21st Century Literature discussion

Several people in last month's discussions made reference to offensive content greatly diminishing their overall appreciation of a novel. Can the use of offensive content -- brutality, sexism, racism, etc. -- be justified in literature?

This is a really insightful question. I think that many times objectionable content can hurt the image of a book or film. To me, there is nothing wrong with objectionable content if it has a purpose--that it, it is moving the plot or theme forward in some way and serves to put a character, time period, etc in perspective. When I think of this, I think specifically of To Kill a Mockingbird and the "n" word, which is to basically illustrate the level of ignorance/degeneration of some. However, I have been turned off by books that use profanity or over-the-top violence as a vehicle to "entertain" or to give "shock value" to a book. It seems silly and lessens the experience. Just my opinion.

Of course. Do we need to read it or buy it? Absolutely not. Is it difficult to avoid if one prefers to do so, i.e., to avoid it? Well, that is a question I hope gets (deeply) explored here. And, another, to what extent and why, even when, should we as responsible adults, citizens, parents, ..., avoid or not avoid literature we consider offensive? Should publishers publish such literature is another difficult twist on the question. When does such become irresponsible? (I think this week of some of the conjectures associated with the downed Malaysian jet, albeit those are not presently in what we would normally call literary form.)

Also of interest could be the differences between offensive topics versus offensive treatment of those topics. I sometimes wrestle with that one -- perhaps how voyeuristic versus how revelatory is the story? But what are other questions as well as answers to consider relative to offensive content in literature, including what IS offensive content and in what ways is it offensive?

Depends on the book. Yes, most of the time offensive content is disgusting.. But there are times when it's sort of, I don't know - historical? Let's say we have a quite old book that uses terms that are offensive now, but weren't back when it was written. That kind of makes it more interesting because you get to see the world as it was back then, which it is no more. But that's about the only case I can think of where it's genuine and should be taken more lightly than usual.

I agree to Lily about the offensive topic versus offensive treatment of the topic. Good thoughts there.

With offensive stuff though, you can always tell when an author's going for the aforementioned 'shock value' and when they're being genuine. For example, there are books which tell stories about mafia and the like, well, you can't quite deal without profanities in that context, can you? But there will be book that deal with it well, and there will be books that will make it sounds synthetic. I think that's the reader's choice to choose the materials which are good in this regard.

And yesterday I was just reading about Hays Code.. How funny that you should start this topic now :)

I don't really see 'content' as having the facility to be offensive. For me personally. Message, sure. If the author (not a character) has explicit messages and they are objectionable to me, I could be offended. But anything else is just a question of whether I find it worthwhile to look, or would rather look away. If something is truly harrowing, I may decide I don't want to look, but to be honest that's rare. For me, the world is the world. There are some pretty terrible things going on in it, and holding these things up to the light is a central part of literature.

I do also have some sympathy with the idea that when something raw and sensitive is used without sensitivity, for purely entertainment value, everyone involved is diminished. However, I would defend people's right to do this, whilst hoping nobody bought said 'literature'.

Daniel wrote: " Can the use of offensive content -- brutality, sexism, racism, etc. -- be justified in literature? ...."

Of course. If it is used to reflect reality, either now or in the past, then it is certainly justified. As a matter of fact, it SHOULD be used in books. No use hiding from reality because we are squeamish. I read tough books all the time. If, however, it is used just for shock value, then I don't care for it so much. Franky mentioned the N word in books. If the book takes place in a time when people used that word regularly, I think it is being unrealistic to remove it just because we now find it offensive. It really bothers me when people say they think it should be removed from books like that.

One of the most publicized examples of "changing" an offensive word was when a publisher in Alabama released a version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, in which they changed every use of the "n" word to "slave". http://www.cbsnews.com/news/huckleber... As a retired English teacher, I see this attempt to bowdlerize Twain as an example of censorship, even if the attempt was being made to "protect" children. Julie makes a good point: "No use hiding from reality because we are squeamish."

