Showing posts with label Banned Books Week. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banned Books Week. Show all posts

26 March 2009

Amazon's Kindle: A New Way to Burn Books?

"Empty Bookshelves." (Library for the Faculty of Philology at the Free University Berlin, Germany. Architect: Norman Foster.) Photo by svenwerk.

Kindle e-reader: A Trojan horse for free thought
Amazon and other e-media aggregators know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, commodify, and control access for tomorrow.
By Emily Walshe

[Emily Walshe is a librarian and professor at Long Island University in New York. This article originally appeared in the March 18, 2009, issue of the Christian Science Monitor.]

BROOKVILLE, N.Y. - All you really need to know about the dangers of digital commodification you learned in kindergarten.

Think back. Remember swapping your baloney sandwich for Jell-o pudding? Now, imagine handing over your sandwich and getting just a spoon.

That's one trade you'd never make again.

Yet that's just what millions of Americans are doing every day when they read "books" on Kindle, Amazon's e-reading device. In our rush to adopt new technologies, we have too readily surrendered ownership in favor of its twisted sister, access.

Web 2.0 and its culture of collaboration supposedly unleashed a sharing society. But we can share only what we own. And as more and more content gets digitized, commercialized, and monopolized, our cultural integrity is threatened. The free and balanced flow of information that gives shape to democratic society is jeopardized.

For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display ... looks and reads like real paper."

But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or share your books – because you don't own them. You can download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult to read anything that is not routed through Amazon first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a library, because there is no public investment. It's like taking an interest-only mortgage out on intellectual property.

If our flailing economy is to teach us anything, it might be that an on-demand world of universal access (with words like lease, licensure, and liquidity) gets us into trouble. Amazon and other e-media aggregators know that digital text is the irrational exuberance of the day, and so are seizing the opportunity to codify, commodify, and control access for tomorrow. But access doesn't "look and read" like printed paper at all – just ask any forlorn investor. Access is useless currency.

Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of technology that challenges media freedom and restricts media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper mobile and rootless society that prefers access to ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers of selective censorship and control.

Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to lock in its library, raises critical questions about the nature of property and identity in digital culture. Culture plays a large role – in some ways, larger than government – in shaping who we are as individuals in a society. The First Amendment protects our right to participate in the production of that culture. The widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big-time threat to free expression and assembly.

When Facebook, for example, proposed revisions to its terms of service last month – claiming ownership of user profiles and personal data – the successful backlash it spawned caused complex (even existential) ideas about property, identity, and capitulation to bubble up: Is my Facebook profile the essence of who I am? If so, who owns me?

The hallmark of a constitutionally governed society, after all, is the acknowledgment that we are the authors of our own experience. In an Internet age, this is manifest not only in published works, but also an ever-evolving host of user-generated content (Twitter, Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If service providers lay claim to digital content now, how will it all end?

Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a record – an artifact of permanence, residence, and posterity – that is independent of some well-appointed thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, or wholly possessed.

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop reading them."

Access equals control. In this case, it is control over what is read and what is not; what is referenced and what is overlooked; what is retained and what is deleted; what is and what seems to be.

To kindle, we must remember, is to set fire to. The combustible power of this device (and others like it) lies in their quiet but constant claim to intangible, algorithmic capital. What the Kindle should be igniting is serious debate on the fundamental, inalienable right to property in a digital age – and clarifying what's yours, mine, and ours.

It should strike a match against the winner-take-all casino economies that this kind of technology engenders; revitalize American libraries and other social institutions in their quest to preserve the doctrines of fair use and first sale (which allow for free and lawful sharing); and finally, spark Americans to consider the extent to which they are handing over their baloney sandwich for a plastic spoon.

Like a lot of people, I'm a sucker for a good book. But not at the expense of freedom, or foreclosure of thought.

Source / The Christian Science Monitor

Thanks to Carlos Lowry / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

18 January 2009

Jonah Raskin : Red Bard: 'The Poems of Mao Zedong'


If I had to compare Mao to an American I’d say he was akin to Whitman, though I’d add that Whitman’s lines are longer, that the rhythms feel different and the voices aren’t the same. Mao is never as tender or as sexual or as democratic as Walt. Still, like Walt, Mao sings a song of himself.
By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / January 18, 2008
The Poems of Mao Zedong
Translations, Introduction, and Notes by Willis Barnstone
University of California Press.168 pages; $24.95
“Exterminate the brutes!,” Mr. Kurtz exclaims in Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad’s hair-raising novella about “ethnic cleansing” in the Belgian Congo that inspired Francis Ford Coppola to make Apocalypse Now, his Technicolor extravaganza about the killing fields in Vietnam. The fictional Mr. Kurtz was ahead of the tidal wave of genocide that swept around the world; the 20th century’s real warlords, dictators and megalomaniacs in Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia, China, and beyond followed in his bloody footsteps and piled up the corpses of their enemies. Like him, the agents of mass murder often started out as cultured Europeans.

Take, for example, the Bosnian Radovan Karadzic. Captured after years as a fugitive and in hiding, and a forthcoming defendant in The Hague for crimes against humanity, Karadzic is a published poet and the author of a charming book for children. He also worked as a humanistic therapist. The contradictions are mind-boggling, and they are even more so in the case of Mao Zedong, the chairman, and once absolute dictator of the Peoples’ Republic of China. A man of prodigious contradictions -- his most influential essay is entitled “On Contradiction” -- Mao knew volumes about the subject. If he wanted to see his own he could not have found a better place to look then in his poetry, perhaps the one place in the world that would not allow him to lie about himself.

What are we to think of Chairman Mao -- a fellow who makes Mr. Kurtz seem almost tame -- and what of his poems which have been newly translated by Willis Barnstone? At the Poetry Foundation they were asking much the same question about Mao the poet. On their web site you can read the views of Rachel Aviv. “His poetry can hardly be seen as a weapon for national liberation,” Aviv writes, oddly unaware that Mao’s poems were effective propaganda for the masses. In The Washington Post J. D. O’Hara called Mao’s poems “political documents,” but added, “it is as literature that they should be considered.” Separating the political from the literary, however, just isn’t possible in Mao’s work. “We woke a million workers and peasants,” he wrote boastfully in the 1931 poem “First Siege,” and though all his lines aren’t as explicit about the power of the Chinese revolution many of them are.

Born into a peasant family in 1893, Mao grew up loving the classics of Chinese literature and at times he could be enlightened about culture. “Questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles,” he wrote. “They should not be settled in summary fashion.” But he ruled tyrannically in cultural as in economic matters, and insisted that artists serve the class interests of peasants and proletarians, even as he promoted his own career and created a cult of his all-powerful personality. American writers and artists played a decisive role in aggrandizing that immense personality and making him look respectable. Edgar Snow, the Missouri-born reporter, gave Mao a big boost in his classic of revolution, Red Star Over China (1937), and in the 1960s Andy Warhol turned Mao into a global icon. Frederic Tuten wrote a brilliant Dadaesque novel, The Adventures of Mao on the Long March, published in 1971. John Updike reviewed it favorably in The New Yorker and Susan Sontag, called it “a violently hilarious book.”

Perhaps all of us who were alive then colluded in making the myth of Mao. “I wrote The Adventures of Mao at a most political time,” Tuten would explain. “China was near, its revolution still fresh and seemingly uncorrupted.” Tuten’s contemporaries saw the Chinese revolution as incorruptible even as they browbeat one another with quotations from The Little Red Book. I never went that far though I caught the Mao bug, and joined the Cultural Revolution that spread from Beijing to Paris, and beyond. Finally, the Beatles interjected a necessary note of sanity. “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow,” they sang in “Revolution.” Oddly enough, Mao made it big with President Richard M. Nixon, the arch anti-communist who visited China in 1972 and made a big production of reciting Mao’s poetry to Mao himself. Then, he and Zhou Enlai discussed the meaning of the poems -- as though they were two diligent students and Mao their master.

When Mao died at 83, the world began a thoroughgoing reappraisal of his life. In book after book -- in both compelling memoirs and comprehensive histories -- the mighty Mao was redefined as an egomaniac. Mao: The Untold Story (2005), co-authored by Jon Halliday, and Jung Chang -- a former Red Guard who won international acclaim for The Wild Swans - provides a shocking account of his cultural and political crimes. “Mao cornered the book market by forcing the entire population to buy his own works, while preventing the vast majority of writers from being published,” the authors write.

In his introduction to The Poems of Mao Zedong Willis Barnstone says nothing about the millions Mao made from his books, and nothing about his crimes, sticking mostly to literary matters. “He was a major poet, an original master,” Barnstone says. Mao had a more modest view -- perhaps falsely modest -- of his poetry, which he dismissed as “scribbles.” Nevertheless, he allowed them to be printed when he was 65. I wish that Barnstone had said more about Mao the dictator than what he does say -- that he created a “new dynasty.” When I interviewed him he was refreshingly candid. “I have never ceased thinking what a bastard Mao was!,” Barnstone said. “Almost everything he did was a failure and millions of people died of starvation because of him. He was a horror for China. I have thought that perhaps some of the same energy that went into his horrendous politics went into his beautiful poetry.”

Barnstone is the most fitting American to bring Mao’s work to Americans now, as China emerges as a world power. A life long teacher, writer, poet, scholar of Borges and Sappho, and gifted translator, he has written insightfully about translating in The Poetics of Translation. Barnstone has a keen poetic imagination, and, as Stephen Kessler observes in “What Does it Take to Translate Poetry, collected in Moving Targets, “it is through imagination (or faithful re-imagining) that the greatest translations are created.” In “Forgery & Possession” Kessler also observes that for a good translation, “Familiarity with the culture and the history of the originally is also vitally useful.” Barnstone is an old China hand. He lived in China during the Cultural Revolution -- Zhou Enlai invited him -- and in the 1980s he taught literature in Beijing. He’s old enough -- 80 -- and wise enough -- he’s lived through the horrors of the twentieth century -- to know that if we only read poets who were perfect human beings and didn’t endorse one brutal system or another, we’d read precious few poets.

Thirty-six poems are here, some as brief as three lines, others much longer. About half the poems were written after Mao and the Communists came to power. All are in Chinese and English, and on matching pages. Barnstone includes examples of Mao’s calligraphy, footnotes to each poem, and a note on translation. “Chinese poetry depends very much on images and images translate more readily and with less loss than other poetic devices,” he writes. In a note on versification, he adds that Mao took his models mainly from the Tang (618-907) and Song (960-1127) poets, which shows how far back the poetry tradition goes in China, where writing poetry was expected of emperors.

A young reader coming upon this work for the first time might not connect Mao the poet to Mao the dictator. As Barnstone pointed out during our interview, some of Mao’s best poems are intensely personal, as in “The Gods” which is for his wife and sister who were beheaded in 1930 by Mao’s opponents – the Chinese Nationalists. The poem ends with a powerful image - “Tears fly down from a great upturned bowl of rice” – that exposes his vulnerability and the immensity of his loss. Many of the poems are overtly political, even propagandistic and it would be hard to read them and not think of war and revolution. “The Long March” begins “The Red Army is not afraid of hardship,” and seems to have been written to inspire the troops. “Militia Women” is directed at the “Daughters of China” and means to bring them into the fold of revolution. “Tingzhou to Changsha” is covertly political; “soldiers of heaven” tie up and defeat “the whale.” The symbolism is explicitly political.

Mao enjoyed the beauty of nature all through the hardships of the Long March. War did not curtail his aesthetic appreciation of flowers, snow, horses, geese, sky, rivers, and the moon. The mountains are almost always pleasing to his eye as in “Snow,” his most popular poem, in which he writes, “Mountains dance like silver snakes.” In “To Guo Moruo,” the last poem in the volume, Mao seems to reflect on the vanity of the human will to conquer: “On our small planet/ a few houseflies bang on the walls. They buzz, moan, moon, and ants climb the locust tree/ and brag about their vast dominion.” Did he have a kind of epiphany and realize the futility of ruling absolutely? “To Guo Moruo” suggests that he did.

