Would you boycott a book because it was controversial?

[aigiqinf]

What can be so dangerous in an idea that the idea can cause anything but for the reader to reconsider his own views; an act that should never be condemned.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I personally wouldn't boycott any books unless they were inappropriate contentographic.

Even that is not necessarily a no-go:
"Lady Chatterley's Lover" was considered "inappropriate contentographic" when it first came out - as was Joyce's "Ulysses".
I'd agree, though, that actual inappropriate contentography is usually miserable literature of little artistic value.

His Dark Materials was considered by my church friends to be controversial. I read it and loved it. I found it was very missunderstood and far from being anti - christian I found it inspiring.

I agree! It's not anti-Christian -it's anti-totalitarian.

When I challenged my friends I discovered that they hadn't even read it.

This is usually the case. Take any book that's considered controversial - "His Dark Materials", "The Satanic Verses", Anne Frank's diary, the Harry Potter series - and chances are that those who advocate its ban most loudly are the ones who don't even know what it's about.

So I ask would you boycott a book because it may be controversial?

I don't think so, no. That said, I wouldn't deliberately seek out a book just because it is considered controversial - at best, a controversy might draw my attention to a book that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise, and make me consider reading it.

 

[aigiqinf]

This is usually the case. Take any book that's considered controversial - "His Dark Materials", "The Satanic Verses", Anne Frank's diary, the Harry Potter series - and chances are that those who advocate its ban most loudly are the ones who don't even know what it's about.

I really can't understand how Anne Frank's diary can be controversial. As one comedian said (paraphrased) "I was on the Catholic league's banned list. I was confused until I learned the Catholic 'league' was one guy with a computer."

 

[kitty.lover]

controversial.

I am currently reading "The Shack" I find that it's an inspiring piece of literature; but I can see why others may consider it's contents uncomfortable. I guess it all comes down to personal values, beliefs and imagination.

 

[PristineSkies]

Despite of the preferences I have, I wouldn't boycott a book just because it may be controversial.

 

[kitty.lover]

I have just posted on a thread where there are people who think the fairy stories we read to our children are controversial.

I had no idea for example that Snow White was a trollop with a fetish for dwarfs. According to some she was comitting polygamy and having sex with all of them. I have been out and read them and I have to be honest I keep missing those bits.

Is our society become so paranoid that even childrens fairy tales are seen as demonic or depraved?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I really can't understand how Anne Frank's diary can be controversial.

Well, the fact that she questioned the existence of God sufficed to make it "controversial" in the eyes of many concerned Christian parents. Can't allow their children to sympathize with a hell-bound apostate, you know?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's an interesting list of banned novels - and the reasons given for banning them...

1984 . George Orwell. Challenged in the Jackson County, Fla. (1981) because the novel is "pro-communist [!!!] and contained explicit sexual matter." (You might just as well call Atlas Shrugged "pro-communist".)

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Mark Twain. Removed from the seventh grade curriculum in the West Chester, Pa. schools (1994) after parents complained that it is too full of racially charged language. (Ouch. Political correctness, much?)

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Roald Dahl. Removed from a locked reference collection at the Boulder, Colo. Public Library (1988), where it had been placed because the librarian thought the book espoused a poor philosophy of life.

The Color Purple. Alice Walker. Challenged as appropriate reading material for an Oakland, Calif. High School honors class (1984) due to the work's "sexual and social explicitness" and its "troubling ideas about race relations, man's relationship to God, African history, and human sexuality." This Pulitzer Prize-winning novel was finally approved for use by the Oakland Board of Education after nine months of debate. Banned in the Souderton, Pa. Area School District (1992) as appropriate reading for tenth graders because it is "smut."Removed from the Jackson County, W.Va. school libraries (1997) along with sixteen other titles.

The Complete Fairy Tales of the Brothers Grimm. Jacob and Wilhelm K. Grimm. Restricted to sixth through eighth grade classrooms at the Kyrene, Ariz. elementary schools (1994) due to its excessive violence, negative protrayals of female characters, and anti-Semitic references. (Did you know that the Grimms, as true "Victorians", already edited out the most obvious sexual content? Originally, the Wolf asked Little Red Ridinghood to remove her clothes and join him in bed - and there wasn't a happy ending to be had, either.)

Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury. Ironically, students at the Venado Middle School in Irvine, Calif. received copies of the book with scores of words--mostly "hells" and "damns"--blacked out. The novel is about book burning and censorship. Thankfully, after receiving complaints from parents and being contacted by reporters, school officials said the censored copies would no longer be used (1992)

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. C.S. Lewis. Macmillan. Challenged in the Howard County, Md. school system (1990) because it depicts "graphic violence, mysticism, and gore."

