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."
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Other books become so outdated, they fall out of the canon altogether.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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.