Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Nessa on November 17, 2007, 04:38:45 PM
-
read it here: http://www.timewastersguide.com/article/1612/EUOLogy-On-Pullman-and-Censorship
I wanted to say that I agree with EUOL. Many of my LDS women friends are concerned about this and when I try to explain about censorship and making a decision for themselves they get all defensive. It's very frustrating. At the very least, as a parent, I will watch this movie on my own because my children's friends will be seeing this, which will make interest in it unavoidable (even if I were to keep them from seeing it, but I will delay that decision until I see it for myself).
As a parent it's irresponsible to keep yourself uninformed, because if your child's friend sees it, your child will learn about it, and at the very least--if you don't like the message it portrays, and this goes for any movie--you must be prepared for discussion, and you can't discuss if you don't know the truth about it.
-
I've got to say, that's a very interesting article. I myself come from a background that's actually pretty similar to Pullman's from what I read there. (and in the other articles linked) And I wouldn't have thought that such ideas could still offend people in such a huge way. I mean, I knew that there were puritans and some singular voices, but I thought those kept themselves to their farming cities where there aren't any cinemas to begin with. More and more I'm getting to realize that there's still whole countries reacting in such a strong way, and that scares me a little.
I'd like to thank EUOL for proving that there are reasonable voices on the other side of the fence as well. Most I've seen up to now was just rabble-rousing, and after a while that makes it pretty easy to feel contempt for some people that might not deserve it. It's easy to feel superior if your opponent proves himself to be stupid again and again, and the whole discussion becomes a meaningless conflict of egos, nothing more besides that.
Making informed decisions will always be important. I can live with other people who decide to believe in something different than I do, but if they just shut themselves off and don't listen to anything that might be in conflict with their believes, I really have a hard time taking them seriously.
I myself am very happy that the Pullman books are making the jump to the big screen and I really didn't see all that much religiously controversial material inside them to begin with. The Lucifer comics recently vilified god a lot more than anything else I've ever seen, and I haven't much controversy coming from those. His Dark Materials is tame in comparison to that. Anyway, I can't wait for some armoured bear action!
-
Less about the article,
but I find it funny that atheists think that so many theists are closed-minded bigots, theists think that so many atheists are intentionally pernicious hedonists.
It's like the world is entirely populated by Nazis and the sort of person who attends gay orgies.
Whereas I think most people tend to do what they genuinely think is right (yes, even Michael Moore and George Bush), even if I disagree with what they want to accomplish
I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone here, incidentally. If you get defensive, it's because you chose to take offense. I did *not* say anyone here actually subscribed to those views.
-
It makes sense. Aggressive voices are the strongest after all. Nobody really wants to hear about what the people in the middle think. Powerful ideas are the things that draw attention and that are the most interesting to discuss, be they true or not. Finding compromises has never been humanity's strong point...
Oh, and as a heads up: I don't think you intended it like that, but equating being a nazi and being somebody who attends gay orgies in the same sentence kind of rubs me the wrong way. I'm not saying that I think you believe those things are the same, it's just a heads up for future write-ups. It's easy to see what you intended, but it's even easier to get the wrong idea.
-
oh, i wasn't equating them. I was drawing a stereotype out of each of the two views.
-
I have to say first off that I really dislike Philip Pullman's works and I think every interview I've read with him has annoyed me a lot. I've read The Golden Compass and I thought it was completely inappropriate for children. I guess that's why this email campaign doesn't bother me. A lot of people will see the ads and think "kid movie" when, if it is anything like the book, it shouldn't be for kids at all. If these emails keep them from taking their kids to this movie then all to the good.
That said, I don't think the books should be banned from libraries or schools, but parents and teachers should be aware of the content of these books before recommending them to children. In my local bookstore, these books are shelved with the adult sf&f, and I personally think that's where they belong. Brandon said he didn't think there was any mature content in them, but I have to disagree. I thought there was content that was inappropriate for children, and I'm glad these aren't shelved with the children's books at my bookstore.
My mother is a librarian at an elementary school. She has several books (most of them Newberry winners) that she feels are inappropriate for children (especially the younger grades), but she still wants to have them available in her library. She keeps these books off the shelves. That way, if someone asks for them, the child can check them out, but she makes them aware of content concerns. A child isn't going to just be browsing, pick the book off the shelf, and end up with a lot more than he bargained for. And my mom isn't going to end up with irate parents wondering why she let their child check out the book without knowing what was in it. I don't know if this is the best system, but it has worked pretty well for her so far.
This is kind of a rambling reply. I think lots of parents let their children read books and watch movies without any awareness of the content. This email campaign will hopefully at least make parents aware that there are concerns with content in these works. I think that's a good thing so that parents aren't going in blind.
-
So, this is exactly what EUOL is saying, I think.
You're telling me there's inappropriate content, but EUOL says there isn't. Well, whose word carries more weight?
Perhaps you could give an example instead of simply saying "it has inappropriate material." Like game and movie ratings do. Not giving me examples makes me think your statement doesn't have a lot behind it.
-
I would actually say that there's some content that you could easily flag as "inappropriate" in Pullman's novels. There's philosophy and things in there that are pretty complicated and the fights can get quite cruel. Then there's the thing with the knife and the bleeding fingers... I mean... even I was pretty grossed out when I read that stuff.
But I would at the same time say that we shouldn't underestimate children. They understand a lot more than most of us adults would give them credit for and they're quite able to deal with the harsh reality that so many parents try to "protect" them from.
As a ten year old, I loved playing Duke Nukem. It was a lot of fun, but rated R. I knew that what I saw in the game wasn't real and that it was just like the movies on TV, which also weren't real. There wasn't ever any actual problem with me not understanding the boundaries between fiction and reality. When there are children who get influenced by fiction in such a strong way, I don't think the movies should be to blame, it's something their parents need to teach them.
-
I am with EUOL on most of his points, but I have to say that there is definitely some material in this series that I can see parents objecting to. I don't remember as much in the first book, but in the later books, there are some pretty rough scenes.
SPOILERS:
For example, one of the last fights in the third book involves two characters killing one of the main antagonists by strangling him, and then repeatedly smashing him in the head with a rock. There are also some torture scenes throughout the series which, although they aren't that graphic, make it very clear that the person is in pain. The most disturbing thing in the series for me was when one of the main characters was kidnapped and repeatedly given tranquilizers to keep her asleep.
END SPOILERS
Considering the length of the series, I wouldn't say that there is a lot of violence, but Pullman handles it realistically when it does occur. It's not usually graphic, but it's definitely not stylized either.
-
I feel like ranting tonight.
I think Pullman is inapropriate for most children. Right now I've been working on a literacy curriculum for teaching meaning/content to children. One challenge we've had is there is a lot of diversity in what childen understand. So in trying to select appropriate works becomes a challenge because there isn't a lowest-common denominator. So we go for the middle usually.
