Should We Ban Offensive Books?
Hullo fellows, I was going through old drafts and found this. I decided at the time it was redundant griping and ignored publishing it, but now I haven’t published in so long we may as well have a junk, eh!
The Problem
I saw an article on Medium over a year ago about bad books that shouldn’t be read, only to discover that it was actually about books whose authors’ opinions the writer found offensive. It’s a sentiment that has been growing, recently resulting in Penguin publishing censored versions of the great Roald Dahl’s books. As Salman Rushdie said, “Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed.”
Judging the quality of a book is art criticism. When judging the offensiveness of a book/author with intent to act against others reading said book, we’re entering a dingy path of personal bias that has a historical precedent of ending in the banning of books. If you think book-banning and censorship is restricted only to the books you think are bad, ha.
Outside of government, book-banning is a time-honored pastime in connection with conservative excess — especially evangelical Christianity. But the left got tired of being excluded, it seems, and this rash of anti-bookism is an extension of the leftist culture of hypersensitivity so bemoaned by people across the political spectrum. The focus now is not on traditional conservative morality, but anything that touches on demographic stereotypes, regardless of the historical context.
Whatever. The concept of book-banning is unchanged. And it’s been spreading; even Dr. Seuss has come under the radar:
“That tension between Seuss and Seuss-free classrooms is emblematic of a bigger debate playing out across the country — should we continue to teach classic books that may be problematic, or eschew them in favor of works that more positively represent people of color?” — NPR, “Dr. Seuss Books Can Be Racist, But Students Keep Reading Them”
No Book Left Behind
All else being equal, I agree that a book with inclusive undertones is better than one with the opposite. But: all is rarely equal between books, a great author is hard to find, and you don’t always have to take in order to give.
My main purpose in writing this is to say one thing bluntly and loudly:
No book should be banned, censored, or socially buried purely due to offensiveness. Express your distaste and leave it at that — a normal old book review. You don’t make the rules for the rest of us and the future generations to come. You’re not my chosen arbiter of right and wrong. I am, which is how it ought to be for everyone when it comes to books.
That includes everything from On the Origin of Species to The Satanic Bible to Mein Kampf. People can be influenced in awful ways by the wrong books? Yeah, because their brains are made of cottage cheese due to a lack of a diverse diet of books and critical thinking. We don’t need coddling, we need sensible yet bold exploration.
Ender’s Game is an easier target than a serious classic. The old “product of his time” excuse doesn’t fly for Card, and it’s not exactly The Great Gatsby. Nevertheless, it’s a great book beloved by millions of children and adults. Card may be anti-gay, but Ender’s Game is anti-war.
There is nothing more important than world peace concomitant with freedom — anyone who has even seen war footage knows it. And the book is not anti-war in a trite way, like how kids are told to “love each other” while the adults do no such thing. It’s anti-war in a slick, impactful way. If books were all the same in quality and content, we could junk it and pick something like it written by a gay man.
But they are not. There is only one Ender’s Game. Books are many; treasures are few. This one is smart, wise, and a total blast for many people. So buy a used copy or check it out from the library, and tell Card to set a better example outside the page.
But, as usual, the issue comes down to the children. They can’t be expected to parse everything correctly. A child lacks the ability to understand racism, sexism, or homophobia well enough to take in offensive works without being poisoned.
— WAIT, WAIT! I’m sorry, that was a bit off. What I meant to write was, “If you do not effectively act as a context-providing giant, you are failing at one of your main jobs as a parent or teacher.”
Is your dream of a school where children exclusively read books that celebrate a rainbow of diversity, safe from exposure to dusty old works by white males about white males like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451? Good! You’re not invited to my party.
My dream is of a school where teachers present books to children based primarily on their quality and social impact, working through offensive ideas in a wise and open manner so that children can explore bad ideas well enough to reject them, for:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” — some white dick
Here is a contentious example: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. You probably know that this book includes the n-word about 200 times. You have probably heard people saying it should be banned, or that it should not. But what is often missed is the following:
“In a 1991 interview, Ralph Ellison[, author of Invisible Man, black and smarter than you or me] suggested that critics who condemn Twain for the portrait of Jim that we get in the book forget that ‘one also has to look at the teller of the tale, and realize that you are getting a black man, an adult, seen through the condescending eyes — partially — of a young white boy.’ Are you saying, I asked Ellison, ‘that those critics are making the same old mistake of confusing the narrator with the author? That they’re saying that Twain saw him that way rather than that Huck did?’ ‘Yes,’ was Ellison’s answer.” — Teaching Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Shelley Fisher Fishkin
There is probably a long line of people who would feel very sheepish to learn the true meaning and historical context of this “offensive” work written by a man who was pro-reparations over a century ago. But that’s just the point: books are here to teach us, if we are willing to listen and think. Knee-jerk rejection of books will tend to make you look stupid. Would you rather talk to a child who can explain Huck Finn in its historical context alongside the works of black authors like Frederick Douglass, or one who says, “I’m not supposed to read that, it has bad words”?
Don’t Take, Give
By all means, seek out good authors and perspectives traditionally marginalized. This is important and even moral.
But don’t try to shelter the world from “bad ideas” in artistically profound or significant works. We, especially children, need those works. We need to shove our hands into them and get them all messy, move around the bits and get a little closer to understanding the complex melding of wonder and horror that is reality on this planet.
Next time you want to subtract something you hate from the world, try finding something you love to add instead. We appreciate the healing presence of your fear and anger, but have a little faith —
