There’s been a lot of talk lately about censorship during
“Banned Book Week,” so I thought I’d chime in, since I’m as affected by
censorship as any other writer. (Largely
since editors and artists have commented on how dark some of my stuff is.)
First, what constitutes censorship? If the federal government tells a library or
publisher they can’t publish or distribute a given book, for political or
ideological reasons, (or, supposedly national security) that’s censorship, and
it’s supposed to be prohibited by the First Amendment. (We all remember John Ashcroft and his battle
with librarians.) But, if a library or a
school board chooses to ban a book, is that censorship or just a local right of
choice? We all remember the legal
battles over whether schools could ban Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” over
racist stereotypes and use of the “n” word.
My personal view is that schools and libraries, which are
publicly funded institutions should not be allowed under federal law to ban
anything that isn’t covered by criminal obscenity statutes. And no, PTA’s and townships shouldn’t be
allowed to vote on whether to ban this list of books or that list of
books. The First Amendment should stand,
as far as I’m concerned. Nobody, no
community or institution has the right to tell consenting adults what they can
or can’t read or what they’re allowed to let their children read. And, educational standards can quickly decay if left to the mercy of local sensibilities. (Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial?) Some parents have complained that their right
of parental control over their kids is usurped when libraries or bookstores can
lend or sell their kids something they don’t approve of. Okay, arguably, it might be acceptable to
require book distributors to card their young patrons, as liquor store owners
are required to do, but not to ban books altogether.
Remove all governmental censorship, and the decision of what
to publish rests with the editor and the public (not necessarily in that
order.) As a writer who stays largely in
the dark vein, I’m frustrated sometimes when I read an editor’s guidelines that
say “no rape, no abuse of minors, no sex between people under 18, etc.” Understandable restrictions perhaps,
depending on the individual sensibilities of the publisher and the scope of the
target audience, but it’s sadly limiting at times and screens out stories that
I think should be told. Neither “Hamlet”
nor “MacBeth” would pass muster today with any editor who won’t read anything
that “is violent or depicts any criminal act.”
Charles Dickens wouldn’t fare so well, either. And, that “no sex between minors” rule…Well,
there goes “Romeo and Juliet.” How could
a writer produce a story about a character similar to Malala, a minor almost
murdered because she dared to defy militant “traditionalist” elements within her
society in daring to go to school, without hitting editorial restrictions
prohibiting violence against minors, negative depiction of other cultures,
etc.? Or, stories about the brutality
suffered by teenaged girls abducted by warlords in Africa? Some editors might consider stories that deal
directly with such subject matter to be “exploitive of the suffering of
others.” But, these are stories of
reality, after all. Dark issues that
have afflicted the human race throughout time.
Are such subjects simply off limits?
Can we deal with them artistically at all, to grapple with the demons
both external and internal that spawn them, or must we look away?
Some editors take a
middle-ground and say that there shall be no such violence (rape, etc.) for the
“sole purpose of titillating the audience.”
Meaning, they might publish a story that sincerely seeks to explore the
dark issue of rape or evil in the soul of Man in general, or the struggle of a
rape survivor to rise above the evil, or the moral question of revenge. And, many editors say they won’t consider
anything that promotes “racism, sexism, bigotry, intolerance” etc. Very laudable on its face, but then, there’s
that Mark Twain argument again. So, what
about editors who say they won’t publish anything with characters “of
color" or just quietly avoid doing so? What about editors who say they won’t
consider any stories containing GLBT characters? They’re still doing that quite openly.
I’ve
had editors refuse to publish my stories, saying “Why put in things that offend
some people?” (Because they’re my
stories, obviously. I’m not about to
worry about what offends anybody, since I’m not a public servant!) I’ve had to let deals fall through because I
wouldn’t take out violence I felt was necessary to make the story real, or
because I wouldn’t omit gay characters.
I’ve had horror editors reject stories that dealt with rape, saying “That’s
an everyday horror.” (Murder’s okay,
even though that’s an everyday horror, but rape is out.) Perhaps society making rape a taboo subject
in general is part of the reason people are always in denial about the
seriousness of it, and always blaming the victim. Some victims even blame themselves, or are
too afraid to come forward. I know it’s
hard, even impossible to deal with sometimes, but if we’re supposed to omit it
from fiction, are we supposed to omit it from the news as well? Evil has to be faced, or at least acknowledged,
or it continues to hide.
My title “Black Goddess” deals with torture (which I
researched pretty extensively) among other manifestations of human evil. My short title “Hell Shift” deals with human
evil in many forms and with visceral, gory directness. My other short title “Along Came a Spider” touched
on revolution as well as sex. Any one of
which would have earned these titles rejection from any number of editors.
A diversity of editorial policies isn’t the problem. But, I think the greatest danger of creeping
censorship is the gradual evolution of “common standards” linked perhaps more
with marketing than morality, slowly eroding any semblance of controversy or
diversity from fiction. “Safer is better”
can be the epitaph of literary freedom.
.jpg)
