on younger readers? Those things very possibly could be bad influences to some people. Some readers might find the idea of drinking, drugs, and immorality enticing. Nevertheless, to others, specifically the critical thinkers, the decision that they will not be lured is an easy one to make. Honestly, I don’t like reading about any of that stuff in books and do not choose to read such things. When reading books I actually blank out profanity with a black pen and mark heavily inappropriate chapters with an S for “skip” and have found that the majority of the time it makes no difference to the storyline. There are some books that I have put away after trying to read it but not finishing it because of the content. That being said, the only person that should decide whether or not they will read such subject matter is the person holding the book itself.

            Ultimately that leads us to the following conclusion that each must be accountable for the choice of which literature they allow into their homes. There is no way that the government can take any steps towards revoking books from shelves without infringing the authors’ freedom of speech or the readers’ freedom of choice. According to Benjamin Franklin, “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.” Intervention of government when it comes to books and other literature, in my mind, is the suppression and prevention of ideas being formed and critical thinkers being created. The decision of what we should and should not read should rest solely and completely upon each individual reader and their family. In the end, it is our choice whether or not we will take that book off of the shelf and either open it, or throw it away.

            The debate, I fear, will continue to wage so long as books are written. With so many books out there it would be impossible to write one that will please everyone. Those for censorship will continue to cry foul on the “witchcraft” of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. There will always be someone to complain about the racial slurs found in To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians. We will always be looking to see what novel appears next on the “most challenged” list. But that being said, there will always be someone who claims that censorship is an infringement of free speech. A reader will one day read Mockingbird and gain a conviction to fight against racism. Ideas will bloom like flowers in a garden in the minds of those readers who find themselves immersed in Fahrenheit 451, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and, yes, they will find solace in the words of Harry Potter. Because, in the end, books are the friends we carry in our pockets. Let’s hear what they have to say.

Works Cited

“The word “n[*****] is insulting…” Bartz, Diane. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer: Why It Isn’t a Book for Kids. Patch.com. May 16^th, 2011.

“[I]n general, the 1960s and 70s…” Brady, Amy. The History (and Present) of Banning Books in America. Lithub.com.

“700-800 challenges…” Brady, Amy. The History (and Present) of Banning Books in America. Lithub.com.

“Suddenly we were facing…” Brady, Amy. The History (and Present) of Banning Books in America. Lithub.com.

“Only ironic because never…” Cellania, Miss. 12 Books That Have (Ironically) Been Banned in the U.S. neatorama.com September 29^th, 2011.

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar…” Franklin, Benjamin. On Freedom of Speech and the Press. Pennsylvania Gazette. (November 17^th, 1737.)

“[M]akes people uncomfortable.” Halloway, Kenny (Quoted by Karen Nelson). Why Did Biloxi Pull ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ From the 8^th Grade Lesson Plan? sunherald.com. October 12^th, 2017.

“To summarize some points given…” Levin, Martin. In Defense of ‘Huckleberry Finn’. Post-gazette.com. April 9^th, 2016.

“But while there are Christians who decry…” Olukotun, Deji. The Banning of Harry Potter. Huffingtonpost.com. 9/07/2012.

“That is another problem with banning books…” Olukotun, Deji. The Banning of Harry Potter. Huffingtonpost.com. 9/07/2012.

“So this is the little lady…” Stowe, Charles Edward. Harriet Beecher Stowe: The Story of Her Life. (1911) P. 203.

“To Kill a Mockingbird has offensive language…” Sweeney, John. From a playbill of Hale Centre Theatre’s 2017 performance of To Kill a Mockingbird.

“A fundamentally religious…” Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel (edited by Humphrey Carpenter). The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. (Allen & Unwin Publishers, 1981.) Letter 142.

“Censorship is telling a man…” Twain, Mark (Samuel Clemens). (quote found on goodreads.com).

“1. the material was considered…” Unknown Author.  About Banned & Challenged Books. ALA.org

“[A]nti-American, anti-Christian…” Unknown author. Banning Books and the Law. Education.findlaw.com.

“Congress shall make no law…” The First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“The ‘Harry Potter’ series has been…” Unknown author. List of 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books 2000-09. ALA.org.

The Innkeeper

Hello, everyone!

I am so happy to announce the publication of my newest book, a Christmas novel (though, you can enjoy it all year round) titled, The Innkeeper. The synopsis goes like this:

"'It is a plain and simple truth that one must endure the harshness of thorns in order to fully appreciate the beauty of a rose.'