I do agree that parents ought to be informed about the content of a book before allowing a child to read it. However, I'm surprised with how many parents are competely clueless as to how much their child really understands (I'd estimate about a third of the parents in a given class). This is more often the case with low-performing cildren as opposed to average or above-average children (a typical class will have 3 below average children for every 1 above average children). It's particularly with parents who were above-average themselves but have a child that is below-average.
Course, measuring a child's understanding is problematic and usually requires repeated individualized testing. However, it also gets complicated in that adults bring massive bias to the testing, usually building off of pre-concieved notions of whether the child with score well or not. There's a lot of high-order thinking that has to be tested when analyzing a child's understanding of meaning, however many adults either think low-level thinking skills are actually higher-order skills or do the opposite (rater reliability becomes crucial here).
I guess I'm for censorship in an ideal sense. More like selective censorship, though I doubt it could actually happen. In an ideal world--parents, teacher, librarians, and school administators would get the right books to the right kids and keep out the wrong books from the wrong kids. However, that requires a lot of judgement and like many contemporaries, I find little faith in the judgements of humankind.
My pragmatic side says--censorship happens. Sometimes it is justified and other times it is cruel. But it happens and will continue to happen no matter what administators or politicians do. In public schools we've already censored out swear words, verbal abuse, negative comments, harsh criticism, home economics, prayers, the pledge of allegience, and most fine art forms. (Well, maybe not the swear words)
The sociologist part of me tends to think everytime I hear a writer whine about censorship, it's really a plea for more power. They want the power to decide what people read, and censequently think. It's in their best interest for people to be readers and even more so to be their readers. For a writer, to be censored is probably a humiliating and frustrating thing. It's a big slap in the face to their ideas. Course, if you say something that's going to offend a large portion of the culture to which you belong (like offend the 90% of U.S. citizens that follow a religion, or refere to everyone that doesn't live in a large city as a hick) then you deserve to be censored if purely for being a social idiot. A good writer should have enough social sense to tactfully present their ideas to the masses without getting mobbed or starting a riot. Writers are free to express themselves in this country and free to take responsibility for what they express without the government getting involved. The more they complain about mistreatment the sooner the priveledge of self-expression will be taken away.
-
I was with you all the way there until you said "priveledge of self-expression" in the end. I can see that not all children might be smart enough to understand what they're doing and that not all parents might understand their children well enough. I understand that things some things aren't appropriate for everybody, but saying that somebody who offends people "deserves" censorship is just wrong. The difference between the things we censor at public schools and between the books should be obvious. Nobody forces anybody to read books. In public schools, everybody is forced to be confronted with these things, I say there's a huge difference.
If people are too stupid not to understand that something they or they children read might prove to be offensive, then how on earth is that the authors fault? There are millions of people and a million of ways to offend. Maybe having one of your characters die of cancer offends somebody who's aunt died of it, maybe if you have a black dog in it as a talking animal companion you'll offend somebody who's kid has been bitten to death by a similar (but not talking) black dog.
There's no way to know, and as silly as this might sound to you: Maybe Pullman wasn't trying to offend at all. You can be openly against religion without trying to offend anybody or "stir the pot", as strange as that may seem, just as you can be openly for religion without being a religious fanatics. If we start censoring the voices that go against religion, we might as well go and start censoring the bible for the same reason, for expressing an opinion. (Though I think that's a bad example, because IIRC that's already been done, texts left out and such... anyway, I hope the idea is clear at least.)
-
The sociologist part of me tends to think everytime I hear a writer whine about censorship, it's really a plea for more power. They want the power to decide what people read, and censequently think.
That works more in the favor of the censor. Writers can only make their ideas available. People decide for themselves whether or not they are going to even read those ideas, and then they have the chance to decide what they think. The only way they can decide what people read is if they have interesting ideas. Censors, on the other hand, directly control what people can and can't read/think.
Course, if you say something that's going to offend a large portion of the culture to which you belong (like offend the 90% of U.S. citizens that follow a religion, or refere to everyone that doesn't live in a large city as a hick) then you deserve to be censored if purely for being a social idiot.
If they were social idiots, then they wouldn't have to be censored. Few people, if anyone, would read their books, and they would naturally stop being published. If people do read their books, then they had a point that people thought was worth considering. Even if most people buy the book to denounce it, it still means that people were interested in the issue.
-
I'm I the only one here that feels that unless it's don't by the Government it's not censorship?
I don't think what these people are doing to Pullman is censorship in the least. If I tell someone not to watch X or read Y because of a reason Z is that censorship (even though it's only a recommendation)? If a pareant doesn't want his kid to read X or watch Y is that censorship? If a community decides that something is below their standards and don't want it is that censorship?
I think the art community it too willing to throw that word around to prevent any discussion on their works not being appropriate for some people or in poor taste.
-
I still feel that if you offend enough people you deserve censorship. Even if its just a small group they have the right to censor where they can and to protest. Writers should have to stand by what they write. If someone reads something that they find offensive, accidentally or intentionally, then they have the right to complain and protest and call for it to be censored. The voice who whines the loudest will usually win.
I know Pullman wasn't trying to be offensive with his books. I don't care what his intentions were. I care about the results. So people want his books to be censored even though he meant no harm. That's a risk every author takes in writing words down. Pullman will be okay if enough people agree with him. If not enough people agree with him then I'm okay with him being censored. I like that the issue gets brought up even though in many areas it detracts from more pressing concerns.
As for censorship and power--they do go hand in hand. Our public schools are one big thought police on many levels. To be honest it keeps our society from falling into chaos. As individuals we give power to people to act as our censors. There is no way any one individual could filter through all the ideas out there and make informed decisions. I garantee that a lot of people who vote don't do so on informed decisions, but they do elect people to make decisions for them.
Authors ought to be aware that there are certain powers they shouldn't offend or they will be censored. In the U.S. these powers aren't usually government run (though the government does censor some things). But if a group wants to censor a book in a community or school district--they should be allowed to if the group has enough public support. I don't think people in other parts of the country should be telling them what to do in their communities.
I guess I just have some faith still that the system will work itself out. I work with a lot of people (kids, adults, etc.) who's lives would have been a lot better off had they never gotten certain ideas into their heads. Unfortunately, because of a lack of a just censoring system, they have really messed up lives.
So I don't see a reason for coddling writers. They can say what they like in this country, but they can get censored by many factors--not getting published, living in the wrong place, no advertisement, or just ticking off the wrong group. It's risk they took when they started writing. It may hurt to be censored, but if it happens it happens.
If they were social idiots, then they wouldn't have to be censored. Few people, if anyone, would read their books, and they would naturally stop being published. If people do read their books, then they had a point that people thought was worth considering. Even if most people buy the book to denounce it, it still means that people were interested in the issue.
Believe it or not, most authors write stuff that doesn't offend people. They are socially intelligent enough to know what to write get, how to sell what they write, and still not offend people. Controversy has little to do with writing. It's mostly the resort of the desperate writers who aren't good enough to get published any other way.
-
Am I the only one here that feels that unless it's done by the Government it's not censorship?
