Last year my husband and I visited the John Waters exhibit in LA, and found ourselves amused/annoyed at the "trigger warnings" posted throughout the exhibit. I actually took photos of them as they were so absurd: warnings that if you enter this room you will see/hear vomiting, nudity, homophobic language.... among other things. I burst out laughing, probably not the desired reaction, but how can you not crack up reading something like that? All we could think was "hold on - this is an exhibit about JOHN WATERS, and the exhibit is called POPE OF TRASH - and they felt the need to put warning labels all over the place as though people wouldn't know what they were getting in to?!"
I half expect to start seeing warning signs put up outside metal shows saying "You may encounter loud music and naughty words. Please reach out to our Customer Sensitivities Manager for any concerns."
Now come on, are you SURE those signs weren't written by John Waters as part of the display?? (It would be brilliant if it was, but sadly, I suspect you're right, it wasn't. The Puritans never left, did they?
I agree that, "Every work of art is a moment in time. That’s part of the function it plays as art."
I remember the first time I became aware that Nancy Drew books had been regularly rewritten over the years; I read an older edition of one book and discovered the newer edition was fairly different. The updating of the Nancy Drew books works, as each new generation discovers them and as they exist "beyond time." But, as you note, with other books the historical context is an integral part of the whole setting.
Other books become so outdated, they fall out of the canon altogether. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Others I still recommend, but with caveats.
One thing we have to hope readers understand, and that teachers and librarians can be good at pointing out, is how to approach those "cringe-y" moments that arise in a book that's assigned reading or found at school. Because required and recommended reading has that tinge of authority to it, it's important to remind kids that they can think critically; they can critique and question texts; they need not accept everything at face value. (A "teachable moment," if we can stomach that phrase!) And I encourage readers to engage that way with my own work.
I see the comments have gone beyond this to broader areas of censorship and freedom of expression ... I have thoughts, but won't wade into that stream as I have probably gone on long enough already!
Yeah, interesting about Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys (although part of me thinks they should just let those go, let kids discover some new detectives...). But they are different.
Yeah, I'm all for "teachable moments," but like you, I much prefer kids learning to apply a critical perspective, and let them come to their own conclusions. Let adults provide the context, but not the conclusions. There's a tendency to "protect" children which frustrates me.
I have the good fortune not to be aware that I have any triggers that would be set off by my reading choices, so my opinion on this question should be understood based on that.
We are all creatures of our times. Those whose times were in the past lived by the standards of those times, and they should not be judged by newer standards any more than our standards should be judged by those whose time is yet to come.
If we erase history by re-writing the work of earlier times, we miss the benefit of understanding the progress that has been made. One of my first LGGBTQ-themed books was Dancer from the Dance, by Andrew Holleran. Other books from that era were similarly dark and largely hopeless (e.g., John Rechy's City of Night). Today, queer readers and advocates can choose books about queer zombies, queer werewolves, queer romances and more queer romances and more queer romances. Not all these works are worth reading (IMHO), but their presence is progress.
I say let the past be the past so that we can understand that progress is not only possible but is being achieved even as we read.
Lately, I'm frustrated by discourse surrounding Sex and the City. People say it's bi-phobic, or transphobic, or too white, or whatever. Which, by modern standards, it might be! But it was also *incredibly* forward thinking for the time, and it 100% changed television -- and even society. The reason why society changed since then is, in part, due to this TV show. Why do more people not understand that?
I guess if you didn't live through it, it's hard to understand.
I hear similar complaints about Will and Grace. And yet I distinctly remember a scene in which the character Nathan (Woody Harrelson) strides into a room holding a motorcycle helmet and says, "There's nothing like jumping on your hog in the morning and riding it till your ass gets sore." To which Jack, a very fey gay man, replies, "You're preaching to the converted, OK?" This, even though so many episodes were about people living their lives in Manhattan in a certain era, with some situations stressing sexual orientation and others not—thereby humanizing gay people. I don't see a reasonable way to criticize that.
This is something I've thought a lot about too in recent times. 'Life is complicated' and that we gain more from 'from an atmosphere of openness and dialogue' is a perfect way of summing it all up.
An interesting topic well presented. I lean toward keeping art, whether books, paintings, architecture, as is, as they are representations of the times in which made, as you mentioned. Yes, art will always be changed to goose sales. Just glad no one is calling to flatten the pyramids as they were made with slave labor.
Haha, yes. At the time time, just like week I was at a beautiful moment here in Istanbul, made by slaves, and it was...weird. But that's part of the experience! It's beautiful and (in a way) ugly at the same time.
I read Double Feature but have no recollection of Asperger’s jokes. Just remember being entertained.
If authors opt to rewrite their work, fine. I object to others attempting to—even a rights holder. Treat pieces such as Gone with the Wind as artifacts that help us understand our societal progress. Changing or suppressing access to them is as naive as the Victorian impulse to erase depictions of homosexuality from Ancient Greek art.
However I disagree with your prior comment equating social media companies removing content/banning individuals to censorship. No one says a book publisher is censoring if they do not publish every submitted manuscript. Newspaper and magazine editors don’t get lambasted for not printing every letter to the editor. Film studios aren’t expected to produce every script they option. Why should social media outlets be expected to allow posts that violate the terms everyone using the platform agrees to follow?
I’ve had my own website and blog for years. I’m unapologetic about censoring comments I find offensive or just plain don’t like. There’s no first amendment protection when I’m paying the hosting bill.
Ah, yes, I see your point, and I should have been more clear. I absolutely think no one should put with abuse, harassment, or general asshole-ery, and blocking, banning, muting, and unsubscribing and absolutely okay, even often very very good. Social media companies are a different beast, and, well, never read the comments. (When we ran a content website in the 00s, we found creating a tight and open environment actually *decreased* the number of assholes, because our community created its own kind of peer pressure: "Assholes are not wanted here, please leave." We rarely needed to ban anyone, because things rarely descended into flame wars, which is all trolls really wanted anyway. But I'm not sure what our "secret sauce" was or how it could be replicated. Moderation helps.)
That said, harassment aside, I so think we should all still absolutely err on the side of openessness and dialogue as much as possible, and even institutions shouldn't give into ideological blackmail. It's fine to criticize, but I don't like when the criticism runs into, "And this shouldn't have been published or even commissioned, and it should now be taken down!" It's ridiculous when, say, New York Times employees (journalists!) protest (and also lie about) an extreme opinion essay by Sen. Tom Cotton, or when editors walk out because a different imprint is publishing a book by Woody Allen, cancelling the deal,, or when a Google employee is fired for arguing about gender differences, or any of the zillion other examples lately of ideological intolerance. Harassment and abuse is one thing (and there can be a grey area too), but frustration with a different POV should end with frustration and even outrage, not censorship. IMHO!
I suppose Brian was right that this IS all fairly complicated.
I recently led a discussion about book censorship, and there's no easy answer. I'm reminded of the great horror story 'The Rats in the Walls' by H.P. Lovecraft, where the narrator names his cat the N word. We condemn the character for that (and not because he ended up eating some guy).
I mean, it's complicated -- is "harassment" free speech? what about the heckler's veto? Should certain communities who've traditionally had to put up with a lot of shit be shielded from future shit? And what the heck do we do about social media?
But I dunno, it's not THAT complicated, and I think my liberal "team" has REALLY lost the plot on this issue, pushing blatantly illiberal ideas. It's just so easy to argue "the other side" is pushing "offensive" ideas and they should be censored, and it's also really easy to defend the idea you personally don't find offensive. But how is that helpful? Isn't that just two sides screaming at each other? And bystanders think, "They're both being hypocritical," which they often are.
We need a system where we can debate and discuss without people immediately pressing for censorship. Even if "de-platforming" worked, which it doesn't, I'd probably be against it just on principle. Is Trump less powerful now that he's off Twitter? Or did widespread exposure to his racist Twitter insanity actually make him LESS powerful at the time?
I think the bar should be very very high to "censor" something, and "censor" should be broadly defined to mean: anyone, not just the government, deliberating suppressing an idea you don't like. Sunshine is the best disinfectant! But it will always be messy and ugly at times, it just fricking will. That's life in a liberal democracy!
As for kids, the best lesson to teach them is how to deal with "offensive" ideas, exposing them as the silly lies they are, not telling them that words and idea are plutonium that can literally damage you. We're all much stronger than that, or at least we should be.
Gosh, it's almost like I have strong opinions on this issue. Hehe.
So so so so stupid. I spent the 00s arguing against censorship (and one of my books was one the nation's top censored books), and I argued that in a liberal society, "censorship" should be defined broadly, because we all have an interest in access to information. And yet within five years, every liberal I knew was arguing, "No! Censorship is only when the GOVERNMENT is involved!" (That's not really even true of the First Amendment.)
So weird to see "my team" complete trade sides on this. Of course, the right-wing is even more horrible the days, but what comfort is that?
Last year my husband and I visited the John Waters exhibit in LA, and found ourselves amused/annoyed at the "trigger warnings" posted throughout the exhibit. I actually took photos of them as they were so absurd: warnings that if you enter this room you will see/hear vomiting, nudity, homophobic language.... among other things. I burst out laughing, probably not the desired reaction, but how can you not crack up reading something like that? All we could think was "hold on - this is an exhibit about JOHN WATERS, and the exhibit is called POPE OF TRASH - and they felt the need to put warning labels all over the place as though people wouldn't know what they were getting in to?!"
I half expect to start seeing warning signs put up outside metal shows saying "You may encounter loud music and naughty words. Please reach out to our Customer Sensitivities Manager for any concerns."
Sigh.
Now come on, are you SURE those signs weren't written by John Waters as part of the display?? (It would be brilliant if it was, but sadly, I suspect you're right, it wasn't. The Puritans never left, did they?
Oh, Lordy Lordy.
I can just hear him cackling now. That would be perfect!
I agree that, "Every work of art is a moment in time. That’s part of the function it plays as art."
I remember the first time I became aware that Nancy Drew books had been regularly rewritten over the years; I read an older edition of one book and discovered the newer edition was fairly different. The updating of the Nancy Drew books works, as each new generation discovers them and as they exist "beyond time." But, as you note, with other books the historical context is an integral part of the whole setting.
Other books become so outdated, they fall out of the canon altogether. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Others I still recommend, but with caveats.
One thing we have to hope readers understand, and that teachers and librarians can be good at pointing out, is how to approach those "cringe-y" moments that arise in a book that's assigned reading or found at school. Because required and recommended reading has that tinge of authority to it, it's important to remind kids that they can think critically; they can critique and question texts; they need not accept everything at face value. (A "teachable moment," if we can stomach that phrase!) And I encourage readers to engage that way with my own work.
I see the comments have gone beyond this to broader areas of censorship and freedom of expression ... I have thoughts, but won't wade into that stream as I have probably gone on long enough already!
Yeah, interesting about Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys (although part of me thinks they should just let those go, let kids discover some new detectives...). But they are different.
Yeah, I'm all for "teachable moments," but like you, I much prefer kids learning to apply a critical perspective, and let them come to their own conclusions. Let adults provide the context, but not the conclusions. There's a tendency to "protect" children which frustrates me.
Thanks for chiming in!
I have the good fortune not to be aware that I have any triggers that would be set off by my reading choices, so my opinion on this question should be understood based on that.
We are all creatures of our times. Those whose times were in the past lived by the standards of those times, and they should not be judged by newer standards any more than our standards should be judged by those whose time is yet to come.
If we erase history by re-writing the work of earlier times, we miss the benefit of understanding the progress that has been made. One of my first LGGBTQ-themed books was Dancer from the Dance, by Andrew Holleran. Other books from that era were similarly dark and largely hopeless (e.g., John Rechy's City of Night). Today, queer readers and advocates can choose books about queer zombies, queer werewolves, queer romances and more queer romances and more queer romances. Not all these works are worth reading (IMHO), but their presence is progress.
I say let the past be the past so that we can understand that progress is not only possible but is being achieved even as we read.
Well said! You should be a writer or something.
Lately, I'm frustrated by discourse surrounding Sex and the City. People say it's bi-phobic, or transphobic, or too white, or whatever. Which, by modern standards, it might be! But it was also *incredibly* forward thinking for the time, and it 100% changed television -- and even society. The reason why society changed since then is, in part, due to this TV show. Why do more people not understand that?
I guess if you didn't live through it, it's hard to understand.
I hear similar complaints about Will and Grace. And yet I distinctly remember a scene in which the character Nathan (Woody Harrelson) strides into a room holding a motorcycle helmet and says, "There's nothing like jumping on your hog in the morning and riding it till your ass gets sore." To which Jack, a very fey gay man, replies, "You're preaching to the converted, OK?" This, even though so many episodes were about people living their lives in Manhattan in a certain era, with some situations stressing sexual orientation and others not—thereby humanizing gay people. I don't see a reasonable way to criticize that.
LOL
This is something I've thought a lot about too in recent times. 'Life is complicated' and that we gain more from 'from an atmosphere of openness and dialogue' is a perfect way of summing it all up.
Thank you.
An interesting topic well presented. I lean toward keeping art, whether books, paintings, architecture, as is, as they are representations of the times in which made, as you mentioned. Yes, art will always be changed to goose sales. Just glad no one is calling to flatten the pyramids as they were made with slave labor.
Thank you!
Haha, yes. At the time time, just like week I was at a beautiful moment here in Istanbul, made by slaves, and it was...weird. But that's part of the experience! It's beautiful and (in a way) ugly at the same time.
I read Double Feature but have no recollection of Asperger’s jokes. Just remember being entertained.
If authors opt to rewrite their work, fine. I object to others attempting to—even a rights holder. Treat pieces such as Gone with the Wind as artifacts that help us understand our societal progress. Changing or suppressing access to them is as naive as the Victorian impulse to erase depictions of homosexuality from Ancient Greek art.
However I disagree with your prior comment equating social media companies removing content/banning individuals to censorship. No one says a book publisher is censoring if they do not publish every submitted manuscript. Newspaper and magazine editors don’t get lambasted for not printing every letter to the editor. Film studios aren’t expected to produce every script they option. Why should social media outlets be expected to allow posts that violate the terms everyone using the platform agrees to follow?
I’ve had my own website and blog for years. I’m unapologetic about censoring comments I find offensive or just plain don’t like. There’s no first amendment protection when I’m paying the hosting bill.
Ah, yes, I see your point, and I should have been more clear. I absolutely think no one should put with abuse, harassment, or general asshole-ery, and blocking, banning, muting, and unsubscribing and absolutely okay, even often very very good. Social media companies are a different beast, and, well, never read the comments. (When we ran a content website in the 00s, we found creating a tight and open environment actually *decreased* the number of assholes, because our community created its own kind of peer pressure: "Assholes are not wanted here, please leave." We rarely needed to ban anyone, because things rarely descended into flame wars, which is all trolls really wanted anyway. But I'm not sure what our "secret sauce" was or how it could be replicated. Moderation helps.)
That said, harassment aside, I so think we should all still absolutely err on the side of openessness and dialogue as much as possible, and even institutions shouldn't give into ideological blackmail. It's fine to criticize, but I don't like when the criticism runs into, "And this shouldn't have been published or even commissioned, and it should now be taken down!" It's ridiculous when, say, New York Times employees (journalists!) protest (and also lie about) an extreme opinion essay by Sen. Tom Cotton, or when editors walk out because a different imprint is publishing a book by Woody Allen, cancelling the deal,, or when a Google employee is fired for arguing about gender differences, or any of the zillion other examples lately of ideological intolerance. Harassment and abuse is one thing (and there can be a grey area too), but frustration with a different POV should end with frustration and even outrage, not censorship. IMHO!
I suppose Brian was right that this IS all fairly complicated.
Thanks for chiming in.
I recently led a discussion about book censorship, and there's no easy answer. I'm reminded of the great horror story 'The Rats in the Walls' by H.P. Lovecraft, where the narrator names his cat the N word. We condemn the character for that (and not because he ended up eating some guy).
I mean, it's complicated -- is "harassment" free speech? what about the heckler's veto? Should certain communities who've traditionally had to put up with a lot of shit be shielded from future shit? And what the heck do we do about social media?
But I dunno, it's not THAT complicated, and I think my liberal "team" has REALLY lost the plot on this issue, pushing blatantly illiberal ideas. It's just so easy to argue "the other side" is pushing "offensive" ideas and they should be censored, and it's also really easy to defend the idea you personally don't find offensive. But how is that helpful? Isn't that just two sides screaming at each other? And bystanders think, "They're both being hypocritical," which they often are.
We need a system where we can debate and discuss without people immediately pressing for censorship. Even if "de-platforming" worked, which it doesn't, I'd probably be against it just on principle. Is Trump less powerful now that he's off Twitter? Or did widespread exposure to his racist Twitter insanity actually make him LESS powerful at the time?
I think the bar should be very very high to "censor" something, and "censor" should be broadly defined to mean: anyone, not just the government, deliberating suppressing an idea you don't like. Sunshine is the best disinfectant! But it will always be messy and ugly at times, it just fricking will. That's life in a liberal democracy!
As for kids, the best lesson to teach them is how to deal with "offensive" ideas, exposing them as the silly lies they are, not telling them that words and idea are plutonium that can literally damage you. We're all much stronger than that, or at least we should be.
Gosh, it's almost like I have strong opinions on this issue. Hehe.
This is such a boneheaded trend. Art and culture from the past establish a societal baseline and [usually] reveal we've made and are making progress.
So so so so stupid. I spent the 00s arguing against censorship (and one of my books was one the nation's top censored books), and I argued that in a liberal society, "censorship" should be defined broadly, because we all have an interest in access to information. And yet within five years, every liberal I knew was arguing, "No! Censorship is only when the GOVERNMENT is involved!" (That's not really even true of the First Amendment.)
So weird to see "my team" complete trade sides on this. Of course, the right-wing is even more horrible the days, but what comfort is that?