"So begins the tale of Artemaeus Barsoul, a cantankerous and greedy old innkeeper whose life is dedicated to the collecting of coins and the ignorance of the needy around him.

"Then one night, the spirit of his long-dead sister appears to him and offers a chance at redemption available only through the visits of the spirits of the past, present, and future of a man known only to him as 'the Shepherd.'

"From the crowded streets of Bethlehem to the Sea of Galilee, and from the the Garden of Gethsemane to the hill at Calvary, Artemaeus follows in the footsteps of this wondrous Shepherd in this novel reminiscent of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' and begs the reader to ask themselves whether or not they will Let Him In."

And here's a preview:

Preface

            This is a story from the heart, to the heart, and of the heart, with the overall message that people can change. Though this story applies to all of us, myself included, its principle character is an innkeeper and how, impossible as it may seem, his heart of stone is softened by a humble shepherd. But it is not impossible, is it? For we know that with God all things are possible. The miracle of the Atonement is what I write, but what you find within these pages is entirely up to you. And so I leave you this story in the hopes that it will bring you joy and hope not only in this season, but throughout the whole year.

-KDW

December 2016

“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Luke 2:7 (KJV Italics added)

Stave I

The Chill Wind and the Voice

                It is a plain and simple truth that one must endure the harshness of thorns in order to fully appreciate the beauty of a rose. And for Artemaeus Barsoul, life had been all thorns with no flowers to grow in the desolate wilderness of his heart.

            He was an innkeeper who owned an inn not far outside the city limits of Jerusalem. The road by which his inn resided was highly traveled; needless to say, Artemaeus was never in want of people seeking respite for a night before continuing on to the great city, generally leaving a few coins in his possession.

            His face was long and gaunt and looked as though it had been painfully chiseled out of cold hard stone. His thin lips seemed to be pulled into an eternal scowl under his full gray beard. He was tall and, though he never wanted for food, incredibly lean in build. He rarely spoke on any subject other than financial business, but that mattered not seeing as there were very few who spoke to him at all. But perhaps the most striking feature about him were his eyes, which could chill even the warmest of spaces with their cold piercing stare.

            To anyone in the neighboring cities, the innkeeper was known as “The Chill Wind.” Whenever he entered the vast towns, a whisper would spread like wildfire throughout the throng of humans, “The Chill Wind cometh,” and the people would part for him, like a river flowing around a stone. Nobody had any desire to be caught walking in his way. There was no one who stopped him to say, “Dear Master Barsoul, how are you today?” or, “Artemaeus, my friend, it has been too long. Won’t you stay and talk?” Those who knew him or had heard of him avoided conversation with him at all costs for fear of losing their precious savings which they had worked so desperately to earn.

            Artemaeus didn’t care. To him, idle conversation was a waste of time that would be better spent maintaining his inn and reaping the profits. He stood in the main lobby of it, his cold hands clasped behind his back. His eyes examined the walls which had once been painted but were now faded and worn. So long as there was still some ghost of what had once been there it would be a waste of time and money to replenish it to its former glory. After all, nobody noticed the decoration when it was there, so what did it matter now that it was gone?

            A small built black-haired clerk was trying in vain to sweep the floor clean of dust. He was the innkeeper’s only employee and had served loyally for many years. He took whatever payment he was given for the week without complaint and rarely bothered Artemaeus with inconsequential conversations such as the state of their families. It had never done any good. He was a good worker but he was nowhere near the standard Artemaeus demanded. He was always just a tad too slow running errands, his cleaning was mediocre at best, and he occasionally used too much oil in the lamps. These flaws were the reason that Artemaeus had given him as to why he had never attained anything higher than the status of clerk and retained his meager salary these past many years. That and the fact that the innkeeper was not one to relinquish his hold on money so easily.

            But the clerk was not of any importance at the moment. Artemaeus’s main concern was the pathetic man kneeling at his feet, hands outstretched in earnest supplication, with tears streaming down his cheeks...

I hope that you will enjoy this story that is very close to my heart and let it remind you of the reason for the season.

Thank you!

The Great Toy War: Summer Camp

Hey, guys! I'm very happy to announce that my newest novel, "The Great Toy War: Summer Camp", is well on its way to being published. So, to celebrate this momentous occasion, I'm proud to reveal to you the cover of the book as well as give you a sneak preview from chapter 20: "Fort Why-I-Oughta"!
Enjoy!

And here is the preview:

Toys dressed in the clothing of the mid-to-late-1800s walked along Main Street. All around him were men dressed in chaps and boots who tipped their hats at each other as they passed. Meanwhile the women who were clad in long dresses and bonnets whispered to each other behind their hands as the Indian and human passed them by. Tommy was surprised by the fact that many of the toys did not have bases under their feet.

Tommy craned his neck in all directions, trying to take in everything at once. They passed a bright red corral which looked like a giant barn. The continual whinny of horses and the lowing of cattle could be heard emanating from the inside. WHY-I-OUGHTA LIVESTOCK Co. was painted in big brightly colored letters on a wooden sign over the entrance through which Tommy met eyes with a white horse standing in its stall. Even though they locked eyes only for a second, Tommy had the immediate feeling that he wanted to ride that horse.

There was another building that was set slightly behind the ones on either side of it with a large fenced-off area in front of it. It was as if the wooden fence were the structure’s arms and it was trying to pull itself forward so that it was in line with the others. A monotonous metallic pounding clearly rang from the fenced-off area, and as they passed Tommy saw an incredibly muscular man steadily slamming a hammer down upon a red-hot piece of plastic.

Tommy tapped Quick-Fox’s shoulder. “Wouldn’t the plastic melt if it got that hot?” he asked, casting glances at the blacksmith. He read the sign nailed to the fence. FORT WHY-I-OUGHTA PLASTICSMITH, it read.

“No,” Quick-Fox answered simply. “Plastic will melt if heated to certain point. But plasticsmith is expert in field. If warmed just right, plastic will be moldable without melting.”

Tommy’s eyes goggled at all there was to see around him. He looked excitedly at the W.I.O. ARMORY where men were walking out with rifles, muskets, pistols, and bandoliers of plastic bullets. He watched as a red-colored cowboy spun the cylinder of a Colt .45 Peacemaker which made a rapid click-click-click noise.

“Newest model,” he said boastfully as a couple of other cowboys gazed upon it with unabashed envy. “Can hit a buffalo straight through the eye at 250 inches.” He expertly spun the gun on his index finger.

“Because it needs to be the size of a buffalo for you to hit it anywhere, Slick; never mind the eye!” one of the men guffawed followed by a chorus of laughter at Slick’s expense who, if it was even possible, looked even more red than before.

Quick-Fox and Tommy trod past the OLDE FORT THEATER. An amazingly intricate hand-carved marquee that advertised a show called PLASTICK IN MOTIONE was suspended over the box-office and front doors.

“C’ain’t wait to see the new show at this here the-a-ter,” a mustached gentleman was saying to a pretty bonneted woman as they walked inside.

“Here’s first stop,” Quick-Fox said, snapping Tommy away from his wandering eyes.

Want to read more? Keep an eye out for "The Great Toy War: Summer Camp"! Coming soon!

10 Fun Facts About "The Great Toy War" That You Probably Didn't Know

It's pretty astonishing to hear all of the things that go into the writing of a book. It goes through changes and edits like you wouldn't believe. But in the end it becomes the finished product that you know and love today.

Here are ten interesting facts that you may not have known about my novel, "The Great Toy War."

1. During the planning process of the book I had considered writing the story in the first-person from the point of view of Tommy. There is even a word document on my computer with a section written in that style (though, I'm saving it because the story of it will be used in the third installment of the series.)

2. Victor, a green toy soldier in the novel, is actually based on a real-life soldier of the same name. He lived a couple doors down from my family growing up and I actually do have a toy soldier at home with the name "Victor" written on its base in sharpie.

3. The photo on the cover of the novel was actually taken in my front yard using my toy soldiers. After spending a few days searching for an adequate picture, my mom said, "Why don't you take the camera and some of your guys and take the picture yourself." And thus the cover photo was born.

4. The book took one year to write followed by numerous (I lost count after 10) edits and read-throughs before it was published.

5. Though the novel was my first published book (unless you count my eight-year-old bestseller publish-your-own picture book thing), it was not my first book idea.

6. At 25 pages, "The Bathtub Battle" is the longest chapter in the book followed closely by the chapter, "The Battle for the Ball".

7. In the first couple of read-throughs the word "Lego" was omitted to ensure that we weren't breaking any copyright rules and replaced with such phrases as "multi-colored building blocks" and "interlocking bricks". After some discussion, the word "Lego" was put back in.
8. I hadn't decided to make the series a trilogy until after the first book was written and edited a couple of times. The series is called "The Rubber Ball Trilogy" (after the magic bouncy-ball that shrinks the main characters down to the size of toys and controls the tide of the war.)
9. The entire trilogy takes place in the same year. Book one (The Great Toy War) takes place in the spring, book two (The Great Toy War: Summer Camp) takes place in the summer, and the third and final book (title TBA) will take place in the fall and winter.
10. Ashley (the brothers' little sister) was originally not going to be a major character in the story until one day I decided it would be fun to have a fun-sized villain who happens to be a cute little girl.

Well there you go! Ten facts about my book, "The Great Toy War". Haven't read it yet? Buy your copy now from Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com and find out what you're missing. Read it already? Post a review on one of those websites and let the world know what you think! If you post a review, let me know and your name will be entered in a drawing to win a copy of my sequel "The Great Toy War: Summer Camp", set to come out later this summer.
Thanks for reading!

Short Story: Game On

This was a short story that I had written a year or so back for a writing contest judged by the best-selling author of "The Maze Runner", James Dashner. The theme of the story was "Game On" and this was the product of it. This story actually won the contest and the prize was a copy of his novel "The Eye of Minds". Enjoy!

Fox stood across from his opponent. He heard his virtual reality gloves clicking as he clenched and unclenched his fists. His goggles brought up information on the opponent.

Age: 17. Male. Hair: Black (w/ white streak) Usrnme: Destroyer. Specl Mve: Fireball. Weak Point: Slow Moving.

Fox smiled. He was lithe and agile while Destroyer was bulky and slow, beating the guy would be a piece of cake.

“Ladies and Gentlemen!” the announcer said, “On this side, from Team Glitch, is Destroyer!”

Destroyer raised his muscular arms to the cheering of hundreds of thousands of fans. A holographic projection of him appeared on the floating platforms high up in the coliseum-type arena.

“And over here, we have a newcomer from a new team, the Hackers. Ladies and Gentlemen, I introduce to you Fox!”

The cheering was less raucous this time. Fox wasn’t exactly sure how to react, so he meagerly waved, which Destroyer seemed to find hilarious.

“Gentlemen,” the announcer said, “Prepare to fight!”

The holograms on the platform became the number 3 and started counting down. The entire stadium counted along with it.

“3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .”

Fox gulped. Let the game begin.

He barely had time to react before a blazing fireball flew past him. He rolled out of the way just in time. He saw Destroyer roll another one in his gloves, this one about the size of a baseball. Fox brought his fist down on the ground and, though the floor was made of a thick glass, great walls of rock launched upward and deflected the flaming ball.

As the rocks lowered, two more fireballs were launched at Fox, which he deflected with sheets of water that seemed to materialize out of nowhere and disappeared in a hiss of steam when the flames touched them.

It seemed that Destroyer wasn’t one for variety when it came to his attacks. Fox deflected yet another fireball, but he didn’t expect a second to follow right behind it. It hit him in the shoulder. His vest vibrated and he felt a dull stinging in his shoulder. His goggles glowed red as his health bar dropped 22%.

Fox looked up from his shoulder. There was a cracking sound coming from Destroyer’s arm. Steadily, gray rock climbed its way up his arm and over his torso. He was making armor for himself. The rock cracked at his joints to let him move. Fox grimaced, there was only one way he could have done that. Dang cheat codes. They were supposed to be illegal in an arena battle but they made exceptions every now and then.

Fox threw a stone the size of a baseball, but Destroyer caught it in his rock-covered hand and crushed it to a powder. Fox formed a white ball in his hand and underhand tossed it to the ground. As soon as it touched the floor it burst like a water balloon, but instead of water spreading across the ground, it was ice. It spread to Destroyer’s feet and he slipped, landing flat on his back. Fox threw another one and Destroyer’s rock-covered arm was frozen to the ground.

Fox formed a spear made of ice and spun it a couple of times. He half jogged, half slid right across the ice and raised his spear to bring it down.

All of a sudden, Destroyer shot up a burst of flame and melted the spear in Fox’s hand. There was the sound of cracking ice, and Fox felt himself being launched backwards, landing on his back with Destroyer kneeling over him. Fox felt himself being pinned down by Destroyer’s knee.

Fox had to think quickly. He grabbed Destroyer’s rock-covered arm. Almost immediately, water flowed from Fox’s glove, drifting over the rock and into the cracked joints. Quickly, Fox froze the water and within seconds there was the sound of cracking rock as the ice in the cracks expanded. Destroyer looked surprised and let his guard down. Fox took the opportunity to throw the opponent off of him.

