On Philip Pullman and censorship

[annwfyn]

This is a bit of an offshoot of a discussion that is currently happening on The Community That Shall not Be Named, where I had this feeling I may soon be dogpiled* and cast out from liberal heaven. And I think it's probably my own fault as I think I'm explaining my point very badly.

I'm trying to say two things.

1) I don't think His Dark Materials are quite as good as many people seem to think. I am very fond of them, but parts of their theology and general view leaves me cold and isn't nearly as progressive and most people seem to think.

2) I think that nearly all of us are being hypocritical if we start saying 'rar! Censorship! And it's bad' when we find out that some religious school has banned (or chosen not to stock) His Dark Materials/Harry Potter/Debbie Does Dallas.

We all have ideas about we think is

a) Age appropriate reading material.

b) The kind of matieral we want in circulation anyway.

So, to a certain extent, we all believe in censorship. Well, unless you happen to be OK with your theoretical child reading 'Lesbian Nazi Holocaust: the illustrated version, with real sex and real death' in which case I'm concerned, but accept I'm not addresing this argument at you.

I know there are loads of books I wouldn't want a school library to stock, with some variation depending on whether we're talking primary or secondary school.

I think Jilly Cooper is a bit much for an 8 yr old, and am not convinced she's someone I'd want to be taking up limited shelf space in a secondary school, although I started reading her sex & shopping extravaganzas in my teens and survived.

I wouldn't want my kids to read too much 'colonial' literature - Little House on the Prairie, for example - without me about to explain that some of the depictions of non-white people that book aren't very nice or very fair.

I accept Mills & Boon is out there, but I'd really wonder why any school library was spending money on feeding any kids that exciting diet of coerced sex and messed up gender relations.

I'm kinda concerned that my school library stocked almost the complete works of Virginia Andrews, and even more worried that I dimly remember writing my own creepy incestuous fic at the age of 12, feauturing a half brother and sister (is it better that I had no real life brothers? It is for me).

So - yeah - I already clearly do believe that some books don't belong in a school library - maybe because of the content or just quality. And so if I say "damnit, that Catholic school should have Philip Pullman on their shleves" I'm not really making a stand of principle. I'm just objecting to the fact that their subjective call about which books are right for their school library is different to mine. And that's a very different thing.

And once I've established that I'm objecting to a subjective judgment call, I do have mixed feelings, about whether I can make that stand. I think schools and parents can make some bad judgment calls. I think school libraries should have some interesting and challenging books on display. But I also think that people, and groups, and communities should be able to make their own judgments about what is right and wrong as much as is possible without breaking the law of the land and hurting people, especially when it comes to bringing up their own children. I don't like the idea of there being one state mandated way to raise kids, in any way. And that includes in education. There should be different schools, with different standards and different ideas about what is right and wrong for those kids. I support Gordonstoun and Bedales existing in this world, and just wish there was slightly more range for parents who can't afford private education.

Still, I do think kids shouldn't be cloistered totally until they are 18. And it's good to have access to different points of view.

And then again, is Pullman worth fighting for?

And now we come back to my first point.

His Dark Materials.

To be precise, how reactionary and unforgiving a chunk of his world is.

OK. So. A daemon is fixed at puberty. Say, around 13. And that, then, is your soul. On display. For ever. It seems to be common knowledge that your daemon shows you 'who you really are', so people do get to judge you on that. And that's it.

No chance for late bloomers, no second chances, not redemption, or personal growth.

If you're a happy fluffy bunny at 13, then you're a happy fluffy bunny for life. If, however, like I was, you're a pricky, uncomfortable, rather stiff, frozen little girl who liked books and disliked people, then you get stuck with a daemon that reflects that and that's how you stay. No opening your mind to the idea of travel at 19, and changing from a stay-at-home book worm to someone who has visited every continent save Antarctica. No sexual awakening in your late teens to find out that boys are shiny and fun, and then no long arc from being pretty close to incapable of staying faithful to settling on a long term monogamous relationship in your twenties.

No change in interests and discovering a surprisingly competent chemical brain in your twenties when you'd thought of yourself as an artsy butterfly before. Either that side of you was always there, snapping at your ears through your daemon, or it isn't. I guess it makes chosing A levels easier, anyway.

Pullman says that identity, on a fundemental level, is fixed and unchanging from adolescence onwards.

I find that approach WAY more depressing than any of the Narnian books which Pullman claim contain 'no Christian love or charity'. In Pullman's world, would Edmond have entered Narnia with a nasty little viper coiled around his wrist, unable to shift? What about Eustace? No St Paul at Damascus style change for him! His whiny little chihuahua daemon would be glued into place.

And worse than that - look at the adults in literature who have undergone journeys of redemption. Jean Valjean stays a theif. Javert is right. Mary Magdalene gets to stay a whore** and their pasts stay branded on their daemons for all to see.

Now, that shows a sad lack of Christian charity.

I also loathe the class implications of Pullman's work. One of the lines in the first book is that 'servants' daemons were nearly always dogs'. Well. That's lovely, isn't it? That's what they are born to be? Clearly. And in general, Pullman does write about a very class ratified society in which one's souls reflect one's class.

And that all bugs me. For all their flaws, Lewis and Tolkien write about worlds where one is defined by one's actions, over time. Where people chose their own destinies, for better or worse, and can change. Pullman has always seemed to me to be a world in which you're set up as a member of the elect, or not, when your daemon settles as you turn 15. And that depresses me.

And this is what I spent my hour and a half on the front desk at the museum writing in my notepad, in biro, and my lunch hour typing up. I've got another two back dated rambles on assorted issues lingering on other pages too. Must write them up some time!


* It seems I am wrong! I've had no nasty comments and so far several people have just said interesting and clever things that have made me think. Especially biascut who said some interesting things about Pullman's theology which has made me re-evaluate them.

** As a note, I know that in the bible there is no actual reference to Mary Magdalane being a whore, and she might as well have been a nice old lady with a fondness for bedraggled young men, but she's somehow gone into popular religious culture as a reformed whore. So I'm using her as an example. So shoot me!

Comments

[becky-spence.livejournal.com]

And I daren't comment on the story I read claiming evil oppressive censorship was behind why they weren't bothering to make The Subtle Knife and the other one into films rather than the fact Golden Compass just didn't make enough money for what it cost...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Given that The Golden Compass sank new Line Cinema, resulting in it being fully absorbed into Time Warner and Bob Shaye getting the boot, I'd say it's pretty unsurprising that they won't make the others except as straight to DVD cheapies.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

"some religious school has banned (or chosen not to stock) "

Are you saying these two are equivalent? I must admit, I don't really have a huge problem with a religious school not stocking Harry Potter, but having a rule that any kid found reading Harry Potter shalt be punished would seem more dubious to me.

Also, I'm not sure I would have chosen Tolkien as an exemplar of mobile characters. He's big on breeding determining action - no bad elves, no good orcs, all hobbits have a sturdy heart and Numenorians are inherently superior.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

The original debate was over whether a school library should stock the books in question. It was, however, framed as a 'school bans atheist books' and it was only when writing this up that I vaguely began considering the issue as not entirely a 'ban'. No one has said the kids can't read it. It was mostly a debate on whether a catholic school should say "I don't want these books in our school library".

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Ah, right. I officially Don't Care That Much, then.

[pmp.livejournal.com]

One question if I may, do you believe the school has the right to ban the books?

Whilst the idea that we should pick and choose what our children think seems "wrong" at first, it's the very nature of being a parent to do that.

I can't help but think that yes, a catholic school can choose to ban fantasy books they feel challenge or upset their beliefs, but by the same token they shouldn't complain when a secular school chooses not to keep the Bible in stock.

In one way, it's the biggest danger of my belief system, if you enshrine the right to chose, you have to accept that people can choose just about any way they want, even if it's against your personal morals.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I think every school has the right to chose which schools they wish to stock. Essentially, no school has a copyright library. That means, by definition, there will be books that they are not stocking. Every school will be making value judgments about which books they chose to invest money and time in.

Re: banning - I was pretty much brain washed by going to the school I went to, which banned all kinds of ridiculous things from school premises. Never books, but their anti-jewellery policy was draconian in the extreme. Ditto hair. I tend to think schools can enforce a lot of things. I think that banning a series of kids books is entirely ridiculous, and utterly counter productive to what they are trying to achieve, but if they desperately want to, they can. They can't, obviously, stop kids reading whatever they want in their own time.

Generally, I want the rest of the world to respect my freedom to believe as I do, wear what I want, and generally get on with my life. That means I need to do the same.

If you want my subjective opinion on what books I reckon school libraries should stock I can probably ramble at length about that, but that would be a different issue.

[pmp.livejournal.com]

Don't you find it hard to reconcile "respect your freedom" with "schools have the right to choose what they stock"?

Or is it a case that adults can have the freedom when they're no longer children?

I think that you can call the entire parenting process "brainwashing", because the alternative letting kids do whatever they want is far more harmful in that they probably wont' make it to adults.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Children have to have limited freedom. I've worked with kids. The idea of 'respect their right to make their own choices at the age of 8' leads to Lord of the Flies.

[pmp.livejournal.com]

Wow, I think we actually might agree on something!

[pmp.livejournal.com]

You got Debbie Does Dallas on your school bookshelves? Damn, I was in the wrong school :P


I do wonder sometimes why it's liberal thinkers that argue so much with each other, the narrow minded fanatics seem to get along just fine because they harbour the feeling that "I'm right and he's just an idiot"

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

Or rather that they refuse to engage with conservatives on matters of substance, and just fling insults. Therefore if they're going to actually "argue" as such, they have to do it among themselves. :p

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

When you have the bible and the lives of the saints, I don't know what other reading material you'd need.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Nah, narrow-minded fanatics argue all the time. Look at all the various splinter sects of the various fundementalist movements.

[inquis.livejournal.com]

I think I was fortunate to have had a good school library, and remember not being brave enough to borrow Oranges are not the only fruit (after having seen the TV version) but reading it during breaks. I also remember my sister and I being huge fans of Virginia Andrews, although having tried again recently, I can't see what I enjoyed, they are really miserable!

As a librarian, and one who has had some experience in children's stock, I think censorship and stock choices are really, really interesting areas for debate. I personally really enjoyed His Dark Materials, but I really don't feel comfortable with its being directed at the 8 - 12 reading age - compared with Harry Potter, its themes are considerably more mature, and I think more suited to older readers, or those with more maturity (my feeling on reading ages is that they should be aimed at averages, and parents/older children will have a good idea of whether an individual child (or themselves) can cope with a particular theme). I certainly wouldn't discourage a younger child from reading a book they thought might be interesting, whatever age it was aimed at, but I have also come across a vast number of parents who use library age ranges to quickly decide which books their children may choose from, and have dealt with a surprising number of comments on the suitability of particular titles. Given how short most library visits are, and the self-righteousness of certain (thankfully few and far-between) of some parents, I wouldn't think at all badly of a librarian who erred on the side of caution when considering how to choose stock on what is almost invariably an extremely limited budget.

I do think what you are saying about Pullman's approach to identity and self-development is very interesting, I had not even considered it like that before! I suspect it is simply a plot device, and not really the exploration that he was aiming for, but yes, viewed in that context, it is rather depressing.

[alasdair.livejournal.com]

>>>we find out that some religious school has banned (or chosen not to stock)<<<

These are not equivalent. One is "thou shalt not read X where I can prevent it happening" ("You cannot read Pullman on school grounds") and the other is "I will not help you read X" ("We will not stock Pullman in our library"). One is not acceptable. The other is something everyone is free to do. And people are free to disagree with that decision, but not their right to make it.

Me, I figure any place that stocks CS Lewis without worrying about whether it's age-appropriate ought to be obliged to stock Philip Pullman on the same terms, but that's just me.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

The original debate was on whether the books should be in the school library. It was framed as 'schools ban [x] books', whereas I don't see a school not stocking them in their library as banning, per se.

Hence the two terms.

Re: Pullman, I think it's a judgment call. All our judgment calls on what is age appropriate and what isn't is subjective. You think your view is right. I think mine is right. I bet there are people who think I'm a soulless politically correct wotsit for not wanting my kids to have golliwogs or read Little House on the Prairie without some context. I bet there are people who think I'm the devil for exposing any child of mine to EVIL CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA like CS Lewis. All any of us can do is make a judgment call, hope we're right, and hope that the rest of the world will respect our right to make those choices.

[(Anonymous)]

'Colonial' Literature? Really? :)

I'm not quite sure this is the same in the UK as the US. But for me there's a difference between Private Schools and Public Libraries when it comes to censorship. If it's private funding then they do kind of get to decide what to spend their money on. I think someone else here pointed out that there's a difference between banning books and deciding what to buy & stock. If a child is punished for reading Harry Potter, then yeah, that's censorship to me.

You are entirely the reason I've read His Dark Materials. I think you insisted that I do so or you'd never speak to me again. :) I enjoyed them, but spent the entire time thinking, "In what way are these children books??? In the third book they kill *** and two pre-teens save all realities by *******!" When they announced they were doing a movie, they said they were taking out the 'anti religious parts.'

That would be like if the Tolkien trilogy was called "Lord of the."

I hadn't thought about the Daemon thing that way before... Even the Hogwarts Sorting Hat doesn't "lock in your destiny" that badly.

[mouflonmatt.livejournal.com]

For me its very straightforward. If a religious organisation does anything it is in the wrong. Making decisions about anything based on mythology is dumb.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

They call you 'Matt the tolerant' for a reason. ;)

[mouflonmatt.livejournal.com]

That was me being tolerant. If I was honest I would say religion should be banned, on the grounds of being offensively stupid, corrosive, divisive and just plain nuts. But as you say, I am a fool for being fluffy and nice.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I remember, many moons ago, the flamewar that kicked off over me having a quote from The Hammer of Witchcraft on my sig file that I used to post to the Cam Uk lists. It still brings a happy smile to my face to think of it.