In modern works of literature, the general public has a good idea of what is acceptable and what is not. With any wrong move there is a wave of criticism, especially regarding people of power and works of media. These riots of displeased individuals is thanks to the influence of our life styles and the way that current generations are being taught. Only through the banning of certain media and works of literature can these crowds of displeased individuals be satisfied. Nowadays, books tend to lean towards the genre of "fantasy" and "sci-fi", with themes aimed towards younger populations, not to say there aren't realistic pieces for the older population to enjoy as well. Literature is a very important piece of society that aids us in growing academically and fueling our imaginations. Older works, I believe, are significantly more important for they connect us back to the societies and times before our birth, allowing us to relive the experiences of the past through the writing of the author. Our readings of Shakespeare and other famous novels before our time such as To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Brave New World, and Slaughterhouse Five can be attributed to this. If it were not for these classic pieces of literature, how do we relate to the past, much less understand it? Because of these works and the themes presented in them, my understanding of the past and the connection I feel I have with it have greatly increased.
But what if these works of art were to be banned? What if these works were banned just because a select group of individuals found it to not exhibit the traits that modern pieces do? What if they were banned becauase they were deemed to be "inappropriate." What if these people simply did not "like" it? I guess our ties to the past would simply be severed. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you do not enjoy a novel, instead of criticising it and ripping on it, just don't say anything at all. Even better, you could give some constructive criticism. Just because someone doesn't like a novel doesn't mean the whole of a society should not be able to enjoy it. Literature that provokes strong emotions and reactions shouldn't be banned because some people don't enjoy it. When an author publishes a piece of work, they don't expect everyone to like it, but they will be sure to have a few fans.
Censorship is a tough issue, isn't it? Who says that society shares a moral code or common ethical boundary? Considering how many cultures and backgrounds are represented in Canadian (and American) societies, it would be difficult to speak for everyone or to protect everyone from what is deemed vulgar. I think that many texts that raise important questions face threats of censorship simply because of the fact that they are pushing boundaries that may sometimes need to be pushed for our culture to evolve.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you sir, how can you limit something from a population as large and diverse as ours while having everyone agree to that limitation? Who's to tell me I can't eat meat because a portion of our population is vegetarian(not ripping on vegetarians, just an example)? I also agree with the latter of your post since people have to feel secure and fear instability, afraid to break boundaries and explore new areas, therefore those in control want to satisfy that need for security by banning things.
ReplyDelete