I'd never want censorship to enter the world of writing, plus it would be about as effective as prohibition was against alcohol. However, individuals make choices about what to read, and I have a magnet on my frig that says, "You are what you read." I choose not to read books that exploit sexual abuse or child abuse, recognizing that my life experiences make those topics toxic for me.

What concerns me are the children. Certainly they need to become aware that the world isn't always fair or kind--but WHEN that happens is key. Under the age of 5, most children don't separate fantasy and reality, so there really IS a tiger in their closet in their minds. Choosing which books to read at what age for a child is important. My granddaughter is 14 now, and still cannot tolerate any book where a child is separated from a parent.

So how do we "protect" our children from "too much, too soon" in books AND media? I'm more concerned for kids today, who are exposed to so much violence in video games, TV, and film. I watched a father rent "Grand Theft Auto III" for his 9 year old son, and I asked the clerk if he could have done anything, but all he could do was cite the ESRB ratings. Since GTAIII allows for the use of a prostitute and for killing, that father was being totally irresponsible imho.

I don't have anything offensive to add to this particular thread.

I agree with Terry's sensible comments on the matter. When an author deals with a sensitive topic that is morally repugnant, it should never be censored but the author will know that the audience will be limited. There are so many good books, I try to stay away from morally offensive books when that seems to be the sole objective, but if it tells me something about the world that I need to be open-minded enough to learn about, I shouldn't shy away.

I embrace doses of offensive language because it tells me that the author is not fearful of telling the truth. I don't embrace literature with Victorian sensibilities. There must be reason for offensive or any other language in a book, and if it is used just for show, I'm out of here.

Carl wrote: "I don't have anything offensive to add to this particular thread."

Ahhh. That got a good chuckle. Thanks for the laugh!

Julia wrote: "One of the most publicized examples of "changing" an offensive word was when a publisher in Alabama released a version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain,..."

I think is this a great example of how people's concept of 'offensive' comes into play. This isn't exactly a random selection of people off the street in this group. I think everyone here, as this impressively thoughtful discussion shows, have no problem distinguishing offensive characters from offensive material. But that isn't necessarily true of the world at large.

The teacher in question who mangled Huck Finn was dealing with more of a random selection of people in the form of his student's parents. I initially agreed 100% with Julia, that it was a ridiculous act of censorship. Then I heard an interview with the teacher. The change wasn't so much to protect kids, but to allow the kids to at least read a version of Huck Finn. Assign a kid a book with "the n word" in it, and there will be an "s storm" of complaints from parents, invariably resulting in the book being pulled and apologies being tended for things that shouldn't require apologies. So his choice was either bowdlerized version, or no version, which to me makes things a lot less clear cut. You can argue how the parents aren't really getting it, but that doesn't change the position that teachers are in. And, unfortunately, it only takes a few very vocal parents to outshout reasonable debate.

...yes, and my thought on the Huck Finn example is that it is sad that our society is so messed up that we can't teach children great literature unless it is cleansed. Meanwhile, despite Tipper Gore's gallant censorship efforts with the music industry, the kids they protect with their literature censorship are out there listening to music that is far more morally disgusting and offensive (not that I'm judging and not that I don't listen, too) than any book I've ever read.

It seems to me that there can be major differences between PC -- so called "politically correct," and offensive material, although a Venn diagram would have them overlapping in part. In schools and places where reading is a group activity, part of the decision as to what is offensive sometimes must deal with very personal sensitivities. I know this is true for my f2f book club. Personally, I sometimes ask myself what privacy do I want to extend the characters -- and myself. Or, is this violence or fear or hate with which I am willing to deal at the place and mood I have for this reading? It is not unknown for me to encounter passages that I feel are included because the market expects, even demands, them rather than because they are intrinsic to the story or plot or theme or point. I read widely enough that seldom "bothers" me, but I think I can understand why it does some. Should they "just get over it"? Or is reading simply the risk to encounter an author?