Unlike the poems of the Bosnian nationalist warlord Radovan Karadzic, Mao’s poems do not reveal an obsession with violence, though he romanticizes weapons in the image of a “forest of rifles.” Karadzic’s poems are cultish and diabolical; “I am the deity of the dark cosmic space,” he boasts. Mao’s work reminds me of the poems that other Asian Communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, who wrote while imprisoned in 1942, and that were published under the title Prison Diary. Ho disguised his revolutionary views lest his jailors confiscate his work and pile additional punishment on him. “When the prison doors are open, the real dragon will fly out,” he wrote in what is his best-known and most frequently quoted line.

If I had to compare Mao to an American I’d say he was akin to Whitman, though I’d add that Whitman’s lines are longer, that the rhythms feel different and the voices aren’t the same. Mao is never as tender or as sexual or as democratic as Walt. Still, like Walt, Mao sings a song of himself. There’s an all-powerful “I” as well as an all-seeing eye, and the “I” can be wistful and sad as in “I see the passing, the dying of the vague dream.” In “Swimming” Mao writes, “I taste a Wuchang fish in the surf/ and swim across the Yangzi River.” He identifies himself with China itself in much the same way that Whitman identified himself with America, and that seems fitting. Twentieth century China was like 19th-century America: a country developing economically at a furious pace, with huge social dislocation, and the unleashing of immense creative as well as destructive forces, all of which were embodied in Mao himself. I don’t mean to excuse the violence in America during our Civil War and industrial revolution, or the violence in China during its Civil War and cultural revolution. By making the comparison I hope to illuminate the Chinese experience, and make it seem less exotic, foreign, and yes, even less Oriental. If Mao’s poems express universal feelings, so, too, the Chinese have pushed ahead for all of humanity in their exuberant and misguided revolution. If they fail disastrously we’ll all fail.

In Mao: The Unknown Story, Halliday and Chang describe Mao as a megalomaniac aiming to destroy Chinese culture. Barnstone shows him as a poet who borrowed from and helped to preserve the old China, even as he aimed to overturn it and start anew. The Beatles rightly warned us against the hagiography of Mao, but I’d like to think that they’d want to read him now. They might even wave Barnstone’s compact, handsome volume above their heads. It’s that good!

[Jonah Raskin is a prominent author, poet, educator and political activist. His most recent book is The Radical Jack London: Writings on War and Revolution.]

Find The Poems of Mao Zedong, by Zedong Mao, translated by Willis Barnstone, on Amazon.com.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

02 October 2008

BANNED BOOKS : 'Grapes Of Wrath' And The Politics of Book Burning

Clell Pruett burns a copy of The Grapes Of Wrath as Bill Camp and another leader of the Associated Farmers stand by. At the time this photograph was taken, Pruett had not read the novel. Years later, after he read the book at the behest of Rick Wartzman, Pruett declared that he had no regrets about burning it. Image from Kern County Museum.

Judith Krug: 'They're not afraid of the book; they're afraid of the ideas'
by Lynn Neary / September 30, 2008
Read an excerpt from Obscene in The Extreme: The Burning and Banning of John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath," Below
Sept. 29 marked the beginning of the American Library Association's annual "Banned Books Week," a commemoration of all the books that have ever been removed from library shelves and classrooms. Politics, religion, sex, witchcraft — people give a lot of reasons for wanting to ban books, says Judith Krug of the ALA, but most often the bannings are about fear.

"They're not afraid of the book; they're afraid of the ideas," says Krug. "The materials that are challenged and banned say something about the human condition."

John Steinbeck's 1939 classic, The Grapes Of Wrath, which chronicles an Oklahoma family's hapless migration westward, is a perfect example. The book was an immediate best-seller around the country, but it was also banned and burned in a number of places, including Kern County, Calif. — the endpoint of the Joad family's migration.

Though fictional, Steinbeck's novel was firmly rooted in real events: Three years before the book was published a drought in the Dust Bowl states forced hundreds of thousands of migrants to California. Penniless and homeless, many landed in Kern County.

When the book came out, some of the powers that be in the county thought that they had been portrayed unfairly; they felt that Steinbeck hadn't given them credit for the effort they were making to help the migrants. One member of the county board of supervisors denounced the book as a "libel and lie." In August 1939, by a vote of 4 to 1, the board approved a resolution banning The Grapes Of Wrath from county libraries and schools.