Hear hear. To expand on Spriggan's point (Spriggan, forgive me if I have misunderstood you) Unless the threat of violence is used to force people not to read/see/hear a given work of art, it ain't censorship. It's simply people expressing their opinions opposing the work. Which is, of course, them exercising exactly the same rights of free speech the person who created the offending work exercised to begin with.
Artists who cry "censorship" when their work is opposed through speech or other peaceful means are, essentially, insisting that they have a right to free speech but those who disagree with them don't. (The laughable antics of the Dixie Chicks complaining about the massive drop in their sales after their anti-Bush remarks come to mind.)
Now, to Brandon's point, I agree and think it's rather foolish to oppose ideas you don't agree with through the kind of head-in-the-sand tactics the people who sent him that email are using. Insisting that a movie should be boycotted because the ideas contained therein don't agree with yours is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. If your ideas are really so weak that they can't survive single combat in the arena of discussion and debate, your betting on the wrong dog.
Now, here's a question for y'all. I can't quite put my finger on the difference between saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "The Golden Compass" and saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "SAW4" or "Debbie Does Dallas." All my reasons have to do with my moral compass, religious beliefs, etc...which not everyone shares. Yet there are secular laws in place to prevent me from taking my kids to those shows. Is the government preventing certain segments of the population, kids, from seeing certain shows censorship? Is it good? Why? Why not?
-
Insisting that a movie should be boycotted because the ideas contained therein don't agree with yours is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.
Actually, this seems completely appropriate to me. We live in a free market economy. If you disagree with a book, don't buy it. If you disagree with a movie, don't see it. And you are perfectly within your rights to encourage others not to see it as well. This isn't censorship; this is exercising the right of the dollar. If I think a book is crap and tell others not to read it, that isn't censorship. My reasons for hating the book doesn't make my trying to get others not to read it censorship either.
As for not letting children see R-rated movies, that's because the government believes in protecting children from certain things like explicit content. However, they can't stop you from showing your kids these things in your own home. It's the difference between public and private consumption. Here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/
-
Actually, this seems completely appropriate to me. We live in a free market economy. If you disagree with a book, don't buy it. If you disagree with a movie, don't see it. And you are perfectly within your rights to encourage others not to see it as well. This isn't censorship; this is exercising the right of the dollar. If I think a book is crap and tell others not to read it, that isn't censorship. My reasons for hating the book doesn't make my trying to get others not to read it censorship either.
As my statement, which you quoted, makes pretty clear, I didn't say it was censorship. I agree with you, and explained that I agree, that you're within your rights to stick your fingers in your ears and hum. And you are, as I explained, also perfectly within your rights to encourage others to also stick their fingers in their ears and hum. It's just a little pathetic that those who are so averse to the ideas in the movie are so unsure of the quality of their own ideas that they feel they mustn't even listen to the ideas in the movie. It's not wrong, just pathetic. Are they afraid that the ideas in the movie make more sense than theirs do? Are they afraid that they're so virally compelling that they or their children will be unable to resist them?
As for not letting children see R-rated movies, that's because the government believes in protecting children from certain things like explicit content. However, they can't stop you from showing your kids these things in your own home. It's the difference between public and private consumption. Here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/
Yes, when I referred to the secular laws against taking kids to "those" films, I was, in fact, talking about the government.
So is it censorhip? Is it appropriate? (I think it is.) Why? What's the difference between censoring explicit sexual content or graphic violence and censoring certain ideas, like the brand of atheism in "The Golden Compass"?
-
I do believe that something must be enforced to count as censorship, but I don't believe that it has to be enforced with the threat of violence. A librarian refusing to stock certain books in the 50s, when those books were completely unavailable through other means, was censorship in every sense, because it was one person choosing and enforcing what other people could and couldn't read. The fact that they didn't do it with a gun doesn't mean it's not censorship.
That kind of thing is almost impossible today, because information is so freely available.
-
Fell: I quibble.
Quibble 1
If the book being out of the library did, in fact, make it "completely unavailable" then the librarians actions were, in fact, backed up by the threat of violence. Since forcing the librarian to change her actions would be illegal, the law protected her actions. And, as we all know, the law only carries force because of, ultimately, the threat of violence.
Quibble 2
My second quibble is that, even in the 50s, the library was not the only source for the books in question. And as long as it was perfectly legal for private citizens to obtain the book on their own, it wasn't enforced censorship. It was simply a librarian abusing her position to make it harder to get the book. And to prevent that paradigm you'd have to start legislating what a librarian can and cannot request for her library. Nobody wants that. It would be far simpler, if the town in question wanted the book badly enough, to simply replace the librarian.
Of course, if the local government resisted her replacement with the power of the law, then, again, we're back to the threat of violence.
-
Well if you're going to define enforcement as being inherently founded, however remotely, on violence, then yes, all censorship is enforced by violence. Well done.
-
Now, here's a question for y'all. I can't quite put my finger on the difference between saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "The Golden Compass" and saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "SAW4" or "Debbie Does Dallas."
I actually was going to use this against EUOL when he was making this Pullman argument against my mother (saying that she should have an open mind and can't judge it unless she's seen it), I don't need to see a porn movie to know I don't want to see it, same with torture porn. I know I don't want to see that, same with something that's anti-religious.
I don't give a rat's butt if you see it, that's your choice, but don't tell me that I should try before I decided if I don't like something. That's bull, and everyone knows it. Though I probably will see Golden Compass, I know the first book isn't that anti-religious and I don't have any problem with seeing something that was written by someone who thinks differently then me--which is good because then I would never watch any movies ever.
-
I do believe that something must be enforced to count as censorship, but I don't believe that it has to be enforced with the threat of violence. A librarian refusing to stock certain books in the 50s, when those books were completely unavailable through other means, was censorship in every sense, because it was one person choosing and enforcing what other people could and couldn't read. The fact that they didn't do it with a gun doesn't mean it's not censorship.
That kind of thing is almost impossible today, because information is so freely available.
What if I as a bookseller refused to stock a book because I don't agree with the content inside? Is that censorship?
A librarian doing that could be since she's a government employee, but what if she refused to stalk a porn book or (as actually happened) that book Madonna made that she was nothing but nude in? And even if that is censorship why is it acceptable to do so (since I know most here will agree that those things should be in a library).
The problem with censorship, and why I really don't like to argue as much as others on this (I just want to know what people consider censorship) is because it's such an subjective thing and no two people will ever really agree on it.
-
I would say, Sprig, that a bookseller refusing to stock a book based on content is a form of censorship. Deseret Book refusing to carry Anita Stansfield because her book portrays an adulterous relationship is censorship. Larry Miller refusing to carry Brokeback Mountain in his theaters because it's about gay men is censorship. Because of the world and age we live in these particular forms of censorship did not really affect us, because they were very narrow and we have plenty of other outlets to get this media if we wanted it. But "censored" does not mean "eradicated from existence." Just because you can obtain the media by other means does not change the fact that Deseret Book and Larry Miller censored them.
-
Yes, all enforcement is based on the threat of violence, neither by a cavalier definition on my part nor all that remotely. Since the enforcer has to answer the question, "How are you going to stop me?" it's unavoidable. Next time a cop tries to stop you for speeding, try just ignoring him. You'll see that it gets quite violent, very quickly.
If we're going to define censorship as "anyone choosing not to disseminate a piece of artwork for any reason" like Larry Miller and Brokeback Mountain or Deseret Book and Anita Stansfield in your example, then you and I are censors too for we are not disseminating those works either.
Seems to me that censorship, in order to have any useful meaning, has to describe a person or people forcing other people not to see something. Attaching penalties to possession of the offending work, destroying all copies of the offending work, etc... In your two examples, the guilty parties are merely deciding not to promote something. It's not censorship, it's free will. Theirs.
-
I don't see a librarian refusing to stock a book as censorship or school saying that a certain book shouldn't be taught. It may be close-minded of those people, but they have a right to be close minded.
For example, I work with some people from time-to-time he feel that they are unjustly censored becaused the government placed them into a correctional facility for view certain media materials. Their reading/viewing material was all child pornography.
I'm okay that the government forcefully censors child pornography. I'm okay with people who view it, distribute it, and make it being horribly punished. Some I wish were punished more severely. I'm fine with my mind being closed to the ideas of child pornography. (To be more open-minded, some of the clients I work with are wonderful people, but would be more wonderful if they were dead.)
In actuality, closing our minds to certain ideas is how people keep their sanity. I would love it if more people were open to understanding more about the plight of the poor in the U.S., AIDS and war in Africa, the treatment of people with mental illnesses, the U.S. health care system, child and domestic abuse, etc.
Honestly, a lot of people I know (friends, co-workers, family) can't handle understanding what it going on. If we were open to understanding everything that happening and all the ideas that are out there, we'd all be wither delusional or disfunctionally depressed. Most people, at their core, would rather be happy than smart or well-informed. So we pick and choose what topics we can handle. I see too many authors out there that try to force their ideas on people, which is just abusive, then scream censorship when people fight back. The censorship counter-attack is just getting old--they should stand up for their ideas some other way.
So I'm okay with peope sticking their heads in the sands. I'm okay with an author not being read. I'm okay with people encouraging others to stick their heads in the sands. People have agency to pull out their heads and the right to face the consequences.
As for people who view things that the government (or a school, community, or religious organization) forceful says they shouldn't view, I feel that organization should be free to use whatever punishments are within their authority. The government can through you in jail; school can suspend, give detention, or expell; communities can ask you to move or stay under the radar; churches can ask you leave the congragation. If you feel the cost of reading the book is worth it, then you're welcome to it.
-
Librarians debate the censorship question all the time, now, not just in the 50s. Usually, though, they're on the side of free access (let the user decide whether they want to read it, not the librarian) because they see themselves as simply information intermediaries.
I also wouldn't dream to use the word "abusive" if an author writes a book that expresses a viewpoint I didn't agree with. I don't have to read the book, and just because I didn't want to read it doesn't mean others shouldn't have that freedom. That's just an odd description to use.
I posted about this on my own blog today, more related to Mormons in fantasy and children's lit, but I've gotten some interesting comments, if anybody's interested in reading the conversation (http://slwhitman.livejournal.com/78603.html).
-
I don't need to see a porn movie to know I don't want to see it, same with torture porn. I know I don't want to see that, same with something that's anti-religious.
See, this is the question I'm interested in teasing apart.
I am totally OK with the guvmint censoring torture porn and all it's ilk. I'm not OK with the guvmint censoring atheist movies or mormon movies or communist movies or jewish movies or marxist movies or nazi movies , etc...
There's a line there.
What defines it? Why is censoring porn to keep kids from seeing it different from censoring "The Golden Compass" to keep kids from seeing it? Is keeping porn from kids merely a moral standard most of us happen to share, or is there some deeper principle involved? Is there a line of secular reasoning that provides for the one but not the other?
Is it because we're physically wired to react to porn but not to intellectual ideas?
How about violence then? Violence needs to be censored from kids too. Are we physically wired in some way that watching violence has a detrimental effect on par with watching porn?
-
I would say, Sprig, that a bookseller refusing to stock a book based on content is a form of censorship. Deseret Book refusing to carry Anita Stansfield because her book portrays an adulterous relationship is censorship. Larry Miller refusing to carry Brokeback Mountain in his theaters because it's about gay men is censorship. Because of the world and age we live in these particular forms of censorship did not really affect us, because they were very narrow and we have plenty of other outlets to get this media if we wanted it. But "censored" does not mean "eradicated from existence." Just because you can obtain the media by other means does not change the fact that Deseret Book and Larry Miller censored them.
I would have to completely disagree with you and agree with Skar. I can't believe that something someone does from free will as censoring, which is why I believe for something to actually be censored the government needs to be behind it, like network censors, the network knows there will be punishment if they don't follow the FCC's rules. There's no punishment for Larry Miller deciding to show BrokeBack at his theaters so how is not showing them censorship? That doesn't make any sense to me, even if you're usage of the term is more accurate from a dictionary stance.
(on a funny note my brower spell checker wants to replace FCC with the F*Bomb, irony no?)
-
Ok, this confluence of real life and forum blatherings is just too good not to point out.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2190410
Squee!
-
I now have the awful image in my head of Skar going "Squee."
I also want to say that I don't feel that by choosing not to read or see something means I'm sticking my head in the sand. The only reason that is an issue at all with this movie is because it is controversial. If it weren't controversial, no one would care if I was seeing it or not. There are thousands of movies and books that I choose not to read, mostly out of time constraints, but also because of content. No one ever accused me of sticking my head in the sand because I didn't want to read those. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I have to expose myself to everything that's out there.
Also, I don't agree that a library or bookstore choosing not to carry an item counts as censorship. After all, they can't carry everything (space and budget prohibits), so they are always going to be "censoring" to a certain extent. The librarians I know choose books that they think will appeal to their patrons. There will always be a certain amount of bias involved, because they're only human. I don't think that's censorship either. Publishers only publish certain books, but does that mean they're censoring? They aren't stopping other people from publishing those books and they aren't stopping anyone from reading those books.
-
Sigyn, you're not someone I picture when I think of heads in the sand, at all. Yet, I said it. My apologies, I didn't mean you.
There are people who take the time to understand an idea, give it honest thought, and then choose not to espouse it or bother entertaining it anymore. Then there are people who hear the word "Atheism" and stick their fingers in their ears lest they understand the concept and burn out their brains. They're the ones I was thinking of as having their heads in the sand.
I imagine they are also the ones who will be picketing the movie theaters on the strength of a mass email.
-
I was not suggesting that failing to stock a book in your bookstore because you don't have room, or because you don't like the genre, or because you think other books will sell better, is censorship. I'm suggesting that failing to stock it because you object to its ideology and don't want anyone to read it is censorship.
Also, I'm totally not getting the "free will" argument: you're saying that it's okay for a bookstore to make material unavailable because they're doing it of their own free will, and that means its not censorship? So when a government makes the same decision, they're somehow not doing it of their own free will? I could understand if you were talking about the audience's free will, because taking away an audience's free will is one of the key points of censorship, but to point to the distributor's free will as a counter-argument against censorship makes no sense to me at all. If I ran around burning copies of Huckleberry Finn I'd be doing so of my own free will, but that doesn't make my actions any more defensible. It makes them less defensible, if anything.
-
Distributors do it all the time Fell. Editors reject books because they don't like the ideas in them. Distributors are not required to obey the whims of the masses. Distributors are not required to give the best possible service to their customers. They often do because there are consequences involved in not doing so, but they don't have to. They have agency and I don't feel that the government or whiny authors should step in to decide for them what they will and will not distribute.
If authors find that to be censorship, well tough. What they really need to do is get a better reason why people should listen to their ideas.
-
I was not suggesting that failing to stock a book in your bookstore because you don't have room, or because you don't like the genre, or because you think other books will sell better, is censorship. I'm suggesting that failing to stock it because you object to its ideology and don't want anyone to read it is censorship.
You make an important distinction. However, making censorship hinge on what's going on in the guilty party's head (which is inherently unknowable for the rest of us) rather than their actual impact on the availability of the book allows every crappy writer to scream censorship when his book is rejected by the publishers. Or the man with no money outside the movie theater to scream censorship over the theatre's unwillingness to give him a ticket. Less than useful.
Also, I'm totally not getting the "free will" argument: you're saying that it's okay for a bookstore to make material unavailable because they're doing it of their own free will, and that means its not censorship? So when a government makes the same decision, they're somehow not doing it of their own free will? I could understand if you were talking about the audience's free will, because taking away an audience's free will is one of the key points of censorship, but to point to the distributor's free will as a counter-argument against censorship makes no sense to me at all. If I ran around burning copies of Huckleberry Finn I'd be doing so of my own free will, but that doesn't make my actions any more defensible. It makes them less defensible, if anything.
The free will argument comes down to this:
Larry Miller choosing not to show Brokeback Mountain is not impinging on anyone's free will. He is only exercising his own. He may have made it harder to see the movie since he happens to run quite a few movie theaters, but if anyone chose to make their own arrangements to see the film, exercising their free will on the matter, he'd have nothing to say and nothing he could do about it.
The government ruling that no one may see the movie is impinging on the citizen's free will. Should the citizen make their own arrangements they would be penalized, which brings us back to the threat of violence. The same applies to the censor who destroys every copy of a book. They have physically prevented others from reading it. This is censorship.
-
I don't feel that the government or whiny authors should step in to decide for them what they will and will not distribute.
Agreed, but that has no bearing on the definition of censorship, only on the response to censorship, which thus far I have carefully avoided discussing.
...making censorship hinge on what's going on in the guilty party's head (which is inherently unknowable for the rest of us) rather than their actual impact on the availability of the book allows every crappy writer to scream censorship when his book is rejected by the publishers.
Yes it does, and it should. I would rather live in a world where crappy writers can rant about censorship than a world where good writers are oppressed by it. Not that you're suggesting anything different, and I know you're not; I'm just saying.
Or the man with no money outside the movie theater to scream censorship over the theatre's unwillingness to give him a ticket.
I did not mean to suggest that capitalism is a form of censorship, though it's an intriguing argument.
Larry Miller choosing not to show Brokeback Mountain is not impinging on anyone's free will. He is only exercising his own. He may have made it harder to see the movie since he happens to run quite a few movie theaters, but if anyone chose to make their own arrangements to see the film, exercising their free will on the matter, he'd have nothing to say and nothing he could do about it.
That doesn't mean it's not censorship, it just means it's not effective censorship. I can go through my children's bookshelf and black out all the words I don't like, and that would be censorship; the fact that they can just read a non-censored book somewhere else does not change the fact that I have censored a book.
In the end, Skar, I think this comes down to a disagreement in terms and scale. I happen to believe that censorship happens constantly, in many forms, some of them more acceptable than others. You apparently believe that censorship exists only in a pure Orwellian sense--an all-or-nothing kind of censorship that is either totalitarian or not really censorship at all. That's fine, as long as we acknowledge that we're talking about two different definitions of the same thing. I will say this, however: my kind of censorship scares me a hell of a lot more than yours does, because it creeps up on us by degrees and we are, in large part, complicit in our own oppression. By the time we've reached your definition of censorship it's pretty much too late, because we already live in a totalitarian state. By definition of censorship is happening right now, and will eventually lead to that worst-case scenario, which is why it's important to recognize it for what it is and do something about it.
That makes me sound a lot more like a reactionary lunatic that I wanted it to, but there you go. Fight the power.
-
But censorship is not a bad thing.
It's really neither good or bad. It's just the judgements of those impacted by it that decide if it is good or bad on an individual bases. Giving it a blanket application of being bad for all people or good for all people is what's dangerous.
IMO, on an individual basis people should have the right to censor. Even on a larger scale, groups of people shoud have the right to censor. Ideas are always warring with each other. Ideas are not harmless little things. Ideas are what drive policy and policy impacts people greatly. Some ideas have to be censored so that other ideas can flourish.
Censorship should follow a heirarchy: Individuals can censor a lot, groups a little less, then communities a little less than that, States and the Federal government can censor very little.
-
Fell-
Yeah, we've got different definitions of censorship. I only want to call enforced censorship "censorship" and you'd like to call any instance of one person making it harder for another person to view a work "censorship" on a sliding scale, with enforced censorship on one end and a literary snob tending not to order SF books for her library on the other. I'm not saying your definition is invalid, just trying to define it for the sake of the discussion. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)
I do, however, have a problem with lumping my brand of enforced "censorship" in with all the other un-enforced instances you want to include in the term. The enforcement, in my mind, is an important line, since that's when one person starts imposing their will on another.
The problem is that in order to stop censorship, (which, I think we can agree, is usually the goal) one entity must impose its will on another, just like enforcing censorship. It could take many forms, perhaps insisting that Larry Miller show Brokeback Mountain in his theaters his wishes be damned, or a government decree that all people must read a certain book.
Stopping censorship on any level of your sliding scale involves imposing our will on other people, which is exactly the same thing we object to with censorship. What makes one instance of forcing your will on another better than the other?
I'm only OK with imposing my will on others when they're trying to do the same to me. And only then for long enough to make them stop.
What scares me is the idea that people should be allowed to decree what Larry Miller must show in his theaters in the name of resisting censorship. That kind of thing also creeps up on you, and in today's social and political climate it's far more likely than old school censorship.
42-
I agree with you. Not all censorship is a bad. The word itself carries a lot of emotional baggage which colors it evil but making it illegal for children to be shown porn is nothing if not censorship and nothing if not good.
-
Censorship should follow a heirarchy: Individuals can censor a lot, groups a little less, then communities a little less than that, States and the Federal government can censor very little.
I can agree with that wholeheartedly.
And Skar: I seem to remember having a very similar discussion last summer about the definition of terrorism: my definition was much more inclusive than yours, and your definition was much more brutal. Interesting.
-
We use four or so different printing companies to print our books. Some of them sometimes refuse to print some of our books if they don't like the content, and we have to go to one of the other companies. (Just another example for y'all.)
-
I dont' think there's any real disagreement here, and I think the discussion would be much more worthwhile if we agreed to them by different terms. I think, that while "censorship" is a loaded term, it serves us better to be more inclusive. Ie, if I tell you to shut up, I'm attempting to censor you. Now, if you're talking about killing all the blacks and trying to teach my children this is the right thing to do, that's not a bad sort of censorship.
If, however, I'm a police agent and you're merely stating your opinion on something on the sidewalk, suddenly we have enforced censorship, of an inappropriate sort.
I think I would, for ease of use, call what skar is discussing "enforced censorship" and what Fell is talking about "censorship." And acknowledge that unless there is a driving imperative for public safety, that enforced censorship is bad, while standard censorship can be either.
-
Nicely stated, SE.
Since pulling the Pullman books off library shelves would cross into enforced censorhip, I guess the question would now be:
Does exposing children to a series of books that espouses atheistic ideas constitute a threat to public safety?
I can see an argument to be made for both sides of that one.
- If we posit that God will punish us as a nation if we become unrighteous and that kids may choose atheism because of these books, then I think the wrath of God would constitute a threat to public safety. (Locust storms, earthquakes, etc...)
- Or, if we posit that atheism is inherently wrong, then surely Pullman's ideas will be defeated in children's minds by those ideas we, their parents, expose them to which contradict Atheism.
Of course, we're talking public libraries and schools so we have to look at just how close we are to having books with religious ideas we do agree with censored away in the name of separation of church and state. Surely censoring away Pullman's books would open the door to censoring away religious books as well.
-
One of the commenters on my blog thread on this topic put the books in a perspective that I find I prefer to look at them: This is a fantasy world of parallel worlds. What if, in this world, Lucifer won the War in Heaven and became the "Authority," the being in this world that set itself up as God? (Note that the overall message of this trilogy is that agency is essential, and I think that is a principle few would disagree with.) Then overthrowing this "Authority" would be essential for life to be worth living. To quote the commenter (http://slwhitman.livejournal.com/78603.html), "If, on the other hand, [my kids] think that the God Pullman describes is the God they learn about at church, then I need to do a much better job at teaching them who God is."
There are ways of looking at Pullman's work that doesn't include deciding that it's the worst kind of literature ever and that no kid should be exposed to it. And then perhaps enforced censorship could be pulled out of the discussion.
-
Oh, I entirely agree. Pullman's "God" is, essentially, a straw man. I never felt that his books should be yanked from the libraries. But, apparently, the author of the email Brandon got does.
Let's make some signs and go picket the picketers! Who's with me?
-
EUOL made it into the local newspaper with his article.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7591548?source=rss
-
Eek! The Trib! Not the Trib!
-
The Pulman series is a very interesting one. I don't think it should be censored, just that people should know what they are getting into when they read it. Honestly, it is fiction and while the atheist dogma is preached rather loudly in the second and third books, there are a lot of really neat ideas buried in there.
I think that there-in lies the true tragedy of the books. Not that they are atheist in nature but that the true story gets lost in the self-righteous preaching of atheism. Many times it comes off as forced and random. For example, *spoilers*
the mass of spirits in the underworld who are there together with their family, friends and loved ones, would rather cease to exist, than live with each other. and the end of the series in the forest with Lyra, what the author wanted you to think happen, could not have happened because it went against the characters' personality. Also the death of the strawman god was just kind of random, had no energy behind it.
* end spoilers*
The first book had no offensive things happen. The second didn't REALLY until the very end. The third was full blown on the rebellion against god idea though. His world is very intriguing and well done, I think he just got side tracked with his own personal crusade and I think the quality of the book suffered for it.
Wow, talk about side tracked. I think I just got side tracked.
Censorship. Right. No, we should not censor it from the populace as a whole just for its atheist content. We should understand the content though and explain to the children. My sister ( we are mormons) read this when she was around 12 I think(before anyone really knew about it in the Christian community) and she came to my mother with questions about it and my mother basically told her. "Look, the god they present in that book, isn't really God." In other words, it is just fiction. I think that is how it should be really. The books don't tell you not to believe in God. They posit a fictional universe where Free Agency is being undermined and the resultant rebellion against Tyranny. This is not the case of the real world. I am sorry if Mr Pullman misunderstands God's nature enough to equate Him with a tyrant, but seeing how certain religions act, I can understand where Pullman might have got the idea.
Free Agency is the theme, and as a theme is actually a pretty good one. I don't agree with his development of the story (I read it about 2 years ago) but the non preachy parts and very well written and marvolously evoccative.
So, yeah. Censor not, think, judge, and make informed decisions. I agree definitely that many subjects are not for children but it is up to the individual parent to make that decision. It would help if there were ratings on books like on movies. (I myself have had to put down a number of books that I couldn't stomache) Those ratings would help everyone make informed decisions. Protecting children is a good idea. Restricting the flow of information is generally tricky and can lead to problems down the road. I do think that a pivately owned theatre or bookstore has the right to choose what to offer in terms of entertainment. That is their perogative.
Anyway...I've typed too much and probably tangled up my argument in so many knots that it is useless.... :D
-
Silly rabbits, censorship is not for kids (or anybody else). When you censor, you are saying "reality is too harsh, let's sugar-coat life by making the bad parts disappear."
Reality IS harsh. Deal with it. Contrary to popular belief, your kids won't die if they see a slit throat or a poster that says "F**k Jesus".
We descended from cave people. I hear they used to smash little animals with their bare hands and consume the flesh raw (before the discovery of fire).
Reality is harsh. Suck it up, marshmallows.
-
I can see that ratlord is not going to earn friends very quickly on this forum
believe it or not, there are people who bridle at the sentiment you expressed with your inelegantly censored explitive.
That's not about censorship, it's about consideration for the feelings of those around you. You know, acting like a civilized human.
Also, I'm not very sure what smashing little animals has to do with either of the things you said. If you want to present an argument against censorship, perhaps you should try using a little bit of this logic that you've touted elsewhere.
-
The censored j-man poster was sarcasm.
My arguement is simply that humans didn't conquer the food chain by being nice. We are brutal. I think people should stop romanticizing mankind and look at the facts: sex and violence are major parts of who we are. When you use censorship or claim divinity created us, you are disrespecting everyone with a lie.
I don't consider 'civilized' an honorary term, so I tend not to act "like a civilized human". Folks might perceive me as a bit rough around the edges, but that's on them.
-
The censored j-man poster was sarcasm.
if anything, that makes it more offensive.
see, you're still lacking logic, there. The fact that sex and violence are part of us doesn't make it follow that a) there's no divinity, b) that they should be out in front of everyone, c) that they shouldn't be controlled.
You might want to consider not hanging out with people if you don't want to have any consideration for their feelings. Seriously. Consider it a warning, if you want to deliberately throw things out there that will piss people off, I will start coming down hard on you.
That doesn't mean not to express your feelings. Simply to realize that there is benefit to being just a little sensitive to what other people might feel, and to express yourself in a way that doesn't deliberately offend.
But then, it sounds like you've rationalized away any personal responsibility enough that you honestly think you needn't have any, so maybe you won't understand what I'm saying here.
-
I actually find RatLord's comments to be more amusing than offensive. It's always funny to watch someone try and impress strangers with their badassery on an internet message board.
*audience squeals "ooh, ooh, I hope I never meet ratlord in a dark alley! I'd be really afraid! He must be so tough, look at what he wrote on the internet!" squeal!
LOL
-
*blows kisses to the audience* "Thank you, thank you. You're too kind".
But seriously:
You're going to start coming down hard on me? I'm not even sure what that means. If it means ban me, I certainly don't want that to happen, but if you were to "start coming" that implies you would begin a series of something, in which case I wouldn't be banned because I would have to be a member of the forum (because we all know nobody wants to visit a site they're banned from) to actually see your hard-comings-down-on-me. So it doesn't sound like banning me and coming down hard on me are related. What would you do then? Insult me?
Once again, I'll attempt to explain myself: I don't mean to offend anyone. Yes, my ideals tend to be misanthropic, but if you get offended at what I'm saying that's your fault, not mine. I'm simply expressing my views the same as everyone else around here. I think the only way to disrespect someone is to lie to or about them, though I'm not against that either (a discussion for Ratlord's Pot of Volatile Opionions). Anyway, I don't feel like I have disrespected anyone on the forum because I have been honest in all my posts so far.
I encourage you to adopt Skar's approach. Viewing my posts as some loser's petty vanity might make them seem less offensive. If you already do see my posts that way, then good for you. But can't you be a bit more cheery about it? The main reason I visit this site is for the goofiness. I live to laugh. Everyone should. :)
-
if you get offended at what I'm saying that's your fault, not mine. I'm simply expressing my views the same as everyone else around here...I think the only way to disrespect someone is to lie to or about them
My issue is with that statement. It's not true. You can be insulting without lying. Respect involves much more than honesty. You are *not* simply expressing your views. You're doing so in a way that is deliberately contentious and aggressive. That is not respectful.
What I am asking is that you would please stop trying to excuse yourself and start trying to express your views, whatever they be in a way that does not imply that people are idiots if they deviate the slightest from your point of view. i know plenty of atheists, I know many aggressive atheists, in fact, who are not so self-absorbed that they think they should present their views in the most inconsiderate manner they can think of.
So, in short, yes, I will start talking about banning you if you don't get off your trip that you can do no wrong and start being respectful of the views of others around you.
I'm glad Skar has taken it more light hearted than me, but I'm certain that, allowed to continue, it's going to irritate a lot more people than are enlightened by what you think is lightheartedness. What you're doing is inappropriate, disrespectful, and, quite frankly, infantile. Please shape up.
-
if you get offended at what I'm saying that's your fault, not mine. I'm simply expressing my views the same as everyone else around here...I think the only way to disrespect someone is to lie to or about them
My issue is with that statement. It's not true. You can be insulting without lying. Respect involves much more than honesty.
Well put, SE. Respect isn't merely a matter of truth or untruth. How respectful is it, say, for a group of teenagers to sit in the back of a theater and then swear and talk loudly through the whole thing? No lies, but certainly no respect for the other movie goers. I could give more extreme examples, but I think this makes the point.
What bothers me most is the bully mentality in your posts, Ratlord. The taunting overtones are hard to miss. Instead of trying to understand others or their viewpoints, you " live to laugh" at them. Why do you feel the need to taunt SE about what he may or may not do based on your behavior--especially when he is one of the people who started this site in the first place? He has the forums' best interest in mind. Yet your reaction sounds so very much like a bully who stands there asking, "Whatcha gonna do about it, huh, huh?" Not very respectful, if you ask me.
-
Relax, guys. The other day I had an epiphany: yes, the world is full of evil things like oppression and religion, but there is very little I can due to change the corrupt nature of life.
So here's my fresh tact: From now on, bad things don't exist. In Ratlord12's new reality, everything is perfect. If it's evil, it doesn't exist in my book. I'll be spending the rest of my days in ignorant bliss. Logic is subjective.
I haven't decided what to name this philosophy yet, but maybe somebody else invented it before I did. Maybe 'subjectivism' or 'nonreflectivism'.
-
see, that's the kind of back handed comment that is rude. Seriously, you should probably shut up now. I *am* and admin and I am *not* amused by your snarkiness on this point. Decide to be respectful, or decide to not participate.
-
Wow. This thread is a lot to take in. To respond to the original topic of the thread, I have mixed feelings on this issue.
First, as was stated earlier in the thread, I don't have to see a certain type of movie to know that it isn't something I want to see, or that I want my kids to see. But, if asked by my kids, or others, about this decision I do not have to be emotionally vested, I can calmly and rationally explain my point of view on it. For instance, I don't watch horror movies because they give me nightmares, and choose not to allow my kids to watch them because at their ages, 7 and 4 years old, I don't think that they can fully understand that what they are seeing isn't real on some level. I am not telling you you can't allow your children to watch them, just that you can't allow MY children to watch them. I am also not telling you that you don't have a right to enjoy them, just that I don't. In this case, meaning as it pertains to The Golden Compass, it is a matter of religious preference, and that is also your choice. But, please don't presume to tell me what my choice should be, just as I won't tell you what yours should be.
Secondly, I think censorship occurs every day, that is a fact. Whether it is government, or otherwise, it is censorship if you keep someone from seeing, reading, or hearing a certain kind of literature, movie, or argument. That being said, I believe that censorship is not inherently evil. Parents who decide not to allow children to see a certain movie, read a certain book, or listen to certain types of talk shows or music, are within their rights as parents to choose what their child reads, sees or hears. I would hope as the child grows what the parent is tolerant of grows as well, but that again, is their choice. They should be prepared to answer for it in a way a little bit more logical than simply, "Because I said so." I do not think that a publisher refusing to publish a book is necessarily a form of censorship, they do have a business to run after all. I do think that a mass picketing of the author and anyone trying to sell, read, or otherwise enjoy the printed works is an attempted form of "public" censorship. This may not keep me from getting said book, but it is an attempt by a group of people to keep me from getting it. And really, who do they think they are to be my moral compass? As an adult, I have a right to my opinions, even if they are different than yours, and I have a right to enjoy a book, movie, or any other form of entertainment, whether you think I should or not. *You* doesn't mean anyone on this forum, by the way.
Hopefully, this isn't a precursor to enforced reading by the government, or enforced censorship by the government. Free speech doesn't mean I HAVE to read what you write, or listen to what you say, but I should have the CHOICE.
I don't know if that made much sense, but it was the best way I could think of to express it.
-
Huh, well, ah, how to descibe my own views and takes on things without sounding like an uneducated prawn next to everyone else's stimulating and articulating comments...
I don't believe the His Dark Materials trilogy is child friendly- I really have to wonder about the author when I read his series, the underage drinking, smoking, the protaginist's warped attraction to father figures and murderers? I found it rather distasteful and disappointing myself even though I'm a flexible minded functioning aethiest*.
(*who is still spiritual, believes that things like god/s and past lives may exist but mainly just follows ideals like zen and keeing karma good)
I think Pullman's own creator and church themes completly overwhelmed the trilogy. Even if the themes had been completely pro-god or pro-church (which wouldn't have bothered me either way but might have appeased more people) I think they occupied a completly disproportionate amount of words in the novel when you consider how his literary focus could (possibly) have been better spent.
All in all, my whole experience reading the trilogy, while it did have some interesting points, was a general feeling left in the wake of "What the h---?*" (*I promise you, those bleeps say "eck"~!)
I mean, it was just very frustrating to me the way the books seemed to hop from point-to-point like a flea on little blood-borne-crack or whatever, erratically zig-zagging about from one fantastical course of action to the next testosterone filled leap.
There really is no "putting things into perspective" in terms of giving, say, Asriel a backstory as to why he is suddenly able to take on someone with a Diety-ic like army.
How did he get his prince-level wealth way back when? Did he general holy orders of soldiers, thereby leaving him with fantastical tactical experience and also insight into the heart of bonafide spiritualness or whatever? What is it that drives him to go so far over the top anarchist-style and where did he manage to pick up the practical know-how to go about demi-god toppling anyway?
I assume there wasn't a course on that, as there seemed to be only one deity-like-figure so he could have hardly had practice. There's not even a logical explanation provided, like, he slew his way through a long line of the angels throughout some period of time, a la, woking his way up to the top by smiting the big-bosses of each level. - Not that people need to always work their way up from the bottom, but it might've been a bit more logical that he, maybe, started figting from a level of a *few* pegs from the top, maybe?
There are just many points where things happen, or a character does something, or is in a situation and there seems to be no logical explanation of why they act or respond to something in a certain way.
It's like Pullman was so busy trying to march out these characters into this gradoise play and forgetting in his haste to include the basic character structuring tidbit here and there, that if he'd slipped in could maybe have better smoothed through the major action-point zig-zags.
At the end of the day I just wouldn't recommend this series to children anyway because there are just so many other books out there that would be not only a little less ("I have a daddy complex and like murderers too *especially*, because my absentee-uncle-cum-absentee-father is a jerk and acts in unexplainable ways...") but also just more lovingly sculpted, with more fleshed out characters.
Sorry if I caused any raised eyebrows or pluffed up feathers, tried to keep it clean and coherently typo-free.
Have a nice day~! :-* And may you all get into even more intellectually satisfying discussions! :D
-
I'll preface my post with this: I am an atheist. I am not even a "spiritual" atheist, as friend White is. Largely, I simply don't understand the concept of religion, beyond that it offers hope. The trappings included, as well as the certain moral dogmas involved are really beyond my comprehension. However, I believe that people will follow a religion that closely matches their moral compass, rather than following a religion first, without forming a moral compass of their own. In this, I can see why someone would choose a specific religion over another, but not as to why to worship in the first place.
I mention these things not to spur a religious debate - they often turn ugly, and while I may not understand why you follow your beliefs, I certainly respect them, and don't wish to demean the discussion by arguing over who is right about the existence of a Supreme Being. I was raised religious, so I doubt I will be converted by any arguments made, and by the same token, I doubt anything I say would cause you to turn to an atheistic viewpoint. - but rather to let you understand where my perspective comes from.
Now, for the issue at hand, I certainly believe that parents should be informed about the content of what their children might watch. It is a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit - regardless of whether or not others agree with their parenting decisions (Within reason, of course. Abuse, etc, is obviously not something that falls under the discretion of parenthood).
However, I disagree highly with calls to remove the books from library shelves, etc. With libraries in specific - I am a tax paying member of society, and as such it is a resource available to myself, as well as practicing members of various religions. As an atheist, I do not feel books containing quasi-atheistic ideals (And I would argue that the "theology" that Pullman portrays is a hyperbolic caricature of real atheism) are fit to be removed. If I had children, I would not feel that that would be a sufficient reason for them to have a chance to pick up the books and read them while browsing. Municipal libraries are a government entity, and as such, should not exclude content because of religious context. The separation of church and state exists for many reasons (Including protecting the Church from the Government, which has shown itself to not exactly be a stable and well performing force over the past decade!), and is quite applicable when dealing with a government funded library.
Part of it is a personal opinion, as well. I believe that most children who will read books for entertainment are the more intelligent of the crop, and are likely able to make informed decisions for themselves long before we believe them to be capable of doing so. I do not believe that any child secure in their faith is going to be converting to atheism after reading a fantasy novel. If reading a story, even a well written one, is enough to cause the conversion, than undoubtedly other factors could easily sway them as well, ones that they are likely exposed to on a daily basis. I myself turned from Christianity to Atheism during junior high, while attending a humanities class. The teacher was very devout, and never pushed any students towards atheism, but our studies were heavily focused on religion, both today and in ancient culture. I came to a personal conclusion that, fundamentally, Christianity is no different than the worship of Ra, Zeus, or Quetzacolt. This conclusion was not the result of the teacher pushing us in that direction, or some novel espousing atheism. It was made based on opinions I had formed from many sources over several years. I would highly suggest that we give more credit to the children that would be reading these books in the first place - I would argue that they are not going to change faith based on a fantasy novel.
I also disagree with the call to remove it from book store shelves. By all means, call for a boycott of the book, refuse to buy it, etc - but also be courteous and realize that other people who do now follow the same belief system as you could want to buy the book, and having it removed is an inconvenience to said people. At the age where you would be censoring your child's input, you should be there to buy their books with them. You should know what they're reading, and understand what is in it. Calling for a blanket ban on the book, in my opinion, is shirking your responsibility as a parent, removing yourself from a personal inconvenience directly dealing to raising your child, and then forcing it upon everyone else. We are uninvolved in what beliefs you would like to teach your child, and whatever censoring you would like to place upon the material they read, and as such, it should not become a matter where we have to deal with these issues. If you do not believe that your child should read these books, then it is a matter that you should enforce, rather than trying to have it enforced on everyone.
Ultimately, I just feel that trying to have the book removed from libraries and stores is an extremist reaction to something, and that instead it should be a personal decision: Do you let your child read the books/watch the movie? If not, that is your own prerogative.
-
Amen! ;D