Destroyer stood up and took a few steps back from Fox. The rocks had nearly completely fallen off of his arm, but his torso was still covered. He started rubbing his hands together quickly. Sparks began to form between his palms and very soon a small ball of fire began to form. But the ball didn’t stay small for long. Within seconds, it went from the size of a golf ball to a tennis ball, and after that it was the size of a basketball.

A jolt shook Fox’s stomach. Destroyer cocked his arm back to throw the fireball at Fox. With a wicked grin, Destroyer launched the ball. It flew through the air with deadly speed.

Fox’s mind raced with possible escapes, but as the fireball raced toward him, he threw his arms up and a large sheet of water exploded into the air. The ball hit the wall of water with an explosion of steam, clouding the entire arena in mist so thick that Fox couldn’t see five feet ahead of him.

He knew that it was time for his special move. The steam was exactly what he needed to pull it off. He wiggled his fingers and sparks began to arc between them. He felt the electricity surge through him and when he felt like it was about to explode, he released all of it through his fingers. Fox knew that water was a conductor of electricity, and the water in the air picked up the lightning easily. There was a sharp electric zap and in the distance, Fox could hear the groaning of Destroyer.

The vents in the arena sucked the steam out of the arena and Fox saw Destroyer on the ground in a heap. Stunned silence filled the stadium before the words rang out, “Fox is the winner!”

The crowd erupted in thunderous applause. “Fox will be moving on to round two!”

Fox grinned. Game on.

For Behold, the Field is White, All Ready to Harvest . . .

My brother went into the MTC on July 8th of this year. It was by far one of the hardest things that I had ever had to do. Four minutes never seemed to go by so fast. And afterwords they had the gall to tell us to have a good day. Way to put salt in the wound MTC! 
After 6 long weeks he made it to the mission field of Jacksonville, Florida. I still find it hard to think that he is teaching people in the Spanish language. 

I am glad to be able to keep correspondence with him through letters and emails, though I have to admit it is still hard not to speak directly with him. He and I are really close as brothers and to be so far from him has not been easy. But I know that he is where he needs to be and that he is doing the things that he is meant to do. He and I had the opportunity to do seminary together his senior year and my freshman year and I had no doubt in my mind that he was going to be a great missionary. 
I realize that there is a lot of things that we are not going to be able to do together for the next couple of years. This fall brought the first time that he had not seen a show that I am in. He will not be here for the publication of my first book, though he continues to support me unfailingly through email and letters. He and I spent a lot of time together and I know that I will have to wait two years before we can pick up where we left off. 
I find peace in knowing that it is not "goodbye", just "see you later." After all, he is going out to ensure that there are no goodbyes. We are able to be together for eternity. He is going out to give that gift to others. 
I couldn't be prouder of my brother. He is the example of what a follower of Christ should be. A real man "like unto Moroni". He was always there to help me and is still there when I need him. He encourages me to keep improving and keep praying. He lets me know that when I am in need, the Lord is there just one prayer away. 
He is an example to so many people. As I walked into seminary for the first time last year, I knew I was going to be "Avery's little brother." (In fact, my nickname for a while was "Li'l Avery.") I knew when I said that I was a Winter that my name would be associated with my brother's. And I couldn't be more proud to be Avery's little brother. 
My brother heeded the call. He put on that black badge and went forth to do the Father's will, saying "Not my will, but Thy will be done." He is going to harvest the field and bring the Father's children home.

They say that thousands of missionaries go out a year, but what if we were to say thousands of sons, brothers, daughters, and sisters. Every missionary that goes out there is some body's family. They are soldiers in a war already won, like Helaman's Stripling Warriors. They do not doubt that if they have faith, and trust in God, that they will be prosperous. They will face adversity, the buffetings of the adversary will be all around them, always trying to drag them down. But they are surrounded on all sides by angels. Though two missionaries is all you may see, there are several angels standing around them, armed with swords and shields. 
There is no greater cause for which the families will let their loved ones go than to do Heavenly Father's will. Missionary moms are among the most faithful and brave of the Lord's followers for letting their sons and daughters leave for 2 years. The fathers of these missionaries are strong, holding their head up, though on the inside they are torn between sadness and joy. 
I hear about all of these crazy, funny, and inspiring stories of things that my brother has done. Like putting another elder's name-badge in jello. Or changing their ipad settings to Chinese. But also the strength and faith of the people they teach. The inspired meetings that to the investigators seem like "coincidence", or "fate", or even "luck". 
I know that my brother is doing amazing things in Jacksonville, Florida. I know that he is a modern Stripling Warrior. He is where he needs to be. He will always be one of my heroes. And I couldn't be more proud of him.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