Rick Wartzman, author of the new book Obscene In The Extreme, says what happened in Kern County illustrates the deep divide between left and right in California in the 1930s.

One powerful local player who pushed for the ban was Bill Camp, head of the local Associated Farmers, a group of big landowners who were avid opponents of organized labor. Camp and his colleagues knew how to get a bill passed in the state Legislature — and they also knew how to be physical.

"They knew how to work with tire irons, pick handles and bricks," says Wartzman. "Things could get really ugly and violent."

Camp wanted to publicize the county's opposition to The Grapes Of Wrath. Convinced that many migrants were also offended by their depiction in the novel, he recruited one of his workers, Clell Pruett, to burn the book.

Pruett had never read the novel, but he had heard a radio program about it that made him angry, and so he readily agreed to take part in what Wartzman describes as a "photo op." The photo shows Camp and another leader of the Associated Farmers standing by as Pruett holds the book above a trash can and sets it on fire.

Meanwhile, local librarian Gretchen Knief was working quietly to get the ban overturned. At the risk of losing her job, she stood up to the county supervisors and wrote a letter asking them to reverse their decision.

"It's such a vicious and dangerous thing to begin," she wrote. "Besides, banning books is so utterly hopeless and futile. Ideas don't die because a book is forbidden reading."

Knief's argument may have been eloquent, but it didn't work. The supervisors upheld the ban, and it remained in effect for a year and a half.

Still, says Krug, the censorship of The Grapes Of Wrath was a key event in the creation of the Library Bill of Rights, the statement Krug describes as ensuring that "as American citizens we have the right to access whatever information we wish without anyone looking over our shoulders. ... that we have the right to utilize this information once we have acquired it."

Excerpt: 'Obscene In The Extreme'
by Rick Wartzman

The lights dimmed and dimmed some more, and darkness fell upon the Big Room. No one talked or even dared to breathe too loudly. The children had been shushed, whispers stifled, and cigarettes snuffed. The only sound to be heard was the thwack-thwack-thwack of limestone water dripping onto rock. It is impossible to know, of course, what those in the crowd felt as this black blanket swallowed them completely, engulfing the afterglow and playing tricks on their eyes. They had come here, to Carlsbad Caverns, to vacation and take their minds off their workaday concerns; and for some, sitting 750 feet below the surface of the earth, surveying a gargantuan stalagmite known as the Rock of Ages, this undoubtedly was the high point of their trip. Before the lights had gone out, the tourists had soaked in the spectacle: several million years old, wrinkled and tinted with orange, rising up nearly forty feet, as huge as a house. The Rock of Ages was such a wonder that Robert Ripley, Mr. Believe It or Not, had visited this spot just weeks earlier to make a radio broadcast, his voice carried upward by telephone cables and then out across the country by CBS. And yet one can imagine that for others, descending deep into the ground and watching the last trace of light vanish would have brought feelings not of joy and adventure, but of angst and foreboding. It wouldn't have taken much of a leap, in those thirty seconds when all was quiet and still, to see that darkness was settling upon the world as well.

It was an uneasy time, late summer 1939. Hitler's troops were amassed along the fifteen-hundred-mile German-Polish border. The Soviets and Japanese clashed along Mongolia's Khalka River. And Franco was ruthlessly consolidating his power in Spain. At home, America teetered on the edge of war. The worst of the Depression was over, but the economy was still sick. The Roosevelt Recession — in which industrial production had tumbled by 40 percent, unemployment had jumped by four million, and stock prices had plunged by nearly 50 percent — was barely more than a year past. The jobless rate hovered above 17 percent, and personal income and total economic output were no higher than they had been a decade before. Even the national pastime had taken on a melancholy cast: in June, Yankees slugger Lou Gehrig had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cutting short his extraordinary career. He may have just described himself as "the luckiest man on the face of this earth," but it seemed like an awfully tough break for a thirty-six-year-old dubbed "the Iron Horse." As for politics, things were as crazy as ever. President Roosevelt's popularity had ebbed in the last few years, and a volatile mixture of -isms was boiling and bubbling all over the place — Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Coughlinism, Longism, Townsendism. It was hard to tell sometimes which one might slosh out of the pot and stick.

Of all the eyes staring into the cave, among the weariest must have been Gretchen Knief's. She had trekked to New Mexico by way of theSouth and was on her way back home, to California's San Joaquin Valley, where she was the chief librarian for Kern County. She was a tall woman, impeccably dressed, her smile warm. No one would have called the thirty-seven-year-old a beauty, and she could be a little awkward at times. But it was an endearing awkwardness, and everybody admired her smarts. Knief had spent a portion of her trip examining libraries in Florida and Louisiana, and she had walked away feeling pleased with how Kern County's far-flung network of seventy-one branches, many of which she had single-handedly expanded, stacked up by comparison. But pressures were mounting too. Kern's main library was housed in the basement of the county courthouse in Bakersfield, in quarters so cramped that some of its materials were buried beneath old lighting fixtures, furniture, and other bric-a-brac. A proposed $300,000 bond issue to finance a new facility was scheduled to go before the voters in the fall. But who knew what they'd decide, given the budget squeeze afflicting the county? The situation showed no signs of easing, either, the way people were still streaming in to California's heartland, taxing public services of all kinds. "Authorities Predict Increase in Migrant Flow to Kern Soon," read the headline in the August 7 edition of the Bakersfield Californian.

The exodus had been underway for nearly a decade, with as many as four hundred thousand folks from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, and other states flocking to California in search of a better life. They were by no means exclusively poor. But many were. And the plight of these human tumbleweeds, as one observer had labeled them, had by now worked its way into the national consciousness. Leading periodicals had sent their correspondents to rural outposts up and down Highway 99 to chronicle the suffering. "Uncle Sam Has His Own Refugee Problem," the Providence Journal declared during the spring. "Lured to the West, They Find Misery, Squalor, Disease." Collier's magazine put it this way: "Perhaps the native and adopted sons of California pitched their voices a note or two too high when they warbled praises of the Golden State. Anyway, they got the idea across, and now they're sorry. An army is marching into California — an army made up of penniless unemployed, desperately seeking Utopia. 'Here we are,' say the invaders, 'what're you going to do about us?' And nobody knows the answer."

That may have been a tad hyperbolic, but coming up with answers was in no way simple. Kern County, for one, had seen its population swell by more than 60 percent in the last five years, and although health officers had cleaned up the squatter camps that once plagued the area, many migrants were still living in slums with inadequate sewers and drains, ramshackle houses, and litter-strewn dirt roads that would turn to mud after a hard winter rain. Who, though, was culpable for such conditions? Were they the fault of a grudging local government? Or were the newcomers themselves guilty somehow? Many suggested as much. The migrant community in Kern was branded as being full of "drunks, chiselers, exploiters and social leeches" — and that was in an official county report that had just been released. The language used on the street was even more blunt; in the lobby of a Bakersfield movie theater, a sign was posted: "Negroes and Okies Upstairs."

An alternative view, however, had also found its voice. This one laid the blame for the migrants' deprivation at the door of California agriculture, an industry that since the late nineteenth century had been defined by one main thing: its enormity. The state's giant landowners had made a travesty of the Jeffersonian ideal of 160 acres, assembling dominions that ballooned to one thousand times or more that size. "We no longer raise wheat here," said one grower. "We manufacture it." This wasn't family farming; it was agribusiness. And with it came a caste system in which relatively few got rich while many remained mired in the worst sort of poverty: Chinese in the 1870s, Japanese two decades later, Hindustanis early in the new century, Mexicans and Filipinos during and after World War I. Joining this ethnic parade were Armenians and Portuguese, Italians and Swiss — wave after wave of low-priced labor. Among the leviathan landholders were those who took care of their workers, some patronizingly, others with a genuine measure of respect. But many big farmers regarded their hands as expendable — "beasts of the field," in the words of an 1888 edition of the Kern County Californian. In many ways, things hadn't changed much in the fifty years since that description had been written, and with the Okies and Arkies now faring so terribly, social critics were pointing their fingers at California's agricultural elite.

The most articulate and powerful of the finger-pointers was author John Steinbeck, whose book The Grapes of Wrath had not only leapt onto the best-seller list after its publication in April but was also well on its way to becoming seared into the public's imagination forever. Darryl Zanuck was already busy with the film version of the story, starring Henry Fonda, and Woody Guthrie would soon record his ode to Steinbeck's protagonist, Tom Joad: Wherever little children are hungry and cry / Wherever people ain't free. / Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, / That's where I'm gonna be, Ma. / That's where I'm a gonna be. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt had called her reading of The Grapes of Wrath "an unforgettable experience." And in the coming months, the president would tell the nation that he, too, had read of the Joads' journey from the bone-dry plains of Oklahoma to the bountiful lands of California, where they and others toiled away for a pittance and found themselves wishing "them big farmers wouldn' plague us so." "There are 500,000 Americans," the president said, "that live in the covers of that book." By 1940, The Grapes of Wrath would be invoked so often that it almost seemed to cheapen the novel. Good Samaritans, looking to raise money to aid the migrants, would hold "Grapes of Wrath" parties. The union seeking to organize California's farm fields — the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America — recruited five young Broadway actors to tour the West and Southwest, with ticket sales going into UCAPAWA's coffers. The troupe's name: The Grapes of Wrath Players. Meanwhile, pundits of all stripes would reference the Joads in articles and speeches, as if they were real: "Meet the Joad Family," "The Joad Family in Kern County," "What's Being Done About the Joads?" "The Joads on Strike." Men began to wear a hat called the "Joad Cap."

Knief peered into the inky cavern, and slowly the lights came up, like a sunrise in the distance. Then a ranger's voice washed over the Big Room:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
In that very instant, it is conceivable that Knief and all the others assembled in the Big Room let their worries — the weight resting on "our troubled and confused generation," as she once expressed it — melt away. Whether that sense of tranquility lasted very long is another matter. As Knief headed back to Bakersfield, her vacation done, she motored along Route 66, the same stretch of highway on which the migrants "scuttled like bugs to the westward," as Steinbeck wrote. The Mother Road, as she was known, was the path to California's promise. Knief counted herself a Steinbeck devotee, having briefly met him during one of his research outings to the area. And on the eve of the publication of The Grapes of Wrath, she had lauded him as "one of our major creative writers in America today," a literary force on par with Faulkner, Hemingway, Saroyan, and Dos Passos. In "The Reading Hour," a column that she wrote for the Bakersfield paper, Knief had also noted that this tale of migratory labor was bound to be "of more than passing interest" to local readers.

As she'd soon discover, that would prove to be quite an understatement.

[From the book Obscene in the Extreme by Rick Wartzman. Reprinted by arrangement with PublicAffairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2008.]
Source / National Public Radio

Also see Jonathan Yardley on 'Obscene in the Extreme' / Washington Post / Sept. 14, 2008

Find Obscene in the Extreme: The Burning and Banning of John Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath on Amazon.com.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

29 September 2008

'Burn Baby Burn' : Fight Censorship During 'Banned Books Week'


September 27 - October 4, 2008. . .

Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read!

See 'Burn, Baby, Burn: On "Fahrenheit 451" and why good democracy should make you feel bad' by Josh Rosenblatt, Below.
Banned Books Week is the only national celebration of the freedom to read. It was launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in schools, bookstores and libraries. More than a thousand books have been challenged since 1982. The challenges have occurred in every state and in hundreds of communities. People challenge books that they say are too sexual or too violent. They object to profanity and slang, and protest against offensive portrayals of racial or religious groups--or positive portrayals of homosexuals. Their targets range from books that explore the latest problems to classic and beloved works of American literature.

Click on image to enlarge.

According to the American Library Association, more than 400 books were challenged in 2007. The 10 most challenged titles were:
1. And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
2. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
3. Olive’s Ocean by Kevin Henkes
4. The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
7. TTYL by Lauren Myracle
8. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
9. It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
(Click here to see why these books were challenged.)

During the last week of September every year, hundreds of libraries and bookstores around the country draw attention to the problem of censorship by mounting displays of challenged books and hosting a variety of events. The 2008 celebration of Banned Books Week will be held from September 27 through October 4.

Banned Books Week is sponsored by the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Association of American Publishers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of College Stores. Banned Books Week is also endorsed by the Center for the Book of the Library of Congress.

Thank you for celebrating Banned Books Week!
Source / Banned Books Week
Burn, Baby, Burn

On 'Fahrenheit 451' and why good democracy should make you feel bad

By Josh Rosenblatt / September 26, 2008

Illustration by Kevin Peake / Austin Chronicle

When I was 12 years old, word came down that the Montgomery County School Board had decided to ban a book called Amos Fortune: Free Man from all school libraries. They claimed the biography of an African prince turned slave was too controversial and culturally insensitive to be forced upon (or even made available to) the minds of impressionable children, too accurate a portrayal of the darkest chapter in American history to be taught in American schools. African princes are snatched from their villages, the banners cried, and forced into slavery! The book contains the word "nigger," they warned. Not once, but many, many times! All across suburban Maryland, you could hear the sighs of parents who until that point had never heard of Amos Fortune: Free Man but who could now sleep soundly knowing their kids wouldn't be coming around asking them uncomfortable questions about it.

The next day, I went out and bought myself a copy of Amos Fortune: Free Man and, with all the brazenness of early adolescence, took it to school to read during English class. I was convinced that within those pages resided a tale of such decadence, such lasciviousness, such utter degradation and human calamity as to make my hair stand on end, my knees buckle, and my soul curdle. Why else would adults be banning it?

Turns out I had gotten my hopes up for nothing: The Amos Fortune affair, rather than being my introduction to a world of controversy and open defiance, would mark instead the beginning of my realization that adults had no idea what they were talking about. I read every page of that book and discovered nothing even remotely scandalous. There were scenes of violence and racism, of course, but anyone who had made it to the seventh grade knew what slavery was and was cognizant of the fact that those subjected to it had lived lives of unaccountable misery. Nothing new there. So why had they banned Amos Fortune, when I found nothing there to differentiate it from any number of morality tales about the value of hard work and charitable living shoved daily down the throats of American students from Maine to California?

It was then I began to realize that some people will try to ban anything, regardless of its artistic merit, its cultural status, or even its ability to titillate or warp young minds. Some people will try to ban things simply because they think banning things is a good and noble way to spend one's time ... because someone's got to keep an eye out!

The whole fiasco left me terrified of the fragility of American liberty and ashamed of the prudishness of American culture, a feeling that has never gone away.

A curious (and very partial) list of books that have been banned, challenged, or redacted by government and/or school officials in the United States:
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, The Canterbury Tales, The Diary of Anne Frank, Of Mice and Men, The Life and Works of Renoir, Little House on the Prairie, The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, To Kill a Mockingbird, The What's Happening to My Body? Book for Girls: A Growing Up Guide for Parents and Daughters, The What's Happening to My Body? Book for Boys: A Growing Up Guide for Parents and Sons, the Bible, Where's Waldo?
"Books make people unhappy."

This line comes from François Truffaut's adaptation of Ray Bradbury's 1953 sci-fi classic, Fahrenheit 451, about a dystopian future society where reading has been outlawed and books are burned in the streets. Newspaper comic strips are cartoons devoid of words. Human beings rely on impossibly vapid television shows for their senses of identity and purpose (Bradbury has said that his main motivation for writing the book wasn't concern over censorship but rather fear that television was destroying people's interest in reading). The written word is dead.

The Captain, played by Cyril Cusack, speaks that line while explaining to the film's hero, Guy Montag (Oskar Werner), why it's necessary that they and their fellow firemen burn books. The firemen, after all, are the best line of defense against the reading scourge; without their ability to suss out suspected readers, the America they live in – a land of drugged-up housewives and automaton husbands – would fall prey to critical thought and individuality, resulting in self-absorption, moral relativism, and societal collapse.

The frightening thing, of course, is that the Captain's observation isn't entirely wrong. After all, it's a fool who sees a correlation between happiness and intimate knowledge of the psychological motives behind Raskolnikov's axing the pawnbroker woman in Crime and Punishment, between happiness and knowing exactly how many hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were hacked to death in 1994, between happiness and the awareness of the perilously slim and shrinking lead Barack Obama has in the current presidential election.

But isn't that what makes American democracy so fascinating? Any society can advocate the pursuit of happiness, but it takes an especially confident one to allow its citizens the right to pursue the opposite. Despair, worthless empