inquiry three
The Uncivilized Act of Banning Books
Censorship has been an issue since biblical times. Many prophets were persecuted for what they were telling the word of God because it went against what was mainly taught. The issue of banning books or works of literature has been going on for thousands of years, going all the way back to when polytheism was still the dominate religious practice in the Mediterranean and when something was deemed to go against the gods’ power, the author would be exiled and all of his writings burned (Magelky). It even happened when Catholicism was an established religion throughout the world with Galileo and his teachings and findings. The Catholic Church could not come to terms with what he had found out about the solar system because it went against what the Bible teaches, condemned him, and excommunicated him from the church. The most known case of censorship is that of Jesus Christ, the Pharisees did not like what He was preaching so they killed via a proxy, the Crucifixion. He died because the men in power were afraid of what He was preaching to the people, just as were the people who were persecuted the prophets, just as what happened with the Greeks and Romans, and with Galileo. When someone comes out and says something that challenges the norm belief or what society is advocating, the people in power become afraid. That’s the biggest issue with censorship and banning of books, the people who are afraid, are actually afraid that they could lose their lofty places in society if the source material isn’t rooted out and “taken care of.”
In light of history’s more vivid punishments, today’s standards are much lower, depending on what gets released, leaked, or published. Nowadays, most people feel like just pulling the books of the shelves will do the trick and avert a “major societal breakdown” because they aren’t comfortable with what they find between the covers of those books. There are many different opinions on the matter, and many different types of people who have voiced their say in the matter, ranging from the Supreme Court to your local school officials. The Supreme Court has made a lot of decisions concerning all kinds of censorship, one of which being, “’Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.’ —U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941)” (Reichman). Brandeis, the Supreme Court Justice, is laying down the foundation as to why many people wish to censor certain pieces of literature; that foundation being that they are afraid of what lies in that book.
Yet another a Supreme Court Justice gave his opinion on censorship, William O. Douglas, a former Supreme Court Justice, gave a speech, in which he said, “It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies. We need all the ingenuity we possess to avert the holocaust” (Douglas). Douglas gave this speech after winning an award set up in memory of a journalist who was an avid free speech supporter. During Douglas’ time, there was a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over the American people after World War II because of the Red Tide that was sweeping up Europe after the Third Reich fell and left a power vacuum. People feared that everyone was a communist, but during that time a Supreme Court Justice said that a person should be able to say whatever you truly wish.
Throughout history, there are certain pieces that help to ignite a revolution, whether it be a revolution of a country, or just a societal revolution, many of those pieces are now on the banned book list. Not only are some of the most revolutionary texts being banned, but some of the more iconic texts of the times are also being banned. For example, The Diary of Anne Frank was recently banned from some libraries and challenged in most for being too depressing. Come on. It was the Holocaust, it wasn’t roses and sunshine, it was one of the darkest times in human history and it is a first hand account of a little girl’s fear, struggles, and personal experience of that time. When learning about that time, I think it should be something that is explicitly taught in order to gain a very real perspective on just how dark a time it was. On another note, the Harry Potter series, which has touched millions of people across the planet both through the books and through the remediation of its film series, is often challenged for its “religious views” (Crum). Madeline Crum gives readers reasons as to why books are banned or challenged, such as homosexuality, nudity, religious viewpoints, drugs, sexually explicit, and offensive language. Many of the people that are so concerned about the books that are being read are parents who don’t want their kids to read them, but a child can easily see any of those motifs on television, should we also censor television to no avail? Harry Potter’s apparent religious views promote witchcraft and wizardry, instead of Christian values or some other religious viewpoint. Coming from an avid reader and from someone who has actually read that series, this is absurd. It does not promote the practice of witchcraft and wizardry, its fiction. However, it does promote forging bonds that will get you through anything and that will last a lifetime. The challenging of the series has not however stopped people from buying the series in the least bit, with worldwide sales reaching $15 billion dollars, 450 million copies sold, not only that but the series has been translated into 67 different languages, making it the best-selling book series in history. Which brings me to my next point, that banning the books makes the books more tantalizing and make readers actually want to read them more.
The idea of something being banned or forbidden makes things seem a little bit more adventurous or enticing which is the exact point Michel Martin brings up in her National Public Radio conversation with Loriene Roy, the former president of the American Library Association. She says that banning books could make the books more enticing to potential young readers because it gives them a sense of freedom and is counterproductive to the idea of banning books (Martin). James Klise, a published writer and school manager, also voiced his opinions on the idea of censoring the books. Klise said that, “…the notion of censoring books seems literally foreign to us” (Klise), the “us” being fellow school faculty members and fellow novelists. I cannot tell you how much I agree with him on this matter, since I picked up reading at such a young age, my reading level was that of a student who was many grades above me. I was reading The Da Vinci Code in the eighth grade, which many people cannot tackle at an older age. So to think that source of knowledge, albeit fictional, could have been taken away from me because people thought that I could not handle it infuriates me. People don’t understand that reading to some children, and adults for that matter, is an escape from the world around them. If they can escape some hardship in their life for just a short while, who are we to take that away from them? What gives us that power?
Works Cited
Crum, Madeleine. "7 Reasons Your Favorite Books Were Banned." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.
Douglas, William O. "The One Un-American Act." American Library Association. Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20 Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
Klise, James. "Class, Today's Word Is Irony." Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2013
Magelky, Jennifer. "History of Banned Books." Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Martin, Michel. "Could Banning Books Actually Encourage More Readers?" Www.npr.org. NPR, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Reichman, Henry, and Barbara Miner. "Schools and Censorship: Banned Books."PFAW. People for The American Way, Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Censorship has been an issue since biblical times. Many prophets were persecuted for what they were telling the word of God because it went against what was mainly taught. The issue of banning books or works of literature has been going on for thousands of years, going all the way back to when polytheism was still the dominate religious practice in the Mediterranean and when something was deemed to go against the gods’ power, the author would be exiled and all of his writings burned (Magelky). It even happened when Catholicism was an established religion throughout the world with Galileo and his teachings and findings. The Catholic Church could not come to terms with what he had found out about the solar system because it went against what the Bible teaches, condemned him, and excommunicated him from the church. The most known case of censorship is that of Jesus Christ, the Pharisees did not like what He was preaching so they killed via a proxy, the Crucifixion. He died because the men in power were afraid of what He was preaching to the people, just as were the people who were persecuted the prophets, just as what happened with the Greeks and Romans, and with Galileo. When someone comes out and says something that challenges the norm belief or what society is advocating, the people in power become afraid. That’s the biggest issue with censorship and banning of books, the people who are afraid, are actually afraid that they could lose their lofty places in society if the source material isn’t rooted out and “taken care of.”
In light of history’s more vivid punishments, today’s standards are much lower, depending on what gets released, leaked, or published. Nowadays, most people feel like just pulling the books of the shelves will do the trick and avert a “major societal breakdown” because they aren’t comfortable with what they find between the covers of those books. There are many different opinions on the matter, and many different types of people who have voiced their say in the matter, ranging from the Supreme Court to your local school officials. The Supreme Court has made a lot of decisions concerning all kinds of censorship, one of which being, “’Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.’ —U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941)” (Reichman). Brandeis, the Supreme Court Justice, is laying down the foundation as to why many people wish to censor certain pieces of literature; that foundation being that they are afraid of what lies in that book.
Yet another a Supreme Court Justice gave his opinion on censorship, William O. Douglas, a former Supreme Court Justice, gave a speech, in which he said, “It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies. We need all the ingenuity we possess to avert the holocaust” (Douglas). Douglas gave this speech after winning an award set up in memory of a journalist who was an avid free speech supporter. During Douglas’ time, there was a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over the American people after World War II because of the Red Tide that was sweeping up Europe after the Third Reich fell and left a power vacuum. People feared that everyone was a communist, but during that time a Supreme Court Justice said that a person should be able to say whatever you truly wish.
Throughout history, there are certain pieces that help to ignite a revolution, whether it be a revolution of a country, or just a societal revolution, many of those pieces are now on the banned book list. Not only are some of the most revolutionary texts being banned, but some of the more iconic texts of the times are also being banned. For example, The Diary of Anne Frank was recently banned from some libraries and challenged in most for being too depressing. Come on. It was the Holocaust, it wasn’t roses and sunshine, it was one of the darkest times in human history and it is a first hand account of a little girl’s fear, struggles, and personal experience of that time. When learning about that time, I think it should be something that is explicitly taught in order to gain a very real perspective on just how dark a time it was. On another note, the Harry Potter series, which has touched millions of people across the planet both through the books and through the remediation of its film series, is often challenged for its “religious views” (Crum). Madeline Crum gives readers reasons as to why books are banned or challenged, such as homosexuality, nudity, religious viewpoints, drugs, sexually explicit, and offensive language. Many of the people that are so concerned about the books that are being read are parents who don’t want their kids to read them, but a child can easily see any of those motifs on television, should we also censor television to no avail? Harry Potter’s apparent religious views promote witchcraft and wizardry, instead of Christian values or some other religious viewpoint. Coming from an avid reader and from someone who has actually read that series, this is absurd. It does not promote the practice of witchcraft and wizardry, its fiction. However, it does promote forging bonds that will get you through anything and that will last a lifetime. The challenging of the series has not however stopped people from buying the series in the least bit, with worldwide sales reaching $15 billion dollars, 450 million copies sold, not only that but the series has been translated into 67 different languages, making it the best-selling book series in history. Which brings me to my next point, that banning the books makes the books more tantalizing and make readers actually want to read them more.
The idea of something being banned or forbidden makes things seem a little bit more adventurous or enticing which is the exact point Michel Martin brings up in her National Public Radio conversation with Loriene Roy, the former president of the American Library Association. She says that banning books could make the books more enticing to potential young readers because it gives them a sense of freedom and is counterproductive to the idea of banning books (Martin). James Klise, a published writer and school manager, also voiced his opinions on the idea of censoring the books. Klise said that, “…the notion of censoring books seems literally foreign to us” (Klise), the “us” being fellow school faculty members and fellow novelists. I cannot tell you how much I agree with him on this matter, since I picked up reading at such a young age, my reading level was that of a student who was many grades above me. I was reading The Da Vinci Code in the eighth grade, which many people cannot tackle at an older age. So to think that source of knowledge, albeit fictional, could have been taken away from me because people thought that I could not handle it infuriates me. People don’t understand that reading to some children, and adults for that matter, is an escape from the world around them. If they can escape some hardship in their life for just a short while, who are we to take that away from them? What gives us that power?
Works Cited
Crum, Madeleine. "7 Reasons Your Favorite Books Were Banned." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.
Douglas, William O. "The One Un-American Act." American Library Association. Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20 Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
Klise, James. "Class, Today's Word Is Irony." Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2013
Magelky, Jennifer. "History of Banned Books." Web. 22 Oct. 2013.
Martin, Michel. "Could Banning Books Actually Encourage More Readers?" Www.npr.org. NPR, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Reichman, Henry, and Barbara Miner. "Schools and Censorship: Banned Books."PFAW. People for The American Way, Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Reflection
How far will censorship go? Was this country not founded on the notion of Free Speech? Was the restriction of that Freedom not one of the many reasons the Declaration of Independence was signed and delivered to King George III?
Inquiry Three was probably my overall favorite Inquiry to write because it allowed me to speak of a great passion of mine; reading. It was because of this passion that the topic I chose was whether or not books should be banned, but that initial topic proved to be too narrow so I expanded it to include censorship. For Inquiry Three we were assigned to choose a social topic, pick a stance, and then tell why the audience should believe us, the authors. We were also assigned to incorporate direct quotes from our research into the topic straight into the paper which has been something that I've always struggled with. I was always the writer who would just randomly place quotes throughout a paper, no lead-in whatsoever but through this Inquiry I learned the correct time, place, and ways to lead-in to the quotes. This really improves the flow and pace of the paper as a whole. This skill goes beyond just this Inquiry, it will and has already helped in other subjects that demand writing. The skill will help with research papers in a variety of different subjects throughout my career as a student and also my career as a member of the work force.
Another skill that will transcend English class is determining your search criteria. When I first started off this Inquiry, I had an extremely narrow search criteria, 'banning books' or some derivative of that. Teachers will tell you that have a specific topic is good, it helps narrow your paper down to the essentials, but sometimes that's not always the best idea. Sometimes you have to have a broad search or a broad topic in order to find the information that you need in order to get your point across. In my case, the narrow search/topic actually hampered my ability to accomplish my goal, only when I broaden the search/topic to 'censorship' was I able to gather all the information that I needed in order to write a well-written paper.
If I were to go back in time and do this Inquiry a different way, I think I wouldn't have start off with such a narrow topic. That narrow topic really set my schedule back of writing the paper. I had to really put in some extra hours to find, digest, and bring together all the information that I needed. I think I would also try to change the tone of the paper in a few spots. In those few spots I can come across as though I am just another person on a rant, or someone who is afraid of what society would turn into if censorship was allowed to happen. That actually goes against one of the larger points of my paper; people are afraid of what lies between the covers of the book, and that's why they are being challenged and banned across the country.
Inquiry Three was probably my overall favorite Inquiry to write because it allowed me to speak of a great passion of mine; reading. It was because of this passion that the topic I chose was whether or not books should be banned, but that initial topic proved to be too narrow so I expanded it to include censorship. For Inquiry Three we were assigned to choose a social topic, pick a stance, and then tell why the audience should believe us, the authors. We were also assigned to incorporate direct quotes from our research into the topic straight into the paper which has been something that I've always struggled with. I was always the writer who would just randomly place quotes throughout a paper, no lead-in whatsoever but through this Inquiry I learned the correct time, place, and ways to lead-in to the quotes. This really improves the flow and pace of the paper as a whole. This skill goes beyond just this Inquiry, it will and has already helped in other subjects that demand writing. The skill will help with research papers in a variety of different subjects throughout my career as a student and also my career as a member of the work force.
Another skill that will transcend English class is determining your search criteria. When I first started off this Inquiry, I had an extremely narrow search criteria, 'banning books' or some derivative of that. Teachers will tell you that have a specific topic is good, it helps narrow your paper down to the essentials, but sometimes that's not always the best idea. Sometimes you have to have a broad search or a broad topic in order to find the information that you need in order to get your point across. In my case, the narrow search/topic actually hampered my ability to accomplish my goal, only when I broaden the search/topic to 'censorship' was I able to gather all the information that I needed in order to write a well-written paper.
If I were to go back in time and do this Inquiry a different way, I think I wouldn't have start off with such a narrow topic. That narrow topic really set my schedule back of writing the paper. I had to really put in some extra hours to find, digest, and bring together all the information that I needed. I think I would also try to change the tone of the paper in a few spots. In those few spots I can come across as though I am just another person on a rant, or someone who is afraid of what society would turn into if censorship was allowed to happen. That actually goes against one of the larger points of my paper; people are afraid of what lies between the covers of the book, and that's why they are being challenged and banned across the country.