Carl wrote: "...yes, and my thought on the Huck Finn example is that it is sad that our society is so messed up that we can't teach children great literature unless it is cleansed. Meanwhile, despite Tipper Gor..."

So right, Carl. Between music, video games, and other media, young children are already exposed to Daniel's topics of "sexism, racism, and brutality".

When I taught Of Mice and Men or The Catcher in the Rye years ago, the language was an issue--but no one spoke of censoring John Steinbeck or J.D. Salinger. What we were required by law to do was offer a substitute read if a parent or student objected, plus in MI we had to get the school board's approval for any literature that contained suicide--even Romeo and Juliet.

By the time we reach groups like this, most of us have chosen whatever "filters" we wish to apply to our reading, and we know what our favorite genres tend to be. Certainly Beloved was hard for our library book club to read, just as Twelve Years a Slave is. However, the brutality in those well-written books is not gratuitous, but essential to what Morrison and Northrup wanted us to learn/feel.

I can understand allowing a waiver if a parent objects. Julia, I don't know the youth suicide literature vault, but imagine, simply imagine if we allowed children to have an honest discussion about it, imagine children learning that suicide is a terrible, permanent solution to the temporary problem!

I'm thinking of children entering their teen years, not too young, but how else do you educate people on prevention?

I totally agree, Carl--given the chance to discuss their concerns is vital for youth. They're starting to ask the "big questions", and the literature can help them if teachers and parents don't shy away from letting them be honest about their fears--but that takes the patience to listen to what they are REALLY saying.

I had a tough class of students who were considered "failures"--and the first day, I told them to go to the board and write down every curse word they knew. At first they laughed, and then when they saw I meant it, they filled that board completely. Then we looked at the words and realized most had to do with their bodies or their version of God. At the end of class, I simply asked that those "board words" not be used in our class--and they never were.

That's a wonderful exercise!

An example of extreme brutality in literature which revolted me but which I felt was justified:
One of the most harrowing scenes I have ever, ever read is from Crime and Punishment (view spoiler)[ when Raskolnikov dreams of a mare being viciously beaten to death (hide spoiler)]. It is appalling in its violence and I remember having tears streaming down my face as I read it. Carl - interesting that you mentioned Victorian sensibilities, as this is a 19th century novel, albeit Russian.
The scene is exceptional in literature. It screams out of the page and leaves you totally stunned. I don't think I could go through reading it again; however, I feel that it is an essential part of the novel as it puts us right inside the workings of Raskolnikov's mind; we even live through this horrific dream which produces the same effect on the protagonist as it does on the reader.

I agree, Pip--the scene of which you speak can be read online, Part I, Chapter 5 of Crime and Punishment. http://www.bartleby.com/318/15.html The agony in that dream is essential for understanding Raskolnikov, imho.

As the great George Carlin said, "There aren't offensive words, only offendable people." How can a text even offend me? Sure, it can challenge my beliefs and morals, make me uncomfortable, but making me straight up offended? I don't think so.

I don't know what to make of this - am I lacking empathy? I mean, I know that certain sentences could be taken as offensive, but I don't see why this should be much of a concern for me.

As a German living in England, I've been called a Nazi and equivalent things more often than I could count - especially around Remembrance Day, who would have thought. Sure, it gets annoying - but should I be offended? I am not on a mission to convert everyone's system of belief out there, no matter how unintelligent they may seem. The same applies to books: David Irving's Holocaust denials leave me just as cold as de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, or other presumably offensive books. I don't agree with them, but everyone should be allowed to read those texts.

Some of you have commented on the use of "nigger" in books (You should watch Louis CK's bit on this topic; hilarious! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUp... If it is used in a context befitting the word, no problem. If it is used academically, no problem. If it is used as a derogatory term, no problem. If it is censored - huge deal. Censoring something is even worse than uttering and using it. Who are we to take away a word from someone else? Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Still: These words need to be appropriate to the context they're used in. Kindergarten, Elementary School, and the first few grades of Secondary School shouldn't be the place for them. After that it should all be fair game, and I will certainly not censor the books my older students will read in the future. If you want to use these terms, sure go ahead - but use them in a meaningful way. Shouting obscenities at each other is never productive. Analysing and dissecting the use of nigger in To Kill a Mockingbird or Kipling's colonial views is. Addressing complicated topics such as rape, racism, sexism and others is a must - especially in education. Even for the off chance that someone might be offended.

