Many thanks to Mark Weiss and Keneth Wolman for their generous, luminous posts on this subject. I feel wiser. Best Árni -- Árni Ibsen Stekkjarkinn 19 220 Hafnarfjördur ICELAND Tel. +354-555-3991 [log in to unmask] http://www.centrum.is/~aibsen/ on 03-05-20 15.41, Kenneth Wolman at [log in to unmask] wrote: > At 08:41 AM 5/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: >> I doubt the veracity of this claimed banned list. >> >> The ALA's Web site features Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, which is on >> the list, as their selection for a nationwide librarians' bookclub read. > > Nothing connected here. > * I don't doubt for a moment the veracity of the list, especially if > The Handmaid's Tale is on it. A book about an American theocracy of the > future that anatomizes, so to speak, its sexual dimension? Written by a > self-identifying feminist who is not as doctrinaire as she is downright > talented? Muy peligroso! > * The United States has become a funny sort of place. Correction: the > country seems always to have had an oddly divided point of view on creative > work. On the one hand, writing--unless you're Mickey Spillane, Irving > Wallace the Stroke Book King, or Louis L'Amour--is regarded as the province > of pointy-headed intellectuals, homosexuals, artsy-fartsy types, and other > people of no consequence. Poetry doesn't even rate. To the government's > I-suppose credit, the United States has never "disappeared," imprisoned, or > shot a poet for committing a poem. Robert Lowell went to Federal prison > during World War 2 for refusing induction into the Army, not because he > wrote something considered treasonable ("Memories of West Street and > Lepke," the acknowledgement of his imprisonment, is a wonderful mad > poem). Poets do not have to listen for the knock on the door at 3 AM. We > have no Mandelstams or Akhmatovas here. Neither, however, do poets and > fictionalists become significant social leaders here, a la Carlos Fuentes, > Fr. Ernesto Cardenal, Pablo Neruda (who was lucky enough to die before > Pinochet could shoot him), or Octavio Paz. We do our poets a paradoxical > favor: we let them publish but rot in the land of Coterie. It's not that I > hold great store in getting shot. But the question "Can poetry matter" > gets answered at least in part by who's willing to kill us. Poets Against > the War could not have happened in El Salvador or the old USSR but here > it's just another site and a book. > * Yet. The works of poets, fiction writers, etc., when they are > disseminated into the school systems, become a matter of scandal and > concern and all of a sudden the authors of said books and poems can be > perceived as dangerous radicals, subverters of public order, enemies of > God, ring-wingers, left-wingers, Commies, pinkos, Stalinists, Trotskyites, > John Birchers, neo-Nazis, you name it. Hence Margaret Atwood, whose > Handmaid is periodically mechanistically seeded like a heifer by another > woman's husband--in the wife's presence--because to do so fulfills a > Scriptural interpretation. Hence Vonnegut, whose Slaughterhouse Five > suggests radically that exposure to the extreme horrors of war kills the > ability to feel or at least warps the sensibilities of ordinary men (I knew > a Professor of English at Binghamton who was in the same bunker as Vonnegut > at Dresden and he never "got over it"). Catch-22 goes the same way: the > people who fight wars turn into desensitized morons like Milo Minderbinder > (who probably showed up that way); the innocuous or decent ones like Kid > Sampson have their guts and life spill out all over their flight suits; or > like Yossarian they demonstrate that the ultimate civic virtue even in a > "good war" is to desert. You bet it's subversive--the problem is there > isn't nearly enough of it. > * Well, we KNOW why Huckleberry Finn and Merchant of Venice are on the > shitlist. But whose? Here, sorry to say, we might be dealing with a > "progressive" or leftist agenda at work. Maybe they would like to amend > the text to "Afro-American Jim." I can only imagine what would happen if > someone tried to teach or--God save the mark!--produce Marlowe's The Jew of > Malta, never seeing that it is an equal opportunity offender that goes > after Jews, Muslims, and Christians with equal venom. > * To follow the same thread: At one time an editor expressed interest > in a poem of mine but insisted I change or otherwise get rid of the word > "Jewess." He compared it to using the world "Negress." Granted, in the > context of 2003, both words are foul. However: context, anyone? The poem > he was looking at was set in Poland in 1655 and the person doing thinking > the word was a Swedish peasant-turned-army enlistee who was about to rape > the poem's "heroine," a Jewish woman still in her teens. And if I were > writing something with a setting outside our own period, I'd use either > word again in a heartbeat. I'm more interested in accuracy than in > avoiding offending someone's delicate sensibilities. > * Fairy tales. The Grimm Brothers? The Grimm Brothers are > ghastly. So is John Ruskin's children's story "King of the Golden River" > in which the hero's three nasty brothers are turned to stone. But nobody > talks (as far as I know) about banning Anne Sexton's versions of fairy > tales, which are far more subversive, ugly, and funnier than anything the > Grimms ever thought up. Because it's poetry and poetry doesn't matter. > * I can see why Maurice Sendak is on the list for Night Kitchen. Oh > God, a penis! How about Where The Wild Things Are, where rebellion is > expressed (Max's "wolf suit")? How about Outside, Over There, a > wonderfully drawn and sensitive understanding of love-hate in sibling > rivalry. Well, we are only supposed to have niiiiiiiiiice thoughts, > right? Nothing about wishing our sibling dead, nothing about > rebelliousness. By the same token, that accounts for the ban on Shel > Silverstein: "If your parents make you wash the dishes / Just drop one on > the floor. / Maybe they won't let you / Do the dishes anymore." Defiance, > rebellion, subversion of God-given parental authority, and fucked-up feng > shui. Any side can find any reason to ban anything. > * If they want to ban fairy tales, go get the Disney movies, which are > uniformly frightening and meretricious. How about The Wizard of Oz because > of that nasty old poppy field and those flying monkey? Talk about an opium > dream! > * Censorship cuts across the political spectrum. I am as terrified of > an Empire of Virtue run by so-called progressives from Pacifica Radio as I > am of the growing tyranny of what Gore Vidal calls the Cheney-Bush Junta. > As for as Diane Ravitch's book--I admit to not yet having read it. I did, > however, hear Ms Ravitch as she made the radio talk-show rounds in New > York, plugging her new creation. Politically, she is hard to "pin"--I > would describe her more as a "conservationist" than as a > conservative. Cutting words out of texts because someone might get upset > at seeing them in print is not preservation: it's censorship and rape, no > matter who's doing it. Their motives are identical: control. > > Sorry to go on for so long. > > Ken <dismounting soapbox> > http://www.kenwolman.com