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 24th
through the 30th. 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 4th
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 14th, 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 16th, 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
29th, 2011.
“Freedom
of speech is a principal pillar…” Franklin, Benjamin. On Freedom of Speech and the Press. Pennsylvania Gazette. (November
17th, 1737.)
“[M]akes
people uncomfortable.” Halloway, Kenny (Quoted by Karen Nelson). Why Did Biloxi Pull ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’
From the 8th Grade Lesson Plan? sunherald.com. October 12th,
2017.
“To
summarize some points given…” Levin, Martin. In Defense of ‘Huckleberry Finn’. Post-gazette.com. April 9th,
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.
