The History of Censorship in Literature

[kelby_lake]

Studying censorship in the arts is a passion of mine. I am looking for your views on censorship and how it has influenced literature.

[PeterL]

It would be very, very difficult to tell how censorship has changed literature, because the pieces that were not altered to become acceptable were never published.

[Desolation]

Censorship is abhorrent. I don't know how much more I could say on the subject. What value could literature possibly hold if it didn't touch on the parts of reality that some see as unpleasant? The world does not yield to a pleasant picture, and literature should not either.

Even if you're not a fan of Allen Ginsberg, the movie Howl might be worth checking out, as it touches a great deal on censorship and obscenity.

[Sirin]

Russia is a country more than any other has suffered from this evil. At first there was the tsarist censorship. Later - censorship of Soviet times. This prompted the authors to develop protective mechanisms to circumvent censorship. Allegory, contraband, underground publishing, produce their own work for the translation from foreign languages and many others.
This story has created a strange paradox: the best literature works were created at the time of censorship. It somehow stimulated the authors. Now, in times of freedom, so well did not write. This is strange.

[kelby_lake]

This story has created a strange paradox: the best literature works were created at the time of censorship. It somehow stimulated the authors.

It is a strange truth. Censorship basically admits that the arts have a powerful influence on people, and if somebody's telling you that your work can have a powerful influence on people, that's got to be inspiring.

Censorship in literature is different from censorship in film and theatre in that the latter two are visual. You can get away with more in literature than you can on screen- with good reason, perhaps.

[Sirin]

...your work can have a powerful influence on people, that's got to be inspiring.

Totally agree!
Also, I noticed another trend that can be attributed to censorship.
This is hortatory, instructive character of literature produced in the era of censorship, if you know what I mean.The example of Russian literature revealing it. Writers seek to influence their people, "to sow reasonable, good and eternal" (Nekrasov). In times of freedom, they become selfish.

Censorship in literature is different from censorship in film and theatre in that the latter two are visual.
With this I disagree. Visual art is capable of even greater influence on the people, especially nowadays. I do not think that the book is now able to lift people to the revolution etc.

[kelby_lake]

With this I disagree. Visual art is capable of even greater influence on the people, especially nowadays. I do not think that the book is now able to lift people to the revolution etc.

This is my point. You can describe things in a novel that people would find uncomfortable watching on screen or actors would find uncomfortable portraying. The recent film of The Lovely Bones was, I believe, toned down from the book.

[Sirin]

Maybe you're right.
And we should not underestimate the influence of books on the masses. "My Struggle" of A.G. or "Capital" of Karl Marx - censorship is needed for some books...

[JBI]

Meh, the easiest way to have something read is to censor it. Besides, when new mediums come out, censorship ends for a period - the only reason Luther wasn't destroyed was because he came out in the age of print, where the idea hadn't been tried yet.

To censor implies control over a medium - it rarely works. The best censorship is to just give no attention to things.

[G L Wilson]

James and the Giant Peach has been banned before, the reason for the ban couldn't have had something to do with the Christian religion by any chance, could it?

[John Steinbeck]

I think we should censor all bad literature (I call it "****erature"). Honestly, crappy books are a waste of paper, money, time, and space. Pulpy crap deserves no place in the literary world. It deserves no place on paper.

Yes, this means all of Stephen King's books will be banned, as they are example pieces of ****erature.

[Heteronym]

This story has created a strange paradox: the best literature works were created at the time of censorship. It somehow stimulated the authors. Now, in times of freedom, so well did not write. This is strange.

Ah, that reminds me of a teacher of mine at the University who argued that Portuguese poetry was better during Salazar's regime. Perhaps. It certainly forced the poets to polish their metaphors and images in a way that they passed the censor's office while still communicating something to those who read them.

[G L Wilson]

I think we should censor all bad literature (I call it "****erature"). Honestly, crappy books are a waste of paper, money, time, and space. Pulpy crap deserves no place in the literary world. It deserves no place on paper.

Yes, this means all of Stephen King's books will be banned, as they are example pieces of ****erature.

Lol. As much as I too despise **** literature, I will not be turning over any of the literature I cherish for destruction. This much I do know.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think we should censor all bad literature (I call it "****erature"). Honestly, crappy books are a waste of paper, money, time, and space. Pulpy crap deserves no place in the literary world. It deserves no place on paper.

Yes, this means all of Stephen King's books will be banned, as they are example pieces of ****erature.

I assume you're being extremely flippant, but on the off chance you aren't. . . .

Who decides what will be ****erature and what won't? How would this be decided? Case in point: Stephen King is by no means a great author of high literature, but I don't think he's a bad one. He can write good characters, exciting and captivating plots, and sometimes scare the hell out of you. I've had professors who share the same opinion.

[G L Wilson]

I assume you're being extremely flippant, but on the off chance you aren't. . . .

Who decides what will be ****erature and what won't? How would this be decided? Case in point: Stephen King is by no means a great author of high literature, but I don't think he's a bad one. He can write good characters, exciting and captivating plots, and sometimes scare the hell out of you. I've had professors who share the same opinion.

There is high art, and there is low art; and the actual has little to do with art.

[Drkshadow03]

I think we should censor all bad literature (I call it "****erature"). Honestly, crappy books are a waste of paper, money, time, and space. Pulpy crap deserves no place in the literary world. It deserves no place on paper.

Yes, this means all of Stephen King's books will be banned, as they are example pieces of ****erature.

No, no, no! Obviously the first books that need to go are all the Philip K. Dick, H. P. Lovecraft, Robert Howard, William Gibson and Dashiell Hammett novels!

[YesNo]

I am looking for your views on censorship and how it has influenced literature.
One of the greatest censorship stories is the banning of translations of the Bible into English around 1500. Not only were the translations burned, but so were the translators. And out of it came the King James Bible.

For more information on this history, especially as it related to Tyndale and More, there is Brian Moynahan's God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal.

[G L Wilson]

One of the greatest censorship stories is the banning of translations of the Bible into English around 1500. Not only were the translations burned, but so were the translators. And out of it came the King James Bible.

For more information on this history, especially as it related to Tyndale and More, there is Brian Moynahan's God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal.

The King James Bible is art if anything ever deserved the description.

[kinesj]

Studying censorship in the arts is a passion of mine. I am looking for your views on censorship and how it has influenced literature.

As a libertarian, I advocate a free market of ideas.


I think we should censor all bad literature (I call it "****erature"). Honestly, crappy books are a waste of paper, money, time, and space. Pulpy crap deserves no place in the literary world. It deserves no place on paper.

Yes, this means all of Stephen King's books will be banned, as they are example pieces of ****erature.

As someone else already said, I sincerely hope this is flippant, if it is not. . .

In other words, you are advocating that the right to expression through the written medium should be regulated by arbitrary notions of aesthetics, and hence denied to anyone deemed unfitting for such? Need I even delve into the litany of classics which would have potentially been lost due to nonconformity to the predispositions of their own time? Even Shakespeare didn't really get his due until the nineteenth century.

[John Steinbeck]

As someone else already said, I sincerely hope this is flippant, if it is not. . .

In other words, you are advocating that the right to expression through the written medium should be regulated by arbitrary notions of aesthetics, and hence denied to anyone deemed unfitting for such? Need I even delve into the litany of classics which would have potentially been lost due to nonconformity to the predispositions of their own time? Even Shakespeare didn't really get his due until the nineteenth century.

I was being sarcastic, hoping that others would play along.

Anyway, I personally believe that certain types of writing (but not necessarily literature) should be destroyed for the good of humanity. And by types of writing, I mean what gets posted on the internet. And by "certain" I mean YouTube comments and Live Journal entries. Every time I have read them I lose hope and respect for humanity.

[cl154576]

I was being sarcastic, hoping that others would play along.

Anyway, I personally believe that certain types of writing (but not necessarily literature) should be destroyed for the good of humanity. And by types of writing, I mean what gets posted on the internet. And by "certain" I mean YouTube comments and Live Journal entries. Every time I have read them I lose hope and respect for humanity.

I don't think they should be destroyed because they add to the environment. The few good ones stand out more.

I do wish that people would at least forget ****erature, especially people my age. It frustrates me when people say Harry Potter is the best book/series ever, and that in comparison Tolstoy is boring junk, or when popular brainless things like Percy Jackson are immortalized by a million websites, a popular movie, etc., ...

[G L Wilson]

I don't think they should be destroyed because they add to the environment. The few good ones stand out more.

I do wish that people would at least forget ****erature, especially people my age. It frustrates me when people say Harry Potter is the best book/series ever, and that in comparison Tolstoy is boring junk, or when popular brainless things like Percy Jackson are immortalized by a million websites, a popular movie, etc., ...

When I do read children's literature, I find it not **** at all. Peter Pan is a sheer delight, for example.

[cl154576]

When I do read children's literature, I find it not **** at all. Peter Pan is a sheer delight, for example.

Teen literature?
Twilight, Alex Rider, Artemis Fowl, Warriors, Anime & Manga, The Hunger Games?

[G L Wilson]

Teen literature?
Twilight, Alex Rider, Artemis Fowl, Warriors, Anime & Manga, The Hunger Games?

It can't be all bad.

[kinesj]

I was being sarcastic, hoping that others would play along.


I surmised as much, but had to be sure, you never know on these forums.
I agree with you regarding contempt of much of the bilge on the internet, but I prefer that the marketplace deem it bilge and react accordingly. Coercion is never the answer, especially where issues of enlightenment are concerned,


age. It frustrates me when people say Harry Potter is the best book/series ever, and that in comparison Tolstoy is boring junk, or when popular brainless things like Percy Jackson are immortalized by a million websites, a popular movie, etc., ...

The best response is to laugh at such infantile idiocy, or perhaps ignore it.

[G L Wilson]

The best response is to laugh at such infantile idiocy, or perhaps ignore it.

The best response is sometimes the worst.

[Drkshadow03]

I do wish that people would at least forget ****erature, especially people my age. It frustrates me when people say Harry Potter is the best book/series ever, and that in comparison Tolstoy is boring junk, or when popular brainless things like Percy Jackson are immortalized by a million websites, a popular movie, etc., ...

Eh, people your age maybe, but I think it's unrealistic to expect most 5th graders to be reading Tolstoy rather than Harry Potter. Not to mention you can even like both. I love the Harry Potter series and think it is good children's/YA literature. But it's silly trying to compare any literature geared towards children to that geared towards adults and expect they're going to be the same depth and same writing level.

[kelby_lake]

Even Shakespeare didn't really get his due until the nineteenth century.

Shakespeare had a bit of a time with the censors. Not so much in his own time but some people were still making a fuss about Measure for Measure in the 1920's, claiming that it was so disgusting that it shouldn't be performed (the other 'horrifying' work was All's Well That Ends Well).

[G L Wilson]

Shakespeare had a bit of a time with the censors. Not so much in his own time but some people were still making a fuss about Measure for Measure in the 1920's, claiming that it was so disgusting that it shouldn't be performed (the other 'horrifying' work was All's Well That Ends Well).

Wouldn't the censors like to get their hands on his sonnets?

[kinesj]

The best response is sometimes the worst.

To clarify I didn't mean laughing at them so much as laughing off one's own frustration. Heckling won't encourage intellectual discovery.

[G L Wilson]

Heckling won't encourage intellectual discovery.

I agree, absolutely.

[kelby_lake]

Wouldn't the censors like to get their hands on his sonnets?

I believe that they already did in the nineteenth century. They changed some of the pronouns around so "he" became "she". And some of them, they must have hated. It's pretty hard to make this one sound like it's for a woman:

A woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion;
A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women's fashion:
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue all hues in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created;
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.

[Griffith]

Censorship is sometimes necessary. The nazis, for instance, were correct for having banned materialistic garbage. The only proper use of Kafka's books is considering the pages of his books toilet papers.

[Drkshadow03]

Censorship is sometimes necessary. The nazis, for instance, were correct for having banned materialistic garbage. The only proper use of Kafka's books is considering the pages of his books toilet papers.

Yes, let's praise genocidal maniacs' program of burning books because you don't have good taste in books!

[Cunninglinguist]

Shakespeare had a bit of a time with the censors. Not so much in his own time but some people were still making a fuss about Measure for Measure in the 1920's, claiming that it was so disgusting that it shouldn't be performed (the other 'horrifying' work was All's Well That Ends Well).

To add, a particularly egregious example of (quasi)censorship of Shakespeare is found in the performance history of King Lear, now one of his most popular plays. The play in its original version was not always so popular; 18th century audiences especially were outraged by Shakespeare's lack of "poetical justice," most notably in the treatment of the character Cordelia. Performances and adaptations often omitted the fool entirely and doctored "happy endings" in which Cordelia does not die and Lear is restored as king. Lear was also controversial during George III's madness (for obvious reasons) and as a result was banned (I believe) from 1811 to 1820.

[Griffith]

Yes, let's praise genocidal maniacs' program of burning books because you don't have good taste in books!
No. Let's be illiterate morons who believe that the nazis were demons who ate children in the WWII. I'm not praising nazism, fool; i'm just saying that censorship is sometimes reasonable. Kafka is a piece of **** and a great numbers of authors are overhyped because they are "useful idiots". They can count on you(a mere repeater) for it.

[Drkshadow03]

No. Let's be illiterate morons who believe that the nazis were demons who ate children in the WWII. I'm not praising nazism, fool; i'm just saying that censorship is sometimes reasonable. Kafka is a piece of **** and a great numbers of authors are overhyped because they are "useful idiots". They can count on you(a mere repeater) for it.

Nah, the Nazis didn't eat children. They just murdered them in cold-blood, you twit. The irony of your comparison is it is only effective when the terms really are astronomically different, but now you're talking about a group who systematically did murder children so the comparison completely fails to do what you wanted it to do.

Your personal dislike of Kafka hardly constitutes proof that censorship is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination of the word "reasonable." Basically your argument is that censorship is okay when you personally don't like a book so therefore everyone should be a slave to your personal tastes because you deemed Kafka to be garbage. That's got to be the stupidest, most egotistical argument ever.

I like Kafka because I've read Kafka and have actual taste.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments

and

discuss the topic at hand; not each other.

Off-topic and personal comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[Griffith]

Nah, the Nazis didn't eat children. They just murdered them in cold-blood, you twit. The irony of your comparison is it is only effective when the terms really are astronomically different, but now you're talking about a group who systematically did murder children so the comparison completely fails to do what you wanted it to do.

Your personal dislike of Kafka hardly constitutes proof that censorship is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination of the word "reasonable." Basically your argument is that censorship is okay when you personally don't like a book so therefore everyone should be a slave to your personal tastes because you deemed Kafka to be garbage. That's got to be the stupidest, most egotistical argument ever.

I like Kafka because I've read Kafka and have actual taste.

In a war all sides murder children in cold blood. Have you ever heard about Dresden?? :rolleyes5:
I didn't say that books should be banned because of personal taste. The books of Kafka(and another morons) promote materialistic and anti-community views and they should be banned because they are nocive to the common good. For god sake, do you disagree with that?? It's the same thing with Marx and dozens of hyped jews. I hate Kafka because he was an idiot who adds nothing to someone life. That's all.

{edit}

[Pierre Menard]

In a war all sides murder children in cold blood. Have you ever heard about Dresden?? :rolleyes5:
I didn't say that books should be banned because of personal taste. The books of Kafka(and another morons) promote materialistic and anti-community views and they should be banned because they are nocive to the common good. For god sake, do you disagree with that?? It's the same thing with Marx and dozens of hyped jews. I hate Kafka because he was an idiot who adds nothing to someone life. That's all.




The stupidity of this post did indeed make me laugh.

Mate, stop beating around the bush and just admit you're a fascist whose also clearly been influenced by some marxist schlock you probably read when you were an angsty teen.

I know people who've had their life 'added' to by Kafka. So there goes that argument.

Ban things you subjectively term 'materialistic'? Not that it would matter if it was - Fascist-marxist-nonsense.

Ban things you deem anti-community? - Fascist-Marxist-nonsense.

Not for the common good? Fascist-Marxist-nonsense.

The ironic thing here is your views would probably be deemed 'anti-community' and against the 'common good' in most civilised places on Earth.

Kafka > You.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No book should be banned. Ever. End of discussion.

[kinesj]

The very notion that a book should be burned because the ideas expressed therein are offensive to some arbitrary,yet nebulous, notion of "common good" is anti-intellectual cowardice of the lowest sort. A marketplace of ideas is as exigent for growth and progress as it is for liberty.

[Freudian Monkey]

Censorship should always be kept at minimum. Many of the literary works that are nowadays considered classics were banned during the time they were written. Cultural conventions change all the time but a literary work stays the same once it's written, so even if today's readers wouldn't appreciate a certain literary work doesn't mean that I wouldn't be valued sometime in the future. The only reason for censorship should be a direct violation of privacy or other civil and corporate rights as they are presented in the law. And if I'm not completely wrong, nowadays sensorship is pretty much concentrated around these kind of violations - at least in the western societies. The threshold for a book to get banned because of violating moral codes is pretty high, I'd say.

A book should never be banned because of political reasons.

And let's not drag Kafka into the discussion, please.