Censorship and some things it misses...

Last week's discussion had my mind running in about fifty directions, and my thoughts are still kind of all over the place. Our discussion about censorship got me thinking back to my high school English classes and our frequent discussions of banned books; so I'll start there. One of my authors at the time was the Ellen Hopkins, a novelist who published a series of fiction books for young adult readers. Hopkins based her books mainly off of her primary-source research (phone calls, interviews, conversations, personal experience, etc.) and each books explores the perils many teenagers and young adults face in America, horrific stories that could easily become reality when the wrong choices are made.

http://ellenhopkins.com/YoungAdult/

 

Hopkins books have been challenged (and some have been ban) since their publication, for subjects like drug use, sexually explicit content, etc. and she has been dis-invited to numerous speaking engagements when uncomfortable parents expressed their outrage to superintendents about the content of her novels. Hopkins discussed her opinion on censorship and being a banned author in her article for the Huffington Post titled, Banned Books Week 2010: An Anti-Censorship Manifesto. "According to the National Coalition Against Censorship, removing an author from an event because someone disagrees with their ideas or content in their books meets the definition of
censorship," Hopkins wrote. Her poem, Manifesto, illustrates the true fears and vulnerability behind the call for censorship, supporting our discussion of how it is in the best interest of the ruling class to uphold and distribute artifacts reflective of ruling ideology. I also couldn't help but think of Tony's closer look at the banning of Harry Potter as I read it. Take a look...

Manifesto

To you zealots and bigots and false
patriots who live in fear of discourse.
You screamers and banners and burners
who would force books
off shelves in your brand name
of greater good.

You say you're afraid for children,
innocents ripe for corruption

by perversion or sorcery on the page.
But sticks and stones do break
bones, and ignorance is no armor.
You do not speak for me,
and will not deny my kids magic
in favor of miracles.

You say you're afraid for America,
the red, white, and blue corroded
by terrorists, socialists, the sexually
confused. But we are a vast quilt
of patchwork cultures and multi-gendered
identities. You cannot speak for those
whose ancestors braved
different seas.

You say you're afraid for God,
the living word eroded by Muhammed
and Darwin and Magdalene.
But the omnipotent sculptor of heaven
and earth designed intelligence.
Surely you dare not speak
for the father, who opens
his arms to all.

A word to the unwise.
Torch every book.
Char every page.
Burn every word to ash.
Ideas are incombustible.
And therein lies your real fear.

-Ellen Hopkins

I love the simplicity of this poem. There is nothing entirely too complex about it, which is fitting in the sense that it is accessible to the young audience she targets in her novels.  Also, I agree with a lot of what Hopkins says about exposing young adults to the "dark, edgy" content of her books, because it is reality for so many of the readers and their peers.  I distinctly remember reading CRANK, PERFECT, and TRICKS in the library of my high school, thinking about my best friend Kelsey, who was struggling with a sexually abusive relationship and cutting, and Sam who was coping with coming out as a lesbian and entering into her first relationship (with turned into a mentally and emotionally abusive situation). She, and a few other close friends, struggled with eating disorders. Many of my peers were experimenting or addicted to hard drugs and marijuana. The boy who sat next to me in anatomy was always high on hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Hopkins books not only related to the life of students around me, but provided testimonial and stories of people who overcame difficulties and addictions faced by my friends. The organizations that seek to ban or censor books like Hopkins' or Rowling's want to take them off the self to prevent deviant or subcultural behavior, but I'd argue that exposure to these kinds of books provide solutions to these very things. They encourage independent thought, strong positive morals and values, and the importance of responsibility and careful thought. 

Critics and conservatives argue that the art in question (like the Abject Art exhibition) doesn't relate to the general public or the masses, and while that does hold some truth, they fail to recognize the outlet for recovery and self discovery it allows for those who it most poignantly or strongly relate to it. Controversial art evokes necessary discussions, challenges dominant cultural understandings of social structures, and affords the readers/viewers the choice to see it and respond to it or simply to ignore it. 

On a related note, just as I was scrolling through Facebook this past week, I stumbled upon a CollegeHumor article about very carefully placed sexually implicit jokes in a familiar kid's show. It also included a little poke at fine art critics from the episode where Squidward teaches Spongebob about the creation, production, and qualifiers of fine art. If you want a good laugh, take a look at this article.

I started to wonder about just how much 'explicit' or sexually implicit content was really present in the shows I watched as a child (much younger than the readers of Hopkins' books).  I found endless links to sexual, homosexual, and sensitive content in children's tv shows.  One of the most shocking: 24 Filthy Adult Jokes In Cartoons You Completely Missed As A Kid. 

There are, I'm sure, plenty of reasons why these suggestive clips are aired without issue or censorship, and why publicly funded art that is seen by far fewer people is subjected to so much scrutiny. However, I still find it hard to believe that so many mainstream books, movies, and art collections are challenged for things that I find far less offensive than the jokes and references in cartoons. Maybe it's because the books, movies, and art are created for a purpose, and include 'questionable material' for a reason; and because of that, it is suppressed and censored.

If you get the chance, please also take a look at this article by Terry McCabe from a 1990 edition of the Chicago Tribune. He poses an interesting set of arguments, some of them not necessarily align with what we spoke about in class. I don't think it's contradictory, but complimentary. Take a look at Why It`s Necessary To Fund Controversial Art, Too. 

 

If you want to read more about Hopkins and her books, see these links:

http://childrensbooks.about.com/od/censorship/a/Teen-Author-Ellen-Hopkins-On-Censorship.htm

http://ellenhopkins.com/YoungAdult/books/