I would say that I'm part of a "Dirty Rotten Cast" but that would be lying.
The musical, based off of the 1988 film starring Steve Martin and Michael Caine, has joined the list of my top favorite musicals.
The story is about two conmen on the French Riviera, who make a bet to extract 50,000 dollars off of a selected target, and the loser must leave town. With a surprise twist at the end, the audiences are sure to be rolling with laughter!
Near the end of January, I received a phone call from my mom, saying that the owner of the Terrace Plaza Playhouse (mentioned in my post, "The Backstage Story"), Jacci Florence (also mentioned in the post), had told her that they were short a guy and asked if I wanted to be a part of the musical, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels". I was super excited to join, and jumped at the opportunity.
I went to the first rehearsal the following Tuesday. There, I met my double, Mike (who plays as Freddy the nights that I would be performing).
The choreographer then said that they would be reviewing the number titled, "Oklahoma". My mouth dropped when I saw them perform it. I had no clue how I was going to learn it. And, just to add to the confusion, I found out that I had three weeks to learn the show. Over the course of the three weeks, I had become friends with the cast members. I've said it before and I'll say it again, at the Terrace Plaza Playhouse, they really do treat you like family.
I was welcomed into the group by everyone from the very begining, and they were willing to help me catch up and learn the show. I cannot express my appreciation enough to the cast, my "Dirty Rotten Family".That night we started a number titled, "The More We Dance", which was tiring but fun.
After weeks of practicing, learning, catching up, singing, etc., the big night came: Opening Night.
I was nervous as could be, it was the moment of truth. I was pacing around my house all day, much to the entertainment of my family.  
There's a certain energy that comes before the start of every show, it spreads through the actors and even through the audience. All the hard work was finally going to pay off.
As I walked on stage with my dance partner for the overture dance, the butterflies in my stomach were so large that I was afraid my own legs wouldn't hold me.
Once the overture was finished and the audience applauded, the anxiousness just melted away, as though a tension were being slackened.
Hearing the audience laugh reminded me of parts of the show that I had forgotten were even funny. Often during the show, the actors would stand backstage, laughing at the jokes and actions of the actors onstage. Even onstage, sometimes, I would nearly brake character due to hilarious things that happened.
Each actor and actress in the show brings something different to the table that makes it so enjoyable.
I was able to see one of the performances when my double was in the ensemble, and it was rare that I had a straight face during the show. I have to admit that I was a little giddy just sitting in my seat at first, though. In my mind at the theater I was in performance mode. I was even tapping my feet to the choreography of some of the numbers, and humming to some of the songs.
Your stress will just melt if you see this show. It is light-hearted and fun, with jokes that will make you laugh, and music that will have you humming for the rest of the week.
The music, by the way, is amazing, and the leads are phenomenal (which happens a lot at the Terrace Plaza Playhouse). I can assure anyone who goes to see this show that they will not be disappointed, and that the tickets will be money well spent.
Even my family (who have seen the show a couple of times now), still bust out laughing at the jokes. There were parts of the show that were hilarious to me even though I had heard them a hundred times. Often in our home, someone will belt out the lyrics to the song, "Ruprecht" substituting a family member's name in place of Ruprecht.
I have really enjoyed the experience of performing this show, and appreciate the chance of working with some of the greatest and most talented actors and actresses in theater.
If I were to say any more good things about this show, this post would go on for a while.
I would highly suggest coming to see this show, it would be a shame for a musical as good as this one to not have a full house at for at least one of the performances.
The nights that I perform are the 6, 9, 14, 20, and 23. The show goes through April 4th. To buy tickets, follow the link to the theater's website here
It has truly been a pleasure to work with this amazing cast, and I hope that you will see how great they are when they perform.
I have been able to make friends that I'm sure I will have for a long time to come, and I'm sure they will agree with me when I say that one of the greatest feelings for an actor is hearing a happy audience laugh or applaud.
Thank you for reading!
For all those fans of Sherlock Holmes, please read my story "The Deadly Tower" on this blog, and feel free to check out the previews of my books!