Sam, first of all I apologise on behalf of my native country for the brainless, unimaginative numbskulls who have called you a Nazi. If it's any consolation, as an English woman I've been called an "imperialista de m****a". Oh, the sorry state of education worldwide!
Secondly, I applaud your open-mindedness.
I would agree that if you are easily offended by sexual references, you should definitely not be reading De Sade. I admit up front that I haven't read his works so I shouldn't really comment, but..... Isn't there a difference between provocation on one hand (take it or leave it) and distorting reality for political ends on the other (you might not read it, but those who do could be misinformed and perpetuate a lie- as is the case with D Irving)?
It's interesting that you brought up the Irving case, in fact. My father used to be an independent bookseller and thought long and hard about whether or not to have Hitler's War on his shelves. In the end he opted for non-censorship. I'm still not sure what I think on the matter, but there was a woman who used to come into,the shop every day of the week and turn the book around so that the spine was hidden.
Finally, education. It is extremely difficult to decide at what age children/teens should be exposed to literature which, despite being thoroughly meretricious, may contain words or concepts which we no longer consider appropriate. In general, I am totally against censorship, while conceding that certain works should come with caveats and a sound social-historical backgrounding.
I was recently in South Africa and just before coming home, decided that a good souvenir for the family would be Jock of the Bushveld - a classic, heart-warming tale of a man in the veld and his adventures with his faithful dog. I soon realised that I had to decide between the sanitised version, which basically wipes out the nastiest sides of colonial African history, or the original. I was buying it for adult readers, so gave a different copy to two different people and asked them to report back on the differences! But this was originally a children's story, and there I would not know what to do.

Excuse the waffling. It's late and I might have had one glass of wine too many...

I adopt Terry's response - he said it better than I can.

I guess I think the same with respect to what children should be allowed to read. My reading was never censored as a child. I do think parents should be familiar with what their kids are reading and engage them in conversation about their choices but not allowing them to read something just makes it more enticing.

It fascinates to see censoring so frequently related to offensiveness in these discussions. Aren't those two quite separate issues?

Doesn't offensiveness tend to relate to an individual and his or her reaction to an aspect of a piece of literature? (Although certainly some aspects of offensiveness may tend to be shared by groups, such as ethnic.) Doesn't censoring relate more to the availability or usage of that material by multiple people?

Or, on another tangent, if the actions of a group of white men in killing a family of Spanish-Mexicans in The Son is historically possible or probable, can it still be offensive in some sense or another? Or the brutal rapes by Comanche Indians? Can't both "yes" and "no" logical responses be made? As Sam asks, what does it mean to be offend-able?

I think there is an overlap of censor and offensiveness. For me, anytime some authority decides what is an appropriate book for others to read that is censor. Hence, when parents limit what their children are allowed to read on the basis of offensiveness, that is, in general, as much censoring as a school district banning a particular book from classroom use or the Catholic Church banning a book because of its heretical nature.

Offensiveness itself is not, I think, limited to an individual's reaction. Certain books may be offensive to a particular group, community, or institution. And should that group, community, or institution instruct its members not to read the book, that sounds like censor.

Sometimes I read things I find offensive - hard to debate the offensiveness of something you've not read! But there are a few things I won't read because I find them offensive, such as Fifty Shades of Grey and its successors.

Lily wrote: "It fascinates to see censoring so frequently related to offensiveness in these discussions. Aren't those two quite separate issues?..."

Censoring is usually the result of people being offended.

What shocked me was when our librarian told me she can't keep a copy of The Catcher in the Rye on the shelves in our tiny library. Whenever she replaced it, the book was stolen! That's a different type of censorship, imho. Like Linda, I have no interest in reading the Fifty Shades of Grey series, but I'd certainly never STEAL the books.

As educators designing a curriculum, our English department was SELECTIVE, in terms of seeing our job as providing the best possible literature for young people (and there's a great deal of good work out there).

I think of a metaphor of food--there's certainly plenty of "junk food" reading available, but as educators (and hopefully parents), we saw our job as providing the best possible "nutrition" for the minds of youth. That didn't mean we ever shied away from controversial topics, but we made sure we weren't using material where the content was just using gratuitous brutality/sexism/racism to make money.

Sam, perfect response! I love the Carlin quote - he could see through anything.

Censorship seems to be almost always employed by people who have come to believe they must serve in the role of protector of society's sensibilities; whereas I believe alongside Carlin's thought that being offended must be a personal responsibility, and I have no right to determine what you should not see in some misguided effort to protect you (making allowance for school officials who hopefully will decide based on educational value as opposed to inoffensiveness.

When it occurs, political censorship is far more misguided than the societal type and is often very bad for society. I am thinking of Stalin who butchered hundreds of wonderful artists because their work was not designed for the proletariat or because they espoused values such as personal liberty.

I had a fabulous Social Studies teacher in high school whom I credit with helping me to open my mind ( if not enough, not his fault), and I remember he violated the school board's edict that he not allow his students to read MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING by Viktor Frankl as a source for his classroom learning. "What are they going to do, fire me?" He would say, and they never did no matter what he did in his classroom because he was the best teacher many of us would ever have. I recently read that book again. It may be one of the most important books from the early 20th Century and is unsurpassed in psychological and philosophical analysis of a world at war.

And by the way, not to be offensive, but fuck Stalin!

Why on EARTH would any school board have a problem with Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl??!! Our social studies department was teaching that one back in the 70's; it's considered a classic! The Amazon blurb says:

"At the time of Frankl's death in 1997, Man's Search for Meaning had sold more than 10 million copies in twenty-four languages. A 1991 reader survey for the Library of Congress that asked readers to name a "book that made a difference in your life" found Man's Search for Meaning among the ten most influential books in America."

Good for your teacher! Our main confrontation at my school in the 70's was when a teacher chose Nigger by Dick Gregory for his African American Literature course. The town (which was 98% Caucasian) was up in arms; our 1100 seat auditorium was filled with irate parents. I was so proud of our superintendent. He looked at the young teacher just before he went onstage and said, "Do you have faith in this book?" When the young man said, "Yes", the superintendent walked onstage and defended both the teacher and our department. The book stayed.

Julia wrote: "...Whenever she replaced it, the book was stolen! ..."

Some days I skim too much. Can't find again the story I saw yesterday about a small town independent bookstore that had a customer/browser who always turned one book with the binding edge to the back of the shelf whenever the bookseller stocked it!

Julia wrote: "What shocked me was when our librarian told me she can't keep a copy of The Catcher in the Rye on the shelves in our tiny library. Whenever she replaced it, the book was stolen! That's ..."

I suspect that's more an issue of the book with some coolness factor being appropriated by teenagers. My library could never keep The Autobiography of Malcolm X on the shelf, either. And Pink Floyd CD's were always gone within a couple weeks.

Trauma warnings move from Internet to Ivory Tower
LISA LEFF, Associated Press | April 26, 2014 | Updated: April 26, 2014 10:17am

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tr...

The above article has some surprising, at least to me, insights on sensitivities to materials some may consider offensive and the requests on how those be treated.

Sounds like a creeping extension of political correctness.

Linda wrote: "Sounds like a creeping extension of political correctness."

Or a permutation on bullying. The question being who is bullying whom? Then, there is also basic human sensitivity to the life stories of each other. The dances of life. (George Saunders really surprised me with his Commencement Address about kindness. Somehow, not a speech I expected from him.)

"People don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." Friedrich Nietzsche

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell