Farenheit 451

[Kalessin]

Whilst browsing here, I noticed a couple of entries in recent threads that rather jumped out of the screen at me ...

(from Cudae)" ... Tolkien, CS Lewis, TH White, Ray Bradbury, Marion Zimmer Bradley, etc. were all banned from school grounds. The funds for both the art program and drama club were cut back severely. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas."

Which seemed to magically juxtapose with this ...

(from Eruwen) ... Can you actually believe this would happen? My school just banned us from bringing LOTR books to school. Much less read them. A guy in my class was caught reading The Two Towers today, and our principle said not to bring it back because it was of "Demonology".

And later in the same thread ...

(from Eruwen ... I finally have some results from this huge thing that has been happening at my school. My principle, stupid as he is, thought the book my friend was reading was HARRY POTTER!!!! Lol!!!!!! It turns out he has nothing against J.R.R. Tolkien at all. Lol. So everything is fine. We can read our books now, and we dont have to worry about anything.

Now there was plenty of feedback to these particular posts, so I don't propose to comment on the individual cases. I hope this will be more of a collective reflection in which the works of Tolkien play a major part. At any rate, the two things that really struck me were -

1. Firstly, the fact that Ray Bradbury was banned - along with Tolkien, Marion Zimmer Bradley and other authors - given that these others are (arguably) clearly within a particular genre of writing ... it appears as though it is the genre to which a universal moral and critical judgement is being applied (or mis-applied). But Ray Bradbury is an author whose work spans many genres, including the "short story", which is distinguishable not by its content or themes, but by its length.

Would 'ironic' be the correct term to describe the situation in which the author of the book Farenheit 451 is banned?

2. Secondly, Eruwen's light-hearted parting. I'm going to fill in the blanks - "We can read our books now, and we dont have to worry about anything ... because it's only Harry Potter that's banned and not Tolkien".

Eruwen didn't write the italicised section and I am not ascribing the inference to him (or her?), as his (or her, sorry) contributions clearly indicate an open mind and a valuing of literature in general.

But the inference came to me nonetheless as a not unreasonable extrapolation of a view that might be shared by some - not least the Principal at Eruwen's school.

So what am I saying, and where does Tolkien fit in?

Well, Tolkien is generally acknowledged - on these boards, amongst many critics, and certainly in sales - as the leading author of 'fantasy'(almost regardless of your definition of the genre). Most here would probably extend his status to the upper echelons of literature in general. And I would suggest some essence of his works (particularly LotR) have deeply permeated more than one generation. Perhaps it's apocryphal, but I'm sure I heard or read something along the lines that only the Bible had sold more copies in the 20th century ... whether precisely true or not, the point I am making is that Tolkien is (or has been) a deeply embedded element of popular and literary culture. And the multi-million dollar success of the previous and imminent films are both evidence and continuation of that supposition.

At the same time, education professionals (such as Principals) are generally themselves reasonably well-educated, and specifically literate. I find it hard to see that many of them would be ignorant of Tolkien, from either an academic standpoint or a personal one as readers.

So the decision to ban Tolkien (where that has been taken) from schools is presumably based on some form of knowledge or analysis, not blind ignorance. I hope that I have illustrated the implausibility of 'ignorance' (or un-awareness) with the summary of Tolkien's cultural stature. And I hope that the qualifications or qualities of, say, school Principals (on the basis of which they are empowered to make decisions) can be to some degree assumed.

My first question is then, is there ANY possible valid knowledge or analysis that makes the banning of Tolkien understandable or justifiable? Yes, I actually want to know.

I don't want to hear how brilliant he is, or how school sucks, or how people who don't like him are idiots. I also don't need to know that there is only one Truth, and where It must be found. What I don't know is the answer to my above question, hence this post [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

My second question is perhaps more complex. What does it mean when one author isn't banned (as in Eruwen's case) while others are? Harry Potter is incredibly popular, and in the UK at least is often regarded with some affection as a great cultural achievement that has re-affirmed the value and the power of books for children. So the difference - the cause of banning - must be very precise in relation to content. I am aware of the 'witchcraft' and 'moral relativism' argument against the books, but I am very interested by the way in which different countries sharing a common language (ie American [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) and some level of cultural hegemony, have such a polarised reaction. Of course there is some religious objection to HP here in the UK, and we are no strangers to censorship of all kinds, but there is a difference ... or a different threshold, if you prefer. The banning of a best-selling children's book that is arguably little more than a whimsical fairy-tale with modern sensibilities would represent a major and ongoing talking point (witness the reaction to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses). Now if you factor Ray Bradbury into that - I am still getting my head round that one - at what stage of a particular process are we?

This IS a controversial area, but I am happy to focus on Tolkien, on the objections to one of the leading authors of our time that leads to an informed decision to ban the book. A debate on censorship in general would take too long, given my advanced age [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], although I have a nice quote by Benjamin Franklin lying around should the opportunity arise.

My second core question is really just the inevitable follow-up - why Tolkien might not be banned when these other authors are.

I can't finding these things interesting and feeling that they are important. Certainly here at BW, where the work of Tolkien - and by implication, literature itself - is cherished, and considered a deeply profound part of our personal, spritual, cultural and social experience. Apologies for inordinate length, as usual [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Peace.

Kalessin

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Cúdae]

First, I must admit you scared me a little by quoting me! But that aside, I will give my answers to your questions, as well as some ironic background jibberish.

1. I think that this will interest you: Ray Bradbury was banned because of Farenheit 451. The school officials felt the book was too "extreme for the minds of young readers" and also that "Bradbury's writings in general were likely to corrupt young faithful minds."
Is it just me, or does this make it even more ironic?

2. To the first question: No, there is no <u>valid</u> knowledge, just knowledge that is believed by some to be valid and therefore put to use for the good of the many.
To the second question: What it means when one author is banned and another is not is that the valid knowledge for some was put to use for the good of the many but only in certain areas. That confused even me so let me explain in...er...plainer English. Harry Potter is incredibly popular, but it has things that some people find objectionable by the standards of their own valid knowledge. The chief of these is magic. Tolkien's works also have things that people find objectionable, again by the standards of their own knowledge. The chief of these is either magic or some form of over-analyzed heresy (or as I like to call it: The Anit-Tolkien Yadda-Yadda). By over-analyzed I mean that the words were taken too litrally. Say I typed "The sky seems to be stained with blood" referring to the sky in the morning before a storm. If you take that as someone just reading it says "The sky is red." If you take it as someone far more interested in what could possibly be wrong it might say "This person is about the commit murder. It is a prophetic sentence."
Another thing that comes into this answer to your question: A person may reasonably spread his opinion, formed by his own valid knowledge, and get any book banned. All this person would need is a little persuasion.
So in straight answer: When one author is banned and another is not, it simply means that one person used the knowledge they possess to form an opinion with reasons to back it up then used his own power of persuasion to ban the author.
Factor Ray Bradbury in? Easy. Someone found something he wrote objectionable, backed up their opinion, spread their opinion, persuaded, and finally got their way.

I am not going to start in on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[Lush]

*Humph*

Before everyone else jumps all over this thread, let me just say that it seems to me that the usually an educated, open-minded and generally sane school official would rarely ban any book from being brought to school, unless it interfered with class. I can only imagine the frustration of my history teacher, when, one day, upon being promopted to give the name of Chernenko's successor, I raised my sleepy eyes from the book that was so obviously not the textbook, muttered "Aragor...er...Andro...I mean...whatever," and went back to reading as if nothing was amiss.

The only other legitimate reason to ban a book from school is the possibility of its presence as some sort of catalyst for violence. I mean, imagine some kid distributing copies of Mein Kampf on his lunchbreak. In terms of books more closely associated with Tolkien, I suppose there is always the possibility of some 8th graders roughing each other up over that eternal Balrog-wings question....but it's a slim one, wouldn't you say?

Actually, I honestly don't see why, if the above-mentioned reasons are non-applicable, Tolkien would not be banned where J.K. Rowling would. Maybe it has more to do with the administrators' age than anything else. Tolkien's works have been around for a while, and Rowling is a relative newcomer, and therefore a...threat? Beats me. As for Bradbury, well, Fahrenheit is one of those hard-to-pin-down books et generale. Most people who freak out over it have not even read it. Perhaps that's it. School administrators are becoming illiterate, and the world is going to hell. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Kalimac]

Kalessin, great (and mind-twisting) post [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. The only caveat I'd have is a very minor one; I'm in the US and remember a lot of controversies over random bannings of HP (though "Huckleberry Finn" has to hold the title for the book which has been banned, un-banned and argued over ad nauseum).

For the first question, well, first of all it depends on what you think of as a valid reason. The trouble is that there's pretty much nobody in the world who thinks an opinion that he holds is NOT valid; otherwise he wouldn't hold that opinion in the first place. Someone who runs an extremely fundamentalist school might see any book that portrays wizards and magic (for example) in a good light as a serious threat to the moral fiber of his charges - who knows what ideas may creep into their heads. To most people - and to me - this would seem fairly silly - let the kids read what they like, tell them your opinion and if you think something is wrong, but let them at least see the stuff to widen their literary scope - but to him/her these books would seem like the equivalent of hardcore pornography, which you also wouldn't want most middle-schoolers getting hold of even if it did technically widen their magazine-reading scope, so to speak.

For me, I agree with Lush for the most part; no book should not be banned unless it is either a proven inciter of violence or - and I'm saying this carefully - has serious potential to become one. I mean this last bit for serious hard cases; for example, a fantasy novel which is largely based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or something like that. I do NOT mean books which can be "metaphorically interpreted" as having unpleasant political agendas, since metaphor is something the reader has to decide for himself, and besides, if someone was really determined, he could make a case for "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" as covert Nazi propaganda. The only circumstance I can think of in which it would be wise for a school to ban Tolkien (or at least to not officially countenance the books, never mind what you do behind closed doors) - or 99.99% of the other books out there - would be if people were in physical danger from being known to have the books in their possession; think importing copies of "The Gulag Archipelago" into the USSR in the 1970s. I don't know if there's a country in the world now where fantasy books on Tolkien's line are forbidden (for witchcraft, Westernism, whatever - think Pol Pot's Cambodia, when being shown to speak a foreign language could mean death) I certainly hope there isn't. But if there is, banning such works officially from school would an understandable, if not movie-heroic, choice.

For allowing Tolkien to be the one exception - can't see the way to that either, unless you have your students on a Great Books program and aren't allowing them to read anything written after 1960 (and that's a different kettle of fish anyway). For Ray Bradbury - please don't smack me, but I've read so little of him that I can't really comment on why or why not he may have been banned, I'll only say that it was probably the same dreary process as Huckleberry Finn and myriad others; somebody took offense at some passage or other which contradicted the beliefs they thought valid, and they happened to be someone who (like certain of my clients) was willing to make everyone's life a torture until they got their way. I don't mean to be flippant; very often it really is that way.

Sorry, hope this is coherent - up late and have to work tomorrow (Thanksgiving holiday, what's that? Arrghh).

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[Diamond18]

Addressing the reason why Tolkien would be exempted from a ban: Many people like to think of it as Christian allegory, no matter what Tolkien himself insisted. Therefore, the magic and all that may be viewed as simply symbolic, especially when one considers that Tolkien's magic is practised by the supernatural beings and the elite. In other words, when Gandalf does magic it's not really magic because he's a heavenly being. It would be like having an aneurysm because an Angel of God did something out of the ordinary. Et cetra, et cetra. My point is that you can come up with lots of excuses for the magic in LotR. You don't have hobbits learning magic spells and practicing wizardry, therefore the little "hobbits" in the schools won't be as likely to think that they can go do what Gandalf does.

So that would be why LotR might not be banned, when other magical fantasy novels are. Consider also that C.S. Lewis's magic filled "Chronicles of Narnia" have never been subject to book-burnings, as far as I know.

I have not read Harry Potter myself, but I have read an article that compared it to Lord of the Rings in the respect that you have brought up. I.E., why one is considered Christian and the other Demonology.

The general points it made was that A) Non-magical creatures such as Hobbits do not seek training in magic B) These non-magical creatures are praised and portrayed as heroes while C) Harry Potter is all about learning witchcraft and gaining undue magical powers and D) Portrays non-magical humans as "muggles": something to look down upon.

So anyway, that's what I have read on the subject. I am simply floating these things out there for your consideration—I by no means classify LotR as allegory or try to explain away the magic to myself, and I have not got an opinion about Harry Potter. Well, other than that it doesn't interest me much, but that's just me.

As to why LotR would be banned, I can think of nothing better than what has already been posted.

PS, I believe the article I read was in Focus on the Family magazine. It was a while ago, so don't ask for any issue numbers or dates...!

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Mhoram]

http://www.family.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm

[HerenIstarion]

Banning something is the best way to advertise it. Go principals, go!

[littlemanpoet]

Greetings, Kalessin. It's good to see you again.

It is interesting that you mention Salman Rushdie as well as Rowling and Bradbury and Tolkien. At the risk of pejorativeness, the root problem here is Fundamentalism. I apologize in advance to those of you who call yourselves this; and I am aware that there are open-minded Fundamentalists. More on that below. Nevertheless, Fundamentalism, whether Islamic, or Christian, or Hindu, seems to always carry with it an intolerance born of fear of "the Enemy". It seems to be less prevalent in Britain than in America, probably for sociological reasons. It is common understanding amongs historians and sociologists that people who leave a homeland for a new one tend to remain more conservative in their beliefs than those they left behind. That explains American fundamentalism in part, but what of Islamic? Perhaps being a have-not religion in terms of cultural influence for the last few centuries has something to do with that; but I'm only guessing.

As to why Tolkien's acceptable and why Rowling is not, that's a difficult one. My supervisor at work subscribes precisely to this view, and he is charismatic fundamentalist - very generous of spirit and mind in general, but when it comes to Rowling, he slips into the party line. It's scarey. The only reason he gives is that Rowling's work is demonic and full of sorcery, while Tolkien's supposedly isn't.

I have scanned a book in a Christian bookstore that condemned Tolkien and Lewis along with all other fantasy writers, declaring them to be the most insidious because they mixed Christianity with demonism. At least that book was consistent.

But why is Tolkien accepted and Rowling and others condemned? I'm afraid it's probably as simple as this: Tolkien has been widely acknowledged as Christian by most Christians, welcomed with open arms (thanks in large part to C.S. Lewis) among American Evangelicals for years. The high level of artistic quality of the works, and Tolkien's self-proclaimed faith, probably play into this as well. Also, Tolkien's acceptance among Christian Fundamentalists amounts to Received Doctrine. Everybody knows Tolkien's okay, because my (fill in the blank authority) says so. Nobody, of course, will state it quite that baldly, but it's what goes on behind the scenes.

I'm sorry, Kalessin, if this does not help much, or casts a rather negative view, but it is the way it looks from my vantage point.

[HerenIstarion]

Perhaps being a have-not religion in terms of cultural influence for the last few centuries has something to do with that; but I'm only guessing

islamic [warring] fundamentalism (or terrorism, as those two terms are usually mixed up recently) is mainly artificial thing, which by and by went out of it's creator(s) control. With all my respect, above given quote has nothing to do with [warring] fundamentalism.

Otherwise fundamentalism is:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles


Fundamentalism, therefore is a thing typical to any given society, even those ones which were mostly influential in last several centuries and count themselves to be most "free" of all the rest.

Rohan and Gondor are fundamentalist states, former being more fundamental even

But back to the topic

I remember disclaimers made above, concerning calling names, but, I am personally sure that total banning of any book always has it source in some not literate, poorly educated narrow minded **** at the high seat, with the power to do it.

Now about examples given. Lush, whatever my affection towards Tolkien and personal respect and affection towards you, if I were your history teacher I would have banned Tolkien from my class, even more so for messing up Aragorn with Andropov, since the content of your schoolbag is your property and you are free to carry Tolkien wherever you want, but you are not supposed to read those in my class especially when... i can go on along these lines endlessly, and I would be right. For, having nothing against Lush, really (you are most wonderful person for all I can tell), I fail to gather, whether the banning in question is of the kind I just described, or it means "Don't you dare take the book in your hands?". In latter case, as I already posted above, "go principals, go!" for they will only achieve heated interest in the thing. In former one, well, they are right after all.

time to gather stones...

[Bill Ferny]

Would 'ironic' be the correct term to describe the situation in which the author of the book Farenheit 451 is banned?

Given the story of Fahrenheit 451 that IS ironic!

There’s a big difference between banning and setting limits to use. A teacher not allowing a novel to be read during history class is not a ban, it is a rather practical rule that sets a limit to a novel’s use. Likewise, laws that prohibit the access of pornography to minors, is not a ban, but a limit set on its use. Censorship is not banning, either, or at least most of the time it doesn’t go so far as banning. Most of the time censorship takes the form of rules that limit something’s access to a certain group of people, usually minors (either as observers or participants), in regards to sex and violence.

Are there reasons to limit the use of LotR? Of course! For example, reading the LotR during your great grandmother’s funeral would go against the limits of good taste. Are there reasons to censor LotR? The books are pretty inane as far as adult content, so I don’t see why it should. Well, at least the movie received a PG-13 rating. Are there reasons to ban LotR? Well, I guess there are as many reasons as there are people who would want to ban it. Asking people on the Barrow Downs for reasons to ban Tolkien would be like asking people at a Zionist convention for reasons why there should be a Palistinian State.

I definitely think that some things should be banned (and LotR is not one of them), but since I’m in no position to inflict my will on everyone (and an infliction it would be!), and since I wouldn’t want to be inflicted with the will of the ignorant masses, then I will just remain content with the rather inept constitutional system that I was lucky enough to be born under. Thus, I will continue to bend my back under the weight of that all too used, and never really thought about phrase: “…as long as it doesn’t infringe on my rights…”

[Lush]

Lush, whatever my love of Tolkien and personal respect and affection towards you, if I were your history teacher I would have banned Tolkien from my class, even more so for messing up Aragorn with Andropov, since the content of your schoolbag is your property and you are free to carry Tolkien wherever you want, but you are not supposed to read those in my class especially when...

Precisely, dearest. It was just my luck, however, that I had an "A" in the class, and that the teacher was a man.

As for your theory on the banning of books serving as good advertisement: bravo! I really had not thought about it in these terms, but as I recall now: The second I had learned that the French had originally banned Lolita, it was on my Christmas list. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

littleman, there is also the case of Tolkien's works being older than Rowling's. Books that have been around for decades seem safer somehow, but novelty tends to be feared by the sort of people you desrcribe, or so it would seem.

[Cúdae]

Books are banned for the said reasons above. Books are burned, destroyed, wiped off the face of the earth, etc. because someone took something too seriously.

Let your eyes widen at this one: To date, my school has banned 452 books and authors (hey look how close that is to 451, even more ironic.) from school grounds. As in, "Don't you dare touch that book young man/lady!" One of these banned items was the series of books by Laura Ingalls Wilder that started with "Little House in the Big Woods."

Just to prove my point, I have dug up the staement on why Wilder was banned, why Tolkien was banned, and why Jean Lively was banned. Here we go:
Wilder: "...because of the writings on sadness and excessive joy in girlhood that could poison the minds of the 14 to 18 year-old-girls in this school."
Tolkien: "...because of the <u>utter</u> rejection of respect for the Divine presented in the forms of Melkor and Sauron. ...because of the strong presence of magick and other forms of anti-religious practices. ...because of the creation of believable Hobbits and Elves that could lead a young mind to believe in these creatures."
Lively: "...because of the short story "The Flight of Snowbird" which deals with the thought of murdering an autistic child who was the sister of the thinker." (FYI, this short story ended admirably with the boy saving his sister instead of letting her drown.)

And for fun on the real reason for the banning of Romeo and Juliet: "...because this drama promotes the suicide of young people."

I won't bore you with other statements (although some are downright amusing). These statements already presented can be found to be either perfectly acceptable, ridiculously unacceptable, or a combination of both. My take is that they are unacceptable--especially the one about Wilder.

[Kalessin]

Thanks for interesting responses everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Littlemanpoet, I tend to both agree and disagree with your side point about particular branches of fundamentalism - all the major world religions are to some degree affected by interpretations that lead to violent actions at various places around the world, which may be symptomatic of a struggle with 'modernity', or perhaps the cultural implications of a dominant and largely secular global economic system - I do not use these any of these terms pejoratively, just offering a view. At the same time extremists of any credo, whether we agree with one or other group or not, do not (by definition) represent the mainstream of a particular culture or faith.

Your point about the acceptance of Tolkien based the awareness of his own devout faith raises another interesting side issue - that the judgements in such cases are based on the author rather than the work. Would Harry Potter be treated differently if JK Rowling was a visibly practising Christian?

Comments about Ray Bradbury indicate some clarification may help - he is a prolific author and many of his works are acknowledged as classics of science fiction and short story writing, for example "The Illustrated Man", but Farenheit 451 in particular is a somewhat Orwellian fable about an intolerant society where books are burned, seen as a threat to an oppressive ideology.

Bill, I agree that I am not going to get a thousand people agreeing with a ban on Tolkien on these boards [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. But I have always found the best way to defend a book, or idea, against its detractors is to acknowledge and understand their objections, whether one agrees or not, and to address them head on. Also, if you are willing to continue to challenge your own beliefs and assumptions, those that stay with you are arguably stronger as a result. Plenty of Cartesian demons here [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img].

Lush, in today's world books like Lolita and Lord of the Flies might appear almost sentimental set against the Columbines, Wonderland Club, and other recent atrocities. I'm not even convinced Mein Kampf or Das Kapital retain their once dreaded potential. Human nature may be relatively constant, but the thresholds of long-held taboos and the extent to which we have been forced to confront them do change over time (or are perhaps cyclical). For example, it's probably hard for a contemporary reader to contextualise Lady Chatterley's Lover in the morality of its time, and to see it as an (albeit flawed) earnest and passionate rebellion against a curtain-twitching, forelock-tugging psychological oppression.

The consensus in responses so far seems to be that the reasons for banning are all based on a reading of fantasy themes as inciting anti-Christian thoughts or ideas, and that Tolkien is sometimes/often exempt because of the (arguably mistaken) reading of his work as an allegory or similar popularising of cherished Christian tenets. Is this fair?

It is therefore somewhat ironic that in so many threads here countless posts argue quite persuasively that the rest of the genre (Harry Potter included) are nothing but derivative of Tolkien, and are in pretty much most cases pale imitations of 'the real thing'. Obviously they aren't trying hard enough [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

In a psychological sense it is a common assumption that suppression or repression (of self, or the external) stem from fear. And fear itself is a necessary and inevitable element of any punishment/reward system, including a moral or divine worldview. Is there an element of fear or insecurity in the act of book-banning - or, can one indeed see it as a responsible act based solely on an empirically acceptable expectation of consequences? Is the fact that Tolkien was an avowed Catholic or that it is possible to infer a deeply Christian subtext into his work enough protection from the seductive power of demons and magic, whilst in other works with equally unambiguous moral undertones the danger is too great?

My search for validity is an attempt to empathise, not with statements of literary criticism, but with acts of censorship taken in good faith, however much I disagree with them. I don't feel the actual reasoning behind the banning of Tolkien (or not of Tolkien but others) is straightforward enough as yet to allow that empathy. I could empathise, at least, with fear and insecurity, if that is the real cause.

My compliments for such eloquent and readable contributions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

Kalessin

[Mister Underhill]

Just off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons why school administrators might decide to ban a book:

• The book is perceived as having some potential corrupting element or subject matter.
  
  This could be as concrete as R-rated language or sexual content (I suspect most school administrators or concerned parents naïve enough to think that banning books will save their children from bad words or sexual suggestions would be shocked to learn what the kids really know) or as abstract as ideas and concepts which are labeled bad or dangerous or even heretical (paging Salmon Rushdie). I think there are certainly cases where people of good conscience, however misguided we may think their actions, are operating out of genuine desire to protect their children.
  
• The book is deemed to be offensive in some way to some group.
  
  An especially prescient aspect of Bradbury’s 451 is that it, in Bradbury’s words, “described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.” I should hasten to add here that by “minorities”, Bradbury means any special interest group, be it racial, political, regional, cultural, ethical, or what have you, which seeks to suppress any work which it considers to be offensive. His point is that just about everybody is a “minority” in some way, and the end result of trying to please everyone is literature which says nothing. This is where “political correctness” is leading us. “Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.”
  
• In this age of Columbine, there is a genuine concern about exposing kids to work which might in some way lead to violence.
  
  This concern might range from concerns about legal liability – “He didn’t get that book (videogame, movie, website) from us!” – through the whole spectrum to a very real desire to protect the lives of children and reduce the chances that some unstable mind might be set off or inspired by something that it got at school. A notable example is a story by Stephen King entitled “Rage”. The story is about a disgruntled student who shoots his teacher and some of his fellow students, then holds the classroom hostage for a while before (if memory serves) turning the gun on himself. The author, who is otherwise a vocal advocate of First Amendment rights and cheerfully unapologetic about the rest of his work, has expressed his wish that he had never published the story, and has even sought to acquire existing copies of it and destroy them, in effect banning his own book.
  
• I can imagine cases where the popularity of a particular work might be disrupting school business. So, if an inordinate amount of students are reading about the Battle of Helm’s Deep when they should be paying attention to quadratic equations, gerunds, and Soviet political history, frustrated administrators might just opt to ban the books altogether. A related objection might be that a work inspires particularly compulsive or obsessive behavior in students, to the extent that it disrupts schoolwork. So if Johnny is up late at night browsing the Barrow-Downs, researching his HoME to back up his Balrog wing theory, and memorizing the descendants of the House of Bëor instead of writing his “What I Did This Summer” composition, parents might become concerned.
  
• Some people and institutions seem to feel threatened by sheer imagination and feel it has no place in preparing youngsters for life in the “real world”. Thinking about things like Elves and Hobbits is seen by these sorts as, at a minimum, a massive waste of time. Ironically, the Gaffer is probably just such a person. There’s a recent thread kicking around on this topic.

These are all valid (from certain points of view) reasons why reasonable people might ban books. So how does Tolkien stack up against these reasons (which, I might add, are by no means exhaustive)?

Clearly, the first point seems to be the one most cited in banning the prof’s work. I won’t belabor the already noted religious objections or the curious divide between author and work which apparently exempts the prof in some cases.

Point two seems hardly to apply. LotR is as chaste as Mother Theresa, as circumspect in its language as Nathaniel Hawthorne, and not ideologically radical. Half-hearted claims of misogyny or racism have been leveled, but I don’t think many people are buying them.

LotR is occasionally graphically violent, but this factor is far outweighed by the book’s moral component and its strong “violence is not the answer” themes. On the other hand, as Cúdae hinted at, some are so sensitive to this issue nowadays that a sky metaphorically “stained with blood” is apt to trigger alarms.

What can you say about the fifth point? This website alone is evidence that Tolkien can (and does) inspire obsessive behavior in some.

I don’t think I’ve reached any real conclusions here, but perhaps identifying some of the reasons why well-meaning people might ban books will help further Kalessin’s inquiry.

As a postscript, if you think schools banning Fahrenheit 451 is ironic, just consider that Bradbury’s own publisher censored the book: “Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubbyhole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel.”

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Aylwen Dreamsong]

I don't see why any books should be banned at all. Why would they be published if the publishers knew in some way that they would be controversial?

My Language Arts teacher this year is very disturbed and upset by banning books. Our 8th grade class dedicated this Language Arts year to read controversial/banned novels. We have only read two so far: A Day No Pigs Would Die and The Outsiders but more such as The Giver and Farenheit 541 are soon to follow.

My teacher read us a letter, from a journalist to a priest in Massachusettes. Apparantly the Priest had held several bonfires/bookburnings since the years following the Harry Potter realease. The journalist claimed that books had no right to be banned, and that they could be ignored easily, like a fly to a horse.

I suppose there is valid reason to ban Tolkien books, at least in others' minds. Maybe they feel that the reference to weed is intolerable, or the thought that their children may grow up to believe in magic or perhaps be more open to other things. I personally think it is insane. Parents just don't want their children to grow up with things like that in their heads. Maybe they think children are too impressionable to let them read such things.

Why others and not Tolkien? Are parents more protective in this new day and age? Maybe. Maybe they think Tolkien has some how fallen back into the past. Maybe the fact that it is so popular causes parents and teachers to be leniant in such cases. Harry Potter is new, read by so many children, maybe parents are afraid.

I'm not sure though. Is it so wrong to worry for your child? No, not really, but banning books is like putting parental controls on the internet, or putting a password in your cable TV to keep kids from watching.

Like I said, Insane.

And to think teachers get fired for showing movies and books like these.

What is the world coming to?

Aylwen

[Kalessin]

Excellent points - Mr Underhill, I am compelled to reply in haste and admiration [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

All of your eminently sensible and rational factors by which banning (Tolkien or other) authors might be justified seem to bring us to the 'does (or can) art reflect or create reality, or both' conundrum.

My understanding is that currently it seems a causal connection cannot exactly be proved (ie. does Grand Theft Auto encourage violent car crime etc.), but at the same time cannot entirely be denied (sorry, the only rather feeble example I can think of at this time in the morning is the spate of playground injuries following the advent of Power Rangers [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], I am sure there are more profound illustrations).

Stephen King's attempt at self-censorship, along with Kubrick's long injuction against the release of 'A Clockwork Orange' in the UK after its initial showing, suggest that the creators felt that such works can have an effect.

Then again, perhaps it is merely the desensitizing of imagery or theme, rather than a 'will to action', of such and similar works, which has a subtle effect over time. Even if the lines between fantasy and reality remain intact in the minds of an audience, the threshold of acceptability or discomfort can be gradually shifted by familiarity. I remember watching 'The Exorcist' at the cinema a couple of years ago, and the younger members of the audience, having waited impatiently for the supposedly 'shocking' scenes and ignored all the important narrative and scene-scetting, then expressed disappointment at the special effects [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img].

Which brings me to my half-remembered soundbite about the worldwide popularity of Tolkien (and the Book that beat him to first place) ...

If concern about the effect of books is what leads to their suppression, then surely those most successful books, embedded in popular culture across generations, must already have had the most powerful and insidious effect. The cultural world in which we live today must be to some degree a product of the works of Tolkien and the other chart-toppers, far more than any of the allegedly subversive works read by a few thousand chattering liberals.

This is obvious in one way ... but whilst it's easy to empirically demonstrate in some cases - such as as the countless stock phrases implanted into common language by Shakespeare - how does a presumably pervasive influence like Tolkien, the author of the most popular fiction in the 20th century (unless you count the entire range of Star Trek spin-off books, judging by my local bookstore [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) manifest itself?

Or, in other words, is the banning of fantasy genre books an attempt to shut a Pandora's Box that Tolkien himself opened?

Peace.

Kalessin

[Aylwen Dreamsong]

is the banning of fantasy genre books an attempt to shut a Pandora's Box that Tolkien himself opened?

I like that analogy...

I guess it depends on what was in Tolkien's Pandora Box. Or at least what other's thought was in his Box.....

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

This is my view on the topic, so if I say that something is, that doesn't neccesarily mean it is. I'm just saying my opinion as if it were a fact, even if its not.

Is there any possible valid knowledge or analysis that makes the banning of Tolkien understandable or justifiable?

Justifiable? It depends. Understandable? Probably. Here's my take on this.

If a principal bans a book, it could be for many reasons. They could abuse thier power and just ban the book because they don't like it. They could do it for a random reason. They could do it because a parent demands it. They could do it because they are paranoid. They could do it because they over reacted. They could do it because they looked at it the wrong way. Or they could do it for the right reasons.

First of all, the only reasons something should get banned is if it is extremely violent, sexually explicit, or if it constantly interferes with a primary task. Of course you can see the first two reasons as obvious ones. People don't want thier children reading violent books or reading (actually looking) at porn. So one kid somehow gets his hands on mein kampf and say that his parents don't care if he reads it because they adore hitler or something. Now when the other parents see that their children are reading this, they going to make a big fuss about it. That way, it gets banned completely from the school. Now, things that get banned are not always something that should be banned. If you substitute harry potter for mein kampf in that example, and no cares that their children read it except for one parent, you still get the same outcome. The book is banned even though harry potter not like mein kampf at all and even though its only one parent making a fuss. It doesn't matter what the book is or how many parents complain as long as its one; the book will still be banned.

If a person is reading lotr in history class and not paying attention, the book will not be banned. The teacher will just confiscate the book and give the person detention if he does it again. Outside reading should not interfere with classtime. If twenty different kids were reading twenty differnet books in class, they would all get in trouble, but if twenty differnet kids were reading the same book, that would become a problem. If the same book repeatedly distracts students form their work, it is a high probability that the book will get banned. Only if the book causes a serious problem. Say that students continuosly have violent fights in the schoolyards over a lotr controversy, then it could get banned.
Bill Ferney, you bring up a good point about setting limits. However, in school, you can't set limits like that. Have you ever heard of a shool where the principal says 'ok, only 7th and 8th graders can read tolkien and bring it to school, 3rd to 6th grade students can do the same with authorization from parents, and it is banned to the rest of the students.' Yeah they do set limits in real life but in school, principals merely do not set limits. You need to look at it from a smaller scale: school. Even smaller: grammer school. In grammer school pricipals deem themselves as more advanced and more worthy of power because of the age difference. They think that students are weak minded and sometimes think that tehy don't know what they want. So sometimes they just ban things because they want to- for a good reason or a bad one. Once it's done, it's set in stone and there's no going back on it. Something like this would probably not happen in highschool because the deen would recognize students as smarter, more independent individuals who probably do know what they want. If tolkien was banned, the students would do something about it- rationally or irrationally, where as grammer students would just complain because they feel they wouldn't make a difference and they would be intimidated by the faculty. They difference between deens in highschool and principles in grammer schools is that in grammerschool, principles underestimate students while in highschool, deens do not underestimate students. So looking at a much smaller scale (grammer school) the principle might act as a tyrant, and to the principle, something either is or isn't. There are no limits, like PG-13 or R. It's either ok or it's not ok. It's banned or not banned. Yes, being not allowed to read a novel in history class is a restriction and it would be wrong to ban a book for that reason, but, that's not the case. tolkien books and harry potter books were banned, and for wrong reasons, but not because some one read them in history class. As much as I hate harry potter, it should not have been banned. It got banned because it was of 'demonology'??? I think that that was just bull-**** . I don't know about the books of the other authors that you mentioned since I haven't read them, but for tolkien books and harry potter to be banned. For christ's sake they're children's fantasy books. I think that some people took it a little too far.

Sometimes, no one knows why something gets banned. Oh yeah, Kalessin, I live in San Francisco, California- in the U.S. and I went to a catholic grammer school and go to a catholic highschool so this might clarify some things I say. Anyways, I remember in my grammer school, pogs were banned,then star wars cards, and then bikes and skateboards in the schoolyards. When I went to highschool, my little brother told me that the principal had banned pokemon cards, razor scooters, and then 'spikey hair.' Now, I can understand why pogs and cards were banned- the kids used to gamble when they played. I can also understand the bikes, skateboards, and scooters- when you grind on the benches it ****s up the paint and tears up the wood, the girls had to wear skirts so they got splinters in thier legs. I connot understand why the students could no longer spike thier hair. This is the point where you would hear 'school sucks.' Even though you didn't want to hear it, it was inevitable. People who cannot figure out why something is the way it is in school will say that school sucks. But let's look at the reasons. I think that the pricipal banned it or a parent complained about it. If the principal did ban it, then she did it because (a) she didn't like the look and decided to abuse her power, (b) she got paranoid and thought kids would all do it and turn into anarchy punks..., or (c) she thought that it meant anarchy and the only kids that spiked their hair were no good punks. Maybe she did it because of teh most random reason you can think of. I don't know why, but you take a guess. Relate this to the banning of harry potter or any of tolkien books and I still don't know. Ask yourself.


What does it mean when one author isn't banned while others are?

To me, I think that this is more of a personal banning. If Tolkien isn't banned, but every other fantasy book is, I think that it is because the principal likes Tolkien but doesn't give a rat's-*** for the other books and authors. I think that that is stupid and that people shouldn't abuse power like that. For those who might disagree with me, you might ask 'Why shouldn't they?' Well I'd have to say because it is not fair at all. There is no reasonable cause for doing something like that. It's selfish and greedy. For those of us who feel this way, there lies a problem. People feel there is almost nothing that they can do about it. They say, 'you can try but it probably won't work.' I think that's just grammer school talk. I think that you should try to do something about it if this happens to you (please do it in a rational matter and non-violently, I don't want to be blamed for someone killing a teacher because they banned tolkien, and if you can't think of a rational way, try a petition or an essay).

I also think that it might have to do with obviousness. In harry potter, readers can see a more direct example of 'demonology.' i.e., wichcraft, so they are banned. But in lotr, all you can really see is magic and elves and wizards. Thats just at a first glance but if you look deeper, you can probably put together some bull-**** to classify tolkien of 'demonology' and get it banned. Tolkien might not have been banned because the others were seen as hethen books (and they are not at all) while tolkien was not seen as an author of hethen books. I think that this is stupid too. None of these books should have been banned, especially for these reasons. These books were written to entertain young children, and they actually did the same for people of all ages. They were not written to portray 'demonology' or to make children believe in witchcraft. If you're going to ban harry potter because it shows witchcraft, why don't you just prohibit halloween; its just as stupid as that. People took these books the wrong way. I know that this will probably not happen, but I think that schools should repeal their ban's and apologize for the way they tried to portray these books. They should especially spologize to the authors. Maybe on their way to hell they can stop by heaven and apologize to Tolkien himself. (Just kidding about the last remark, I hope no one gets offended)

Well Kalessin, I hope that answers your questions. Its the best I could do.

There were a lot of good responses and insight to your questions. I hope I match up to them.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Cúdae]

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Wille: Some of the things you said really got to me. Forst of all, you seemed to say that books are banned mostly in grammar schools. While this could or could not be true, I know of <u>many</u> high schools where books are banned, not just my own. I would ask you to elaborate on your opinion a bit.

Kalessin: Tolkien's Pandora's Box? Interesting analogy (is that the word I want?). You could look at it as a Pandora's Box, but then you could not and see it as something else entirely. Anyone can read Tolkien's books and see that violence is there, but does this necessarily mean that it is going to inspire anyone to go use force of violence against their fellow people? Anyone can read Tolkien's books and see the beauty he wrote of, but does this mean that anyone is going to go out there and create something equally as beautiful? It can go two ways. Personally, I believe that most school administrators (sp?)are trying to ban the violence of Tolkien's books and in the process, banning the beauty of them as well. So are they shutting the Pandora's Box Tolkien opened, or are they opening it further?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Cúdae ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I cannot conceive of any circumstance that warrents banning literature. As others have already astutely described, I differentiate between banning and limiting use. There are hundreds of legitimate reasons to limit use.

Banning books is treating a symptom, not the real problem. When authority figures ban books they are by implication admitting that books have more influence with children than they do. THAT is the real problem. If school officials were confident in their ability to teach children to evaluate information and make good choices, they would have no cause to fear the ideas that books contain. The problem is not in the books, it is in the lack of influence of authority figures. School officials can't do it alone of course. Primary responsibility lies with parents.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Cudae: I was just stating my opinion from my personal experience. Oh yeah, read the first line- "This is my view on the topic, so if I say that something is, that doesn't neccesarily mean it is."

Sorry if you got offeded.

[Cúdae]

MLD: No, not offended. I think I read little too fast and took some stuff the wrong way. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Back to the topic... Elaborating on the Pandora's Box idea, are school pricipals opening it further by banning Tolkien? They want students to become well educated people, yet they ban a writer whose writing is generally thought of to be good. Tolkien is an example of fine writing skills, as are the many other authors banned. If the principals or whoever is banning the books wants the students to become people that can write at least somewhat well, is banning these books a good idea? I know that there are other reasons, but it seems illogical in this sense.

On the other point, primary responsibility does lie with the parents, but what does it mean when a school official bans a book but a parent says, "My child may read this book."

[Lush]

but what does it mean when a school official bans a book but a parent says, "My child may read this book."

I think it means that the kid reads the book on the couch at home. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

As Keneldil says, banning books is attempting to address a symptom (violence among children, secularism etc.) and arguably misreading the cause.

Cudae, it is reasonable in principle for a school to impose standards of behaviour that may be stricter than those applied by parents - or equally to set an example to children (and parents) by its teaching policies, code of conduct and so on. It is also accepted that schools may have a basis in organised religion, which would then influence the curriculum, and I would imagine that single-faith schools of all the world religions will have a fairly long list of books deemed 'undesirable' in the context of their faith.

I suppose the slightly depressing thing is that banning a book because of religious reasons is, in the end, unarguable. The primacy of faith in this context overrules what we might call rational debate or liberal tenets, perhaps understandably so in the minds of certain true believers. These are vulnerable souls we are talking about, after all.

If a genuine and committed Christian is of the view that Harry Potter is an incitement to Satanic worship and demonology, and will open children to corruption by spiritual forces, I have a sinking feeling that all my arguments to the contrary would have little effect except to classify me in their eyes as a lost soul and advocate of evil. I say this with regret on the basis of experience.

And by way of illustration, from what seemed to me a fairly cursory web search, I came across this (the last paragraph is hardly a triumph of inductive reasoning [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) -

"Demons are real personalities, not just some vague presence of evil. In our society, we have trivialized reference to evil powers.

Children's literature is filled with stories of witches and evil spells. Creatures such as trolls, gnomes, and elves are sanitized references to demons. A classic example of supernatural evil in the literature of children is the popular "Wizard of Oz". (By definition, a wizard is a person with supernatural power.) Everybody loves Dorothy, Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion, Tin Man, and even little Toto. But don't forget the Wicked Witch of the West. A witch in any context is a human being who has invoked demonic powers. Although fiction may talk about good witches and evil witches, all witches receive any supernatural powers they do have from the same source: Satan and his demons.

Now, watching or reading the "Wizard of Oz" as an isolated activity won't cause your children to become demon possessed. However, literature like this is just one more way Satan has of normalizing and trivializing the evil supernatural power which originates with him.

Hollywood is convinced of the existence of literal demonic entities. Movies such as "The Exorcist", "Gremlins", and "Poltergeist" depict demons as actual personalities. In April 1989, a part of a Jim Henson TV special featured a story about demons and their interaction with humans. And Jim Henson is the originator of the "Muppets," a program for children."

Equally, but more pertinently, I found the quote from CS Lewis' preface to the Screwtape letters ...

"There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils [sic 'demons']. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

Is this more unintended irony?

What I was wondering originally was whether the principals in schools would have an argument for banning Tolkien and others that was distinct from what most BD residents would clearly see as irrational. And to know what it was. Perhaps I am a little closer ...

Compliments on the excellent contributions to date, which have provided some insightful and thought-provoking reflections.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Kalessin, your question was: What I was wondering originally was whether the principals in schools would have an argument for banning Tolkien and others that was distinct from what most BD residents would clearly see as irrational. And to know what it was.

I think that it is hard to get a sure answer for this but I think yes, they would have an argument. They most likely woiuldn't ban it without believing that they didn't have a reason. I think that they might have gone too far and over-reacted but they still would argue that it should be banned. Now, I've only had experiences of banning in grammer school and not in highschool so you might see this differently than I do. Also, I went to catholic school's all my life so again, you might see this diffently than I do. But one thing that I noticed about catholic schools is that they do a lot more banning than public schools do. I think that you were saying the reason this happens in religious schools is because it conflicts with the religion. But in my school, I've noticed that most of the time it's not because it conflicts with religion and it doesn't always conflict with religion. I found that it's usually because of mantinence. I think that my school wanted to maintain a certain level of strictness. By not allowing any leeway on dress codes/uniforms, she was keeping the students in line and I guess you could say conformity. If my principal allowed spikey hair, then the next thing might be dyed hair which could lead to mohawks. She saw it not as an immediate problem but a way to eliminate a future problems before it even exists.

Now, how is this in any way related to the authors that were banned? Well, by banning tolkien, maybe your principal was thinking ahead. Your principal could have thought that if you start reading tolkien, th white, and ray bradbury, you might end up reading more radical and 'demonologic' books. Your principal could have thought that in a few years, it would lead to reading books about the devil. That seems radical, but some people can be just a bit too paranoid. I don't think that it would have led to reading about the devil but some people do think that.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

To my knowledge, no school that I have attended has ever issued a specific ban against particular authors or titles. Indeed, when I read above that books had been banned from school premises because they were considered to promote demon-worship I had a nasty feeling that I had somehow slipped into the wrong century. I was living under the blissful misapprehension that people simply didn't do that sort of thing any more.

People who would restrict the distribution of literature would be well advised to have a good long read of Mein Kampf, the author of which wasn't averse to a spot of book-burning himself. Come to think of it, he was also a professed Christian, a decorated war veteran, a teetotaller and a vociferous detractor of both liberalism and journalists. His magnum opus is a turgid outpouring of dull, half-baked philosophy; petty-bourgeois morality; historical myth and nauseating patriotism. They might find a lot to their liking in such an execrable scrawl, which should serve as a warning to us all.

The only amusing aspect of the whole sorry tale is that by the standards quoted above, the Bible ought to be a prime candidate for restriction: it contains incest, fratricide, apocalyptic prophecies of doom, graphic violence, betrayal and exhortions to sell disobedient children into slavery. It's been linked to violence, discord and oppression, and may well have prompted the burning of a major European city. I'm not suggesting that the Bible ought to be banned, merely pointing out the rather obvious double-standard at work in the minds of many moralists.

Essentially, then, I simply can't think myself into the mind of someone who will place a hopelessly vain ban on a work of literature for the most banal reasons, whilst encouraging the study of other more disturbing works (was Macbeth banned, I wonder?) on the grounds of their great age or religious significance.

In the end what does or does not constitute a harmful idea varies between individuals; what is or is not offensive varies over time and an educator who prevents the spread of ideas has begun to slide into indoctrination. By all means prevent pupils from reading Tolkien in lessons (the political history of Gondor isn't going to help in an examination on Chemistry or the French revolution); go ahead and keep badly-written, poorly-researched or intellectually-barren texts out of a school library, but spare us all from uninspired bureaucrats and their bizarre system of ethics. If I can't even think of a good reason for restricting access to Anton LaVey, or even Corporal Schicklegruber, how likely is it that I can think of a reason to put a philosophically-inoffensive author like Tolkien on the forbidden list? Actually I can think of one: there's nothing like a good banning to get the kids interested in something, as has been mentioned above.

[Bill Ferny]

It is also accepted that schools may have a basis in organised religion, which would then influence the curriculum, and I would imagine that single-faith schools of all the world religions will have a fairly long list of books deemed 'undesirable' in the context of their faith.

This may be the case in some parochial schools, but is not, however, my experience from attending, and then latter teaching in both Catholic parochial schools and public schools. I found, not so much as a student, but as an educator that public schools were much more concerned about “objectionable material.” True that this “objectionable material” never took the form of specific books, but rather certain themes that could be or could not be presented, and if presented, presented in a certain manner. As a HS history teacher in a public school setting (only for about 3 months until I decided in utter disgust to swear off teaching altogether), I found that grossly important subjects such as the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement had been reduced to set dogma far above any possibility for debate or further investigation.

I suppose the slightly depressing thing is that banning a book because of religious reasons is, in the end, unarguable. The primacy of faith in this context overrules what we might call rational debate or liberal tenets, perhaps understandably so in the minds of certain true believers. These are vulnerable souls we are talking about, after all.

Frustration noted! However, you are much too charitable. Those whose belief systems can not be challenged, have remarkably fragile belief systems. The most interesting, and admirable, aspect of Catholic dogma is that it arose not as set law, but in response to challenges posed against commonly held Christian beliefs. Over the centuries dogma was formulated and defined because of serious theological debate. To ban a book without consideration of its practical and theoretical merits and faults is folly. True, something can be deemed trivial in light of already formulated doctrine, but this is only because the tenets of that work have already been debated long before. From a Catholic perspective (the only perspective I’m at liberty to discuss from experience) a book can be judged according to its value based on Christian doctrine, but such judgments can not be taken lightly or ignorantly. Such judgments are unfair, to both the work in question and said Christian doctrines, if reasonable arguments do not support them. To ban a book, opinion, movie or song outright based on religious beliefs without debate or without the foundation of former debates, seems to me at least, to reflect a belief system that can not stand up to criticism, or believers who can not for lack of intelligence or firm premises formulate arguments in defense of their position. I have seen over and over again that Catholic theologians and educators stand or fall on this basic principle (namely, those who pontificate direct quotes from Scripture or council fathers).

In the end, the stronger religious faith would argue for censorship based on debate or the fruits of former debate, and then only for censorship, NOT banning. As I’ve stated before, there is a real difference between censorship and banning. For example, Willie says above: “Now, I've only had experiences of banning in grammer school and not in highschool.” This is not banning, but censorship. Some materials can be deemed inappropriate for some people according to age. Just because you weren’t given access to certain materials when you were 12 doesn’t mean that those materials have been banned. Educators should have the ability to distinguish between material that is productive and counter-productive to basic indoctrination and censor that which is counter. In education, the educator must always weigh the free exchange of ideas with the ability of the student to freely exchange. You can’t discuss trigonometry, if you don’t know at least the basics of geometry and algebra. Just because your principle won’t allow you take trig before algebra, doesn’t mean your principle is banning trig! An educator may deem Tolkien inappropriate reading for a third grader. That’s simply censorship, not banning.

Squatter (showing once again that he’s more than just a roguish bandit who picks on dwarves) hits the nail on the head:

The only amusing aspect of the whole sorry tale is that by the standards quoted above, the Bible ought to be a prime candidate for restriction: it contains incest, fratricide, apocalyptic prophecies of doom, graphic violence, betrayal and exhortions to sell disobedient children into slavery. It's been linked to violence, discord and oppression, and may well have prompted the burning of a major European city. I'm not suggesting that the Bible ought to be banned, merely pointing out the rather obvious double-standard at work in the minds of many moralists.

The printing press has done more violence to Christianity than all the medieval popes, Queen Isabelle, and the crusades combined! After meeting so many “Christians” during the course of my short life, it is my firm belief that there are some people who should never have picked up the Bible in the first place. It is indeed the most dangerous book out there, and should only be read in a studious manner, within the context of a believing community. And before you start hurling apples at me, know that it is the Bible, itself, that says this.

However, Squatter, I have to disagree with you on this point: “In the end what does or does not constitute a harmful idea varies between individuals.” This is true, if we live a subjective and relativistic world. There are ideas that are harmful, trivial, and stupid, just as there are ideas that are good, noble, and astute. The problem is, is that we have to do some considerable labor in order to sort it all out. It requires a lot of reasoned debate, and to be quite frank, the attitude that it “varies between individuals” demonstrates sloth, not open mindedness.

[HerenIstarion]

And before you start hurling apples at me...

Well, Bill, it's a tradition. We have to hurl apples at you.

As of the rest, it was an excellent discourse, but towards the end of it I tend to agree with Squatter rather than with you. Whatever is said about society as a machine and each human as a small slot ot socket inside it's belly, each and every time is is an individual who decides, makes a choice (heh, I'm hinting at free will discussions, yes Sir) what is to be done in this very moment, should this book be banned or not and so forth. And opne mindedness matters so far as individual making a decision is open-minded...

BTw, I just remebered reading a russian newspaper some weeks ago, where orthodox priest was approving of HP as a good fairy tale, basing his opinion on arguments and backing himself with quatations from the scriptures. So there always are some good exeptions...

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Birdland]

...is the banning of fantasy genre books an attempt to shut a Pandora's Box that Tolkien himself opened?

You might say rather that Tolkien (as well as other scholars) reopened a box that had been firmly shut, nailed down and buried long ago.

Through the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture sought to stamp out and irradicate all memories of the religious beliefs, or "mythologies" of other cultures. If they could not irradicate it, then they assimilated it, (as in the appropriating of certain Pagan holy days, renaming them as "Saint Days").

Admiration for ancient Greco-Roman culture led to the preservation of their mythologies, but otherwise our ancestors did a pretty good job of wiping the slate clean.

It's rather ironic that Tolkien would lament the loss of an "English mythology", when the very religion that he practices fought so hard to erase it.

I suppose an argument could be made by Fundamentalist clerics that though Tolkien does write from the perspective of a Christian, and has given Middle-earth a relatively monotheist deity, he did not give the Elves, Dwarfs and Ents the "One God". So he could be accused of creating a "false god".

Oh, and his suggestion that other races besides Men lived at one time smacks of the heresy of the theory of Evolution to me! And let's not even go into the suggestion that certain animals in M-E may have actually have had "souls".

I'm quite sure if you were able to ask a long line of Christian scholars, bishops, popes and kings "what should we do about Tolkien?", they would happily cry "burn him!" (Not just the books, but the good author himself.) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Bill Ferny]

Oh my, Heren! Should we let that worm out of the apple again?

Oh well, free will aside (for the moment), an individual shouldn’t make, nor should they be expected to make decisions about censorship in a vacuum. An individual should make such decisions based on debate with people present (including, most importantly, the author as presented in the work being debated), research (debate with people past), and with the desired end in view. The last element opens up a whole other debate about exactly what end should be achieved. People who don’t bear this in mind are destined to make huge mistakes.

Simply put, choice, at least good choice, is informed by the ends. That is where the work lies, knowing and judging the ends.

Of course, if the world is relative, such decisions are inconsequential to begin with (and free will would be an impossibility, anyway). The ends dictate the means, but if the ends are irrelevant, or don’t exist, then the means are irrelevant, or simply a trick of the subjective consciousness. Thus, all decisions are random and trivial and exist only to serve the will of the despotic Dasein.

It's rather ironic that Tolkien would lament the loss of an "English mythology", when the very religion that he practices fought so hard to erase it.

However, don’t ignore the fact that most of our knowledge about these mythologies came from the Christian monks who put them to writing. And, in the end, it was pagans, not Christians who destroyed the wealth of former cultures (a.k.a. viking raids, etc.) In defense of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which you allude to, Birdland, early missionaries strove to assimilate, not to destroy, existing cultures. Evangelism, at least Christian evangelism, fails miserably by the sword, as the crusades demonstrate.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I stand by my comment about the status of ideas. As an example, let's say that three people read Lord of the Flies. One of those people goes away with a lot of new ideas about the nature of mankind; one of them decides that it was all rather boring, but the third decides that painting one's face and hunting other people down sounds like fun. That wasn't the intention of the author; it wasn't the sort of thing that a reasonable person would think, but the idea would have been planted nonetheless. That same person could read The Lord of the Rings, decide for some reason that it was an invitation to Satanism and sacrifice their cat accordingly. You can't predict what will or will not be dangerous, as the interpretation of the idea and the resultant action are subjective individual acts.

To censor works of literature, film or television is to reduce human beings to the status of automata, who mindlessly follow whatever idea is put into their heads without thought or question. This makes excuses for people's behaviour by shifting the blame to a source of ideas when it is actually shared by the individual and those responsible for that person's welfare. If anything, the absence of debate implicit in censorship merely contributes to the development of an uncritical and impressionable mind, totally unprepared for life in the real world. Such people make good consumers, but there is little that they can't be persuaded to do. Of course later they were "just obeying orders".

As to the efficacy of restricting the flow of ideas, Christianity again offers us an example. During centuries of repression it spread like wildfire and no amount of legal or other control could stop it; a couple of centuries on the side of the establishment and it's losing ground. People aren't so easy to control, regardless of age.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

an individual shouldn’t make, nor should they be expected to make decisions about censorship in a vacuum. An individual should make such decisions based on debate with people present (including, most importantly, the author as presented in the work being debated), research (debate with people past), and with the desired end in view. The last element opens up a whole other debate about exactly what end should be achieved.

I don't mean to throw an apple at you specifically here Bill [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I'm using your quote to help illustrate something that disturbs me a little. I am surprised at the amount of tolerance censorship is getting in this thread. It could be, of course, that the people of the Downs are wise and even tempered, trying to look at all sides of the issue. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I should try to be more like that myself, but censorship really bothers me. I can't help but feel like it should really bother everyone else too.

Teach children to evaluate for themselves and censorship becomes unnecessary. Refusing to expose children to ideas that are controversial may seem like the thing to do in the short run, but in the long run it is dangerous and ignorant.

I guess I should take a second here to say that I don't get the feeling anyone is actually advocating censorship. I'm just surprised at how much serious consideration it is getting.

An individual should make such decisions........with the desired end in view.The last element opens up a whole other debate about exactly what end should be achieved.

A slight paraphrase. Sorry Bill but this apple looks to be going in your general direction. Can there ever be a legitimate desired end to censorship? What good end could ever be achieved?

I apologize for the lack of Tolkien references in my posts for this thread.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

“Now, I've only had experiences of banning in grammer school and not in highschool.” This is not banning, but censorship. Some materials can be deemed inappropriate for some people according to age. Just because you weren’t given access to certain materials when you were 12 doesn’t mean that those materials have been banned. Educators should have the ability to distinguish between material that is productive and counter-productive to basic indoctrination and censor that which is counter. In education, the educator must always weigh the free exchange of ideas with the ability of the student to freely exchange. You can’t discuss trigonometry, if you don’t know at least the basics of geometry and algebra. Just because your principle won’t allow you take trig before algebra, doesn’t mean your principle is banning trig! An educator may deem Tolkien inappropriate reading for a third grader. That’s simply censorship, not banning.

You do bring up a good point but it was banning and not censorship. If it was censroship, it would be open for eighth-graders to read and not third graders, but it was banning because it was not open for anyone to read. If you are saying that it was censorship because it was banned in grammer school but not in highschool, then look at it from a different perspective. Don't look at the whole picture, focus more on grammer school and look at it from a smaller scale. Even if it were censored, you could still read some of it or at least some people could read it. If something is banned in a school, it is only in that school. Outside of school, at your home you probably could read lotr, because its not banned outside of school.

[Bill Ferny]

I am most definitely advocating censorship!

Certainly those of you who are arguing for the absence of all censorship aren’t advocating that pornography should be available to minors, or that there is nothing wrong with minors being involved in the production of pornography.

Well that is a bit extreme. From the educator’s perspective, censorship is a daily affair, and a necessary exercise. As I said, educators need to determine what is productive and counter-productive to basic indoctrination. They must weigh the free exchange of ideas with the individual student’s ability to freely exchange. If someone is reading LotR in class when they should be reading Emily Dickinson, and the teacher kindly informs that student to place the correct book on the desk, that is censorship. Insisting that students have a firm basis in algebra before attempting trigonometry is censorship. A teacher that tells a student that Marvel Comics are not adequate material for American Literature book reports (whether you agree or disagree) is practicing censorship.

Censorship is one of the primary responsibilities of the parent. Parents make judgments daily about what they want and do no want their children exposed. This isn’t that most parents do not want their children to avail themselves of the opportunity to tackle controversial issues. Its because parents realize that there are some things their children are not prepared to handle in a mature and rational manner, and that there are some things that are just plain dangerous. For example, I don’t allow toy guns in my house. It’s not that I’m pro-gun control and never want my children ever (for their whole lives) make a choice about owning or using a firearm. It’s just that I don’t want my children to think of firearms as things to play with. That is censorship at its height, and I think, given the day and age, a very responsible piece of censorship on my and my wife’s part.

Teach children to evaluate for themselves and censorship becomes unnecessary.

Teach children to evaluate, to make judgments (between good and bad) = censuring, for that is exactly what censuring is. Teaching children to evaluate for themselves is teaching them the art of censorship, thus censorship won’t go away, it is passed on. The goal is to teach them responsible, reasonable, censorship.

Refusing to expose children to ideas that are controversial may seem like the thing to do in the short run, but in the long run it is dangerous and ignorant.

Responsible censorship is the art of determining when and when not a person is able to deal with that controversial material. You can not teach children the art of evaluating for themselves, if you don’t give them first the tools to do so. Going back to the toy gun theory. I hope that my children will have a certain set of values in place, such as guns aren’t toys, so that when they do come across a real firearm they will know that it is a dangerous tool and not something that might be fun to point at another kid.

To censor works of literature, film or television is to reduce human beings to the status of automata, who mindlessly follow whatever idea is put into their heads without thought or question.

Human beings in our society (I’m speaking as an American) have been reduced to the status of automata. In general, the public is pretty much mindless. How can this be in a free society? It is a failure of the educational system, a lack of liberal arts in our high schools and colleges, political correctness, and rampant materialistic consumerism. The very tools that we need to censure responsibly are lacking. We also flood our kids with so many controversial issues and notions without first giving them the tools to deal with them, that they have no choice but to follow the loudest voice in the cacophony, which is more often than not the advertisers. I’m not saying that irresponsible, simple minded, censorship is not a contributing cause, but the censorship that is responsible, that emerges from debate, knowledge, values that go beyond the material, and good old common sense is something that can be used, must be used, to rectify dumbing-down of modern society.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Well thrown Bill [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. However, I think we are talking about different things, if I may wield the semantics stick a moment. I totally agree with comments concerning choosing proper material with respect to age, what is appropriate for school, etc. Earlier in the thread that was talked about as the difference between banning and limiting use. Bill advocates limiting use.

As others have already astutely described, I differentiate between banning and limiting use. There are hundreds of legitimate reasons to limit use.

Teach children to evaluate, to make judgments (between good and bad) = censuring, for that is exactly what censuring is.

Exposure to ideas that an individual may not agree with is part of the process of giving them the tools to evaluate, in my humble opinion. Am I saying you need to show children pornography to teach them that it is bad? No. I am saying you might want to let your child read Mein Kampf (when they can understand it) to help him/her understand how Hitler’s ideas were wrong.

Do we send our children to school so that school can do their thinking for them? No. We send our children to school to help them learn how to think for themselves. Maybe that means our children get exposed to ideas that we really don’t like. If parents are doing their jobs right, and if the school officials are doing their jobs right, then #1 they will be greater influences on the kid than any writing and #2 the child will be able to assess any idea and come to a good judgement on his/her own without us having to shelter them from it.

In general, the public is pretty much mindless. How can this be in a free society? It is a failure of the educational system, a lack of liberal arts in our high schools and colleges, political correctness, and rampant materialistic consumerism.

Is not censorship basically another way of telling people what to think? If you are not exposed to both sides of an issue how can you make a truly informed decision?

I guess to some school officials Tolkien’s works are hugely controversial. Even if it were only to end up having their children agree, I think those people should have the courage to allow their children to read Tolkien and decide for themselves. It is more a commentary on their failure to influence the children than it is on Tolkien that they are afraid of his work and won’t let it be a part of their literature programs.

[Bill Ferny]

Birdland,

I replied to your post in brief, mainly because I had to go to work, but I can not, and will not, allow blanket statements such as these to go unanswered:

Through the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture sought to stamp out and irradicate all memories of the religious beliefs, or "mythologies" of other cultures. If they could not irradicate it, then they assimilated it, (as in the appropriating of certain Pagan holy days, renaming them as "Saint Days")… It's rather ironic that Tolkien would lament the loss of an "English mythology", when the very religion that he practices fought so hard to erase it.

Not only are you grossly unfair to Christianity (and probably Islam, though I lack the expertise to address it from that angle), you are simply wrong. First, if eradication of cultures or mythologies is an issue, pre-Christian cultures did a much better job than Christians. Little of Celtic culture was left in England after the Romans and Saxons. Secondly, as I pointed out briefly, the only reason we have any knowledge of pre-Christian culture or mythology was due to the labor of Christian monks who recorded these mythologies, and the great majority of their work was destroyed, not by Christians, but by non-Christians from Scandinavia. The event that so many nostalgic English, such as Tolkien, lament was the Norman invasion of 1066, and had nothing in the least to do with a Christian/non-Christian struggle. The disappearance of Saxon culture as a result of Norman feudalism was not the disappearance of a non-Christian culture, but the disappearance of a Christian one. If you have the impression that Christianity is in the business of eradication of cultures, it would behoove you to read this and this, both of which not only point out the efforts of the modern church, but the principals that have been at work in the church ever since the first century.

Keneldil,

When you say: “I am saying you might want to let your child read Mein Kampf (when they can understand it) to help him/her understand how Hitler’s ideas were wrong,” we are in agreement with each other. I put emphasis on the “when they can understand it” and believe its important that educators and parents use discretion when they do censure. The danger in saying there should be no censorship, is that the censorship that necessarily will come is not recognized, and, therefore, goes unquestioned.

Those who censure Tolkien, and the fantasy genre in general, based on Christian “theological” reasons are a pack of fools, especially since they can not provide sound theological arguments to do so. I only hope that we don’t give up attacking them because “its their opinion” or “its up to the individual.” I hold that the banning of fantasy books based on religious reasons IS arguable. Any censure is arguable, be it religious or otherwise, and if the reasons for those censures are bad reasons, then it hurts the institution represented. Those Christians who wish to ban or censure unreasonably Tolkien or the fantasy genre are objectively wrong headed and they do violence to Christianity.

Now, if you will excuse me, I’m off to make applecrisp.

[Evisse the Blue]

Bill - I followed your posts thoroughly, and I place myself in queue at the apple-throwing.
No one, ever will ever convince me that censorship is necessary, nor that it is a cure for most evils of our society. If these are true, that only shows you what a pathetic society we have become.

I don't suppose any of you saw that creepily funny episode from 'Millennium' called "Somehow Satan got behind me', written by the awesome Darin Morgan. It details the life of a dedicated censor, and how, in the end 'with the burden of a nation's morality on his very shoulders' finally crumbles, falling into the second evil stated in CS Lewis's Screwtape letters:

The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Censorship (being the removal of material from a work to make it acceptable to the censoring authority) is something with which I take issue as an act of vandalism that can pervert the message of the original piece. I'm all in favour of restriction of access to certain material on the grounds of age, but only insofar as it prevents children from coming into contact with aspects of the adult world that will result in their being frightened or upset, not in an attempt to pre-emptively attack some nebulous action that they may or may not take as a result of contact with particular ideas or phrases. Certainly not because in some people's opinion the censored material encourages irreligious behaviour. That verges on the medieval. One might as well ban the study of all world religions on the grounds that each offends the doctrine of one of the others in some way.

In the case of literature we're lucky in that the really frightening ideas tend to be couched in language of sufficient complexity to exclude the very young from their readership. Not that I'd advocate stocking the works of Friedrich Nietzsche or the Marquis de Sade in an infant school (what would be the point anyway? None of the pupils would understand most of what they had to say), but it seems somewhat extreme to exclude all literature of a certain genre from the very premises of an educational establishment. What did they think? That older pupils would try to start an anarcho-syndicalist revolutionary cell among the juniors? That the school would end up with a cadet branch of the Church of Satan meeting on its grounds? Personally I'd be looking at the sanity of the people who come up with these possibilities.

I'm also not too sure about manner in which the word "indoctrination" is being bandied about in this thread: indoctrination is the process of teaching someone what to think; of imposing the opinions that one would like them to hold without the truth of the ideas imposed becoming an issue.

None of which has any relevance whatsoever to J.R.R. Tolkien, whose work encourages the best aspects of the human character, not to mention being an excellent improver of the vocabulary and a good introduction to the study of mythology. In order to desire the censorship of his works one would have to object to a theme that would not have seemed objectionable to an orthodox Catholic born in the Victorian era, or to a British publishing house in the 1950s. If you chuck Tolkien out on his ear then Byron and Coleridge and John Webster, to name but three, ought to go first. It would probably end in all the books being empty and all the minds closed.

[Kalessin]

Squatter, I agree with you about the word 'indoctrination', which might be meant here in its most innocuous sense, but which has unavoidable connotations (we're talking cultural revolution and similar examples here).

However, I don't necessarily agree that the work of Neitzche could be classed as 'dangerous', especially in the same way as you cite de Sade. His works (in translation, anyway) are open to several interpretations and the incitement, if any, of a 'will to power' is far more psychological (and arguably mystical) than the appropriation by half-baked ideologies suggests.

I am not sure also if the difference between censorship in the 'Bowdlerised' sense or the understable restriction of access is necessarily the fundamental point. In either case, the reasons behind any specific mediation of art (or in the form of a policy decision) are the real issue ...

As you say, a policy decision based on assumptions that could apply to a genre, or perhaps to a themes or keywords, or according to the persona of the author, all of these may well result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater (I wonder if this colloquiallism is self-explanatory enough)?

Tolkien, of course, is hardly the example to use in a discussion of whether censorship of any kind is justifiable, given Mr Underhill's clear analysis of the minimal 'dangers' in his work, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Bill Ferny's polemic -

Human beings in our society (I’m speaking as an American) have been reduced to the status of automata. In general, the public is pretty much mindless. How can this be in a free society? It is a failure of the educational system, a lack of liberal arts in our high schools and colleges, political correctness, and rampant materialistic consumerism. The very tools that we need to censure responsibly are lacking. We also flood our kids with so many controversial issues and notions without first giving them the tools to deal with them, that they have no choice but to follow the loudest voice in the cacophony, which is more often than not the advertisers.

Perhaps it's my age, or merely a tendency to be swayed by articulate ranting [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. But if the internet, for example, can be seen as an acid test of a medium with relatively minimal regulation, then (with honourable exceptions such as The Barrow Downs, grovel [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) then Bill has a fair point.

Maybe this is the dirty reality behind a conception that in principle I feel very antagonistic towards. I would like to believe that through patient and nurturing dialogue, through enthusiasm and tolerant discussion, through willingness to engage in debate, and through the courage to confront difficult issues, and so on etc., both children and adults can become rounded individuals who make responsible and positive choices about what they read and how they perceive it, are able to rationalise their reactions, share insights and develop self-knowledge, etc. etc.

And indeed this happens. Individuals become (or are) thoughtful, complex, subtle discerning and positive - even when all the environmental factors mitigate against such an outcome. While others, even with all the advantages, turn out the opposite. And sometimes it's the same person at different times in their life - or the same person at the same time, in different areas of their life ... (hmm, better stop, I feel a confession coming on [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] )

The sociological statistics may point towards trends, or a hierarchy of influences, but the variables are highly complex and any axiomatic theories of educational, social, genetic or cultural determinism can be very strongly challenged. And it is nice to see that, despite Bill's angst, the posters here of all ages are generally literate, thoughtful, open-minded and idealistic, or attempting to be!

The point I am making is that the argument that censoring Tolkien is a 'bad' thing does not strengthen the argument that censorship is a 'bad' thing, or vice versa. The two are unrelated.

I think my initial question has been answered as much as it can be. But the Pandora's Box hypotheses leaves room for discussion, or perhaps from a different perspective that ties in to an ancient rant of mine ...

Is it the nature of the current fantasy genre, by contrast to the work of Tolkien, that makes it vulnerable even to well-intentioned censorship, on the grounds of its exploitative use of mythic, religious or archetypal symbols, coupled with the lack of morality - in contrast to Tolkein - or any of its other failings (so well documented on these boards)?

Compliments again on such interesting posts!

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Grrr. I was in the middle of a long and intricate post when my computer froze and I lost it all. I'll try to recapitulate.

The central question seems to be about the conflict seems to be between the protection of children from potentially harmful influences and the right of an individual to be exposed to ideas. The situation is further confused by the question of who decides what influences can be harmful.

As for the first question: I take it as axiomatic that any person has a right to be exposed to any idea. This right can only be abridged when it is in direct contradiction to another right, such as the right to freedom from harm. So in order for censorship to be justifiable, it must uphold a right superior to that which it abridges. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the right to freedom from harm is superior.

Note that, like all rights, this right can be abrogated or waived as long as the person doing so is fully aware of the consequences. Of course, no one can ever be completely aware of the consequences of anything; but it is commonly held that adults of average intelligence have sufficient awareness that we may for all practical purposes consider them fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions. Censorship with the aim of the protection of the audience is thus unjustifiable among fully aware adults, because they are free to choose to abrogate their right to freedom from harm.

We might still wonder whether censorship is permissible on the grounds that it prevents harm from being done by one person to another. A fully aware person may abrogate his or her own right to freedom from harm, but may not abridge the rights of others. This is a question of compulsion. Where does the responsibility for one person doing harm to another lie - in the person whose action causes harm or in the medium through which the idea was transmitted? I think it is clear that it lies with the person, provided that the person is fully aware. Censorship is thus unjustified among fully aware adults because no idea can have power of compulsion over them.

The question then turns to children. The oft-advanced justification for censorship among children is that they are not fully aware and thus can harm themselves without meaning to abrogate their right to freedom from harm; or they can harm others without making a rational decision to abridge another's rights. This makes some sense. Thus, censorship is justified, if there is a direct causal link between the exposure of such a person to an idea and harm to that person or to another person, because it defends the right of the person (and of others) to be free from harm (note that such a direct causal relationship can never exist for fully aware adults, because they can always choose not to cause harm, or to abrogate their right). However, note several things:

1. There is a preponderance of evidence that there is no direct causal link between, say, observing violence and committing violence. For every child who plays Grand Theft Auto and then causes harm to others, there is a vastly greater number that play GTA and do not cause harm. And this is a fairly extreme case - who will argue that Harry Potter is more inciteful than some television or video games?

2. There are many factors that contribute to a person's harmful behavior, among which the influence of artistic media is small. The number of factors to be taken into account makes it extremely unlikely that there is a causal link between any one of the factors and the resulting behavior. Note that in almost all (maybe literally all) of the cases where a child's harmful actions are blamed on a game or television show, there are other factors present that likely outweigh that influence.

3. Whether or not there is a probable causal connection between an idea and a harmful act depends upon the person in question. What may be said to inspire violence in one will not do so in another. Therefore, blanket censorship of something, though it may protect a few, abridges the rights of many.

The above discussion is somewhat abstract, but I think it makes a decent general case against censorship. There is something further, and more specific, though, to be said about censorship on religious grounds, especially in schools (and I'm surprised no one has apparently been angered by this as much as I have). Simply put, it's illegal. At least, it is in the U.S. And with good cause. The first amendment makes it unconstitutional for a government institution to make regulations based on religious beliefs. To ban a book from a school because it is "anti-religious" or "promotes witchcraft" is a blatant and unconscienable violation of the separation between church and state.

So my answer to the original question: no. There is no justification for any of the bannings that have been mentioned.

This is of course a completely different question from that of requiring that students not read Tolkien while they are in class and are supposed to be doing other work.