Tag: Censorship

  • Journalism’s Decline & Language’s Future

    Journalism’s Decline & Language’s Future

    Boy oh boy, the internet may be a great leveler, in terms of opening up the world to more voices, but my oh my, how journalistic standards have fallen.

    How many barely literate articles have I tried to wade through in the past week? I don’t know if any of them would have earned a C had they been submitted to any of my high school English teachers. The quality of the movie criticism, similarly, has plummeted. There’s something to be said for pushing past the gatekeepers and making the world a more democratic place, but I have to tell you, I kind of miss the gatekeepers. At least the standards were higher.

    On a related note, I notice an alarming trend, even among publishers (see the recent blowup about editing the works of Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and others, for perceived insensitivity issues, but also to bring the language “current”), to weed out obscure words, or words that have taken on other meanings in contemporary usage (gay and queer, for example). Are we to the point now where it’s felt to be necessary to weed-whack the English language so that even the most brutish among us can be trusted to understand what they are reading? Have people forgotten about the existence of dictionaries?

    In the meantime, “words” like LOL and OMG (and even the heart symbol?) have found their way into the Oxford English Dictionary.
    I wonder if anyone reads – or is capable of reading – Poe or Conan Doyle for pleasure anymore.

    “But, in spite of these things, it was a gay and magnificent revel.”

    ― Edgar Allan Poe, “Masque of the Red Death”

    “‘It was a confession,’ I ejaculated.”

    ― Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Red-Headed League”

    Both bound to draw titters in the classroom. (Will I be misconstrued if I write titters?) But this in itself should be a learning opportunity.

    Unfortunately, everyone is operating in such a climate of fear – fear of over-protective parents, fear of employers guided by zero-tolerance policies designed to head off the next controversy or frivolous lawsuit. Surely, Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo would have a field day with the abuse of “justice.”

    How does anyone learn about anything if, as a society, it becomes the norm for us to obliterate anything that offends us, without a deeper understanding of what it is we are even reading? In winnowing the language down to a few thousand of the most frequently used words we sacrifice nuance and color. Many words may have similar or even the same meanings, but employing them in specific contexts lends richness and savor to well-written prose.

    We should be able to use a word like “queer” without it stirring controversy in certain parts of the country. And at the risk of being accused of “othersidism,” we should also be able to confront what is now considered offensive language in a mature, enlightened manner. The past is the past. Learn from it, and try to do better.

    As someone who cares deeply about literature and “culture,” I am tired of being squeezed between angry mobs on the so-called Left and Right. You want change? Do what you can to contribute to your own culture, in the present, but leave the past the hell alone.

    Also, please write better.

  • Bowdler’s Shadow: Censorship Then and Now

    Bowdler’s Shadow: Censorship Then and Now

    Shakespeare may be for all time. But Thomas Bowdler is for today.

    Bowdler, the self-appointed moral guardian who anticipated the Victorian age – a time when it was understood that legs should always be referred to as “limbs” when in the presence of a lady – saw to it that all of the indelicate bits were excised or altered in the Bard’s plays, when he came to edit “The Family Shakespeare” in 1807. Distressingly, the book was a tremendous success that went through at least 11 printings.

    No more in “Othello” did an old black ram tup a white ewe. Nor did they make the beast with two backs. Heavens!

    All references to sex, violent death, blasphemy, and vulgarity were delicately paraphrased or removed. Bowdler’s crusade to rewrite history was undertaken in the interest of family values.

    In the 20th century, there was a sharp backlash, and Bowdler became a figure of fun. That’s the best lesson he could impart. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “Bowdlerise” (in American English spelled with a “z”) as “To expurgate a book or writing, by omitting or modifying words or passages considered indelicate or offensive; to castrate.”

    His name has become synonymous with misguided censorship. Libraries and booklovers heap scorn on Bowdler’s memory by celebrating “Bowdler’s Day” every year on July 11, the anniversary of his birth.

    But lest we grow smug, it’s helpful to consider that victories without vigilance risk being overturned. There is an alarming tendency in human nature to view uncomfortable remnants of the past as things to be buried or discarded, as if it were some sort of moral victory to do so. But it doesn’t change history. If anything, it betrays an imperfect understanding of history.

    Unencumbered by nuance, sweeping gestures undeniably feel good. They are simple. They bring immediate gratification. But they can also be messy.

    There is less flash, less exhilaration in arriving at understanding through context. That requires education and consideration. It is a quieter, more thoughtful path, and it calls for cool heads. It will never electrify a mob like the golden calf of revolution.

    Bowdler died on this date in 1825. Now, if only his spirit could be laid to rest.


    On a more affirmative note, it seems this tug of war has always been with us!

    https://sports.yahoo.com/snowflakes-trigger-warnings-shakespearean-violence-113506191.html

    Ironically, I had to post a link to a secondary source, reprinting the article, since Australian legislation has restricted the sharing of domestic news links to Facebook!


    Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, “Othello Suite”

    Mily Balakirev, “King Lear Overture”

  • Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles: A Warning for Today

    Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles: A Warning for Today

    In the wake of Isaias, it was as if someone had upset a giant chess board. Only, trees were the bishops and rooks that toppled across power lines and plunged Princeton into darkness. A very close knight was spent, then, pawn at my beard, as I was reduced, basically, to sleeping in a window. Checkmate!

    Since I do not own a smart phone, it resulted in an enforced fasting from the internet, driving me to the nearest book I could find, which happened to be Ray Bradbury’s “The Martian Chronicles,” an old, pleasantly pulp-scented paperback I’ve owned since the late 1970s. That also happens to be the last time I opened it. I finished my second reading by flashlight on Tuesday night.

    Bradbury’s virtuosic and comprehensive exploration of themes surrounding Martian colonization, and all that that might imply, traces the parallel fates of Martians and mankind. Hovering somewhere between novel and short story collection (the author cites Sherwood Anderson’s “Winesburg, Ohio” as a principal influence), the book is wonderfully strange, weirdly poetic, at times humorous, frequently ironic, unusually disturbing, and often startlingly dark. And in terms of human nature, unfortunately it all rings true.

    Bradbury, who lived from 1920 to 2012, would probably shake his head, but not be at all surprised by today’s world, with its twisting of facts, distortion and denial, “fake news,” censorship, historical revisionism, ignorance, fear, and lack of respect. The earth continues on its mad course, becoming more and more “science fiction” every day. Bradbury lived through the perils of Fascism, Communism with a capital C, the Cold War, and the Red Scare. Did he see today coming? Or, in his heart of hearts, did he believe in our better natures, despite our mad, self-destructive impulses? Did he intend “The Martian Chronicles” as speculative fiction, the literary exorcising of nightmares, a kind of thought-provoking what if? Or as an inevitability, given who we are?

    “The Martian Chronicles” itself has been subject to censorship, with one chapter, in particular, “Way in the Middle of the Air,” omitted from the 2001 Doubleday and 2006 William Morrow/Harper Collins reprints, even though the story serves as a critique of the racism now evidently misattributed to the author. How stupid are we? How afraid? How fragile our civilization, so quick to outrage we are? In a world of sound bites, surfaces, and bold absolutes, there is little room for nuance, contemplation, and reasoned discussion. The world of “Fahrenheit 451,” sadly, chillingly, is not so far-fetched.

    One of the most satisfying stories in the book must be “Usher II,” in which an Edgar Allan Poe admirer exacts gruesome revenge on those “Moral Climate Monitors” who, in their righteous zealotry, make it their lives’ missions to censor and destroy. Here’s a selection:


    “Does the name Usher mean nothing to you?”

    “Nothing.”

    “Well, what about this name: Edgar Allan Poe?”

    Mr. Bigelow shook his head.

    “Of course.” Stendahl snorted delicately, a combination of dismay and contempt. “How could I expect you to know blessed Mr. Poe? He died a long while ago, before Lincoln. All of his books were burned in the Great Fire. That’s thirty years ago – 1975.”

    “Ah,” said Mr. Bigelow wisely. “One of those!”

    “Yes, one of those, Bigelow. He and Lovecraft and Hawthorne and Ambrose Bierce and all the tales of terror and fantasy and horror and, for that matter, tales of the future were burned. Heartlessly. They passed a law. Oh, it started very small. In 1950 and ‘60 it was a grain of sand. They began by controlling books of cartoons and then detective books and, of course, films, one way or another, one group or another, political bias, religions prejudice, union pressures; there was always a minority afraid of something, and a great majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the past, afraid of the present, afraid of themselves and shadows of themselves.”

    “I see.”

    “Afraid of the word ‘politics’ (which eventually became a synonym for Communism among the more reactionary elements, so I hear, and it was worth your life to use the word!), and with a screw tightened here, a bolt fastened there, a push, a pull, a yank, art and literature were soon like a great twine of taffy strung about, being twisted in braids and tied in knots and thrown in all directions, until there was no more resiliency and no more savor to it. Then the film cameras chopped short and the theaters turned dark. and the print presses trickled down from a great Niagara of reading matter to a mere innocuous dripping of ‘pure’ material. Oh, the word ‘escape’ was radical, too, I tell you!”

    “Was it’?”

    “It was! Every man, they said, must face reality. Must face the Here and Now! Everything that was not so must go. All the beautiful literary lies and flights of fancy must be shot in mid-air. So they lined them up against a library wall one Sunday morning thirty years ago, in 1975; they lined them up, St. Nicholas and the Headless Horseman and Snow White and Rumpelstiltskin and Mother Goose – oh, what a wailing! – and shot them down, and burned the paper castles and the fairy frogs and old kings and the people who lived happily ever after (for of course it was a fact that nobody lived happily ever after!), and Once Upon a Time became No More! And they spread the ashes of the Phantom Rickshaw with the rubble of the Land of Oz; they filleted the bones of Glinda the Good and Ozma and shattered Polychrome in a spectroscope and served Jack Pumpkinhead with meringue at the Biologists’ Ball! The Beanstalk died in a bramble of red tape! Sleeping Beauty awoke at the kiss of a scientist and expired at the fatal puncture of his syringe. And they made Alice drink something from a bottle which reduced her to a size where she could no longer cry ‘Curiouser and curiouser,’ and they gave the Looking Glass one hammer blow to smash it and every Red King and Oyster away!”

    He clenched his fists. Lord, how immediate it was! His face was red and he was gasping for breath.

    As for Mr. Bigelow, he was astounded at this long explosion. He blinked and at last said, “Sorry. Don’t know what you’re talking about. Just names to me. From what I hear, the Burning was a good thing.”

    “Get out!” screamed Stendahl. “You’ve done your job, now let me alone, you idiot!”


    Beginning with the 1997 edition, the chronology of the narrative, which spans 1999 to 2026, was advanced 31 years. That annoys me almost as much as the excised chapter. It’s not as if science fiction as a genre is not rife with day-after-tomorrow speculation. The fact that Bradbury’s “future,” as he envisioned it, is already upon us does not change the truths expressed. Whether it’s 1950 (the date of the book’s publication), 1978 (when I likely first read it), or 2020, man is man – now, in “correct” circles, perhaps too generously labeled “humanity.”

    We pursue our visions of utopia in ignorance or denial. And history repeats. Every day I wake up and wonder, am I the one living on Mars?

Tag Cloud

Aaron Copland (92) Beethoven (95) Composer (114) Film Music (123) Film Score (143) Film Scores (255) Halloween (94) John Williams (187) KWAX (229) Leonard Bernstein (101) Marlboro Music Festival (125) Movie Music (138) Opera (202) Philadelphia Orchestra (89) Picture Perfect (174) Princeton Symphony Orchestra (106) Radio (87) Ralph Vaughan Williams (85) Ross Amico (244) Roy's Tie-Dye Sci-Fi Corner (290) The Classical Network (101) The Lost Chord (268) Vaughan Williams (103) WPRB (396) WWFM (881)

DON’T MISS A BEAT

Receive a weekly digest every Sunday at noon by signing up here


RECENT POSTS