To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper Lee. This novel has been challenged quite a lot due to its racial themes. Challenged--and temporarily banned--in Eden Valley, Minn.(1977); Challenged at the Warren, Ind. Township schools (1981), because the book "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of 'good literature'." After unsuccessfully banning the novel, three black parents resigned from the township human relations advisory council. Banned from the Lindale, Tex. advanced placement English reading list (1996) because the book "conflicted with the values of the community."

A Wrinkle In Time. Madeleine L'Engle. Challenged at the Polk City, Fla. Elementary School (1985) by a parent who believed that the story promotes witchcraft, crystal balls, and demons. Challenged in the Anniston Ala. schools (1990). The complainant objected to the book's listing the name of Jesus Christ together with the names of great artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders when referring to those who defend earth against evil.

 

[kitty.lover]

WOW
I had no idea so many books were banned in the US. I don't think any books have been banned in the UK since Lady Chatterley's Lover.
It is a surprising thing to discover about a nation that promotes freedom and democracy.

 

[kittysbecute]

WOW
I had no idea so many books were banned in the US. I don't think any books have been banned in the UK since Lady Chatterley's Lover.
It is a surprising thing to discover about a nation that promotes freedom and democracy.

Most of the books mentioned were not banned by the US government though, just individual libraries, schools, and areas. And "challenged" doesn't mean banned.

 

[oneamanda2]

I am taking a class called the Bible as Literature, and we have to read all these fictional stories that are loosely based on the Bible. Most of the things we are reading are pretty blasphemous, and I would definitely boycott them.

Here are some of the titles:

The Man Who Died by D.H. Lawrence
God Knows by Joseph Heller

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Most of the books mentioned were not banned by the US government though, just individual libraries, schools, and areas. And "challenged" doesn't mean banned.

Yeah, that. ^^

It's still bad enough, but at least it's pretty clear that the (federal) government is not involved in this.

In Germany, there is indeed an inofficial kind of censorship: books and films that are considered inappropriate contentographic or excessively violent become indexed as "inappropriate for minors", which means that they must not be publicly sold, advertised or otherwise placed in view of minors. Effectively, this means that an indexed book or film (apart from inappropriate contentography, which is sold in special adult stores, anyway) is basically unavailable, which mostly means that the company that produced it will not make any profit - which in turn means that it will most likely be taken from the market altogether.

The original "Doom"- PC game, for example, was never sold openly in German stores, as some overzealous pencil pushers thought it "unsuitable for minors" to shoot pixel monsters.

 

[keith99]

To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper Lee. This novel has been challenged quite a lot due to its racial themes. Challenged--and temporarily banned--in Eden Valley, Minn.(1977); Challenged at the Warren, Ind. Township schools (1981), because the book "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of 'good literature'." After unsuccessfully banning the novel, three black parents resigned from the township human relations advisory council. Banned from the Lindale, Tex. advanced placement English reading list (1996) because the book "conflicted with the values of the community."

Was I transfered into an alternate universe last night? Unless I am finally losing my mind 'To Kill a Mockingbird' hardly presents racism in a good light. I could see steriotypical white crackers resigning becaseu the book was allowed, but blacks? Am I missing something? It has been a long time since I read it. I could see some prudes or radical feminists objecting to one rather unusual contest where Scout was at a significant disadvantage.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't understand it myself, but it seems as if some people feel that the novel does not condemn racism harshly enough, and uses "inappropriate language":
In one high-profile case outside the U.S., school districts in the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia attempted to have the book removed from standard teaching curricula in the 1990s, stating:

"The terminology in this novel subjects students to humiliating experiences that rob them of their self-respect and the respect of their peers. The word '[HA! CF censors it as well!!!]' is used 48 times [in] the novel... We believe that the English Language Arts curriculum in Nova Scotia must enable all students to feel comfortable with ideas, feelings and experiences presented without fear of humiliation... To Kill a Mockingbird is clearly a book that no longer meets these goals and therefore must no longer be used for classroom instruction."

Crazy indeed...

 

[oneamanda2]

To Kill a Mockingbird is a book that makes people think about how hard the African Americans had it in those days. I think it was a good book, I read it several times for leisure.

 

[LadyNRA]

No, I wouldn't ban a book though I might ban it from my household. Depended on the content.

As for His Dark Materials, i let my kids read it. One got bored with the second book and stopped and the other didn't care for the 3rd one at all. I read them all and I must say that while I really enjoyed the first book and part of the second, I really disliked the 3rd one. I know you don't think it's anti-christian but I believe you are very wrong. It perverts many christian doctrines. It takes scripture out of context throughout the 2nd and third book. God turns out to be the 'evil bad dude' if you want to generalize it. The fallen angels were the good guys if I remember correctly. I am quite open minded about what I and my girls read (even to letting my 16 year old read the common-place secular romances), but the message in this book really rubbed me the wrong way and as I said, I was keeping an open mind because it was meant to be a fantasy...but I draw the line when it that fantasy takes biblical teaches and twists them around. Had the author kept this caricature of Christianity out entirely and crafted some totally new religion I wouldn't have minded nearly as much. Of course, this is just my opinion...

 

[Diane_Windsor]

If a book was deemed controversial...that would probably make me want to read it even more just to see what the fuss was about.

Ditto. It's the same with music too-I have 3 of Emimen's CDs.

 

[dizzywestsidegirl]

no

 

[kitty.lover]

know you don't think it's anti-christian but I believe you are very wrong. It perverts many christian doctrines. It takes scripture out of context

The very point of His Dark Materials is to challenge doctrine and the power of religious institutions. Phillip Pullman highlights very well the way society has replaced pure faith with rules and doctrine and uses fear to force people to conform rather than inspiring them to believe.

I know many will disagree with me but isn't that the whole point of free will, that we have the freedom to believe and worship in our own way and according to our conscience.

"The Shack" a very popular piece of Christian literature delivers the very same message. The only real difference is in the delivery.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

know you don't think it's anti-christian but I believe you are very wrong. It perverts many christian doctrines. It takes scripture out of context

The very point of His Dark Materials is to challenge doctrine and the power of religious institutions. Phillip Pullman highlights very well the way society has replaced pure faith with rules and doctrine and uses fear to force people to conform rather than inspiring them to believe.

I know many will disagree with me but isn't that the whole point of free will, that we have the freedom to believe and worship in our own way and according to our conscience.

"The Shack" a very popular piece of Christian literature delivers the very same message. The only real difference is in the delivery.

Dostoyevski's tale of the Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov" aims at exactly the same. For those of you who are not familiar with it:

In the tale, Christ comes back to earth in Seville at the time of the Inquisition. He performs a number of miracles (echoing miracles from the Gospels). The people recognize him and adore him, but he is arrested by Inquisition leaders and sentenced to be burnt to death the next day. The Grand Inquisitor visits him in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs him. The main portion of the text is the Inquisitor explaining to Jesus why his return would interfere with the mission of the church.

The Inquisitor frames his denunciation of Jesus around the three questions Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom. The Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature, though. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom which Jesus has given them. Thus, he implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed humanity to suffer.

Despite declaring the Inquisitor to be an atheist, Ivan also implies that the Inquisitor and the Church follow "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," i.e. the Devil, Satan, for he, through compulsion, provided the tools to end all human suffering and unite under the banner of the Church. The multitude then is guided through the Church by the few who are strong enough to take on the burden of freedom. The Inquisitor says that under him, all mankind will live and die happily in ignorance. Though he leads them only to "death and destruction," they will be happy along the way. The Inquisitor will be a self-martyr, spending his life to keep choice from humanity. He states that "Anyone who can appease a man's conscience can take his freedom away from him." The Inquisitor proceeds to explain why Christ was wrong to reject each temptation by Satan. Christ should have turned stones into bread, as men will always follow those who will feed their bellies. The Inquisitor recalls how Christ rejected this saying, "Man cannot live on bread alone," and explains to Christ "Feed men, and then ask of them virtue! That's what they'll write on the banner they'll raise against Thee." Casting himself down from the temple to be caught by angels would cement his godhood in the minds of people, who would follow him forever. Rule over all the kingdoms of the Earth would ensure their salvation, the Grand Inquisitor claims.

The segment ends when Christ, who has been silent throughout, kisses the Inquisitor on his "bloodless, aged lips" (22) instead of answering him. On this, the Inquisitor releases Christ but tells him never to return. Christ, still silent, leaves into "the dark alleys of the city." Not only is the kiss ambiguous, but its effect on the Inquisitor is as well. Ivan concludes, "The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his ideas." The kiss that Christ plants on the lips of the Grand Inquisitor is the equal of Christ's whispered words to Judas (John 13.27) "that thou doest, do quickly." Just as Jesus in no way condones Judas' betrayal, so Christ's kiss does not excuse the Grand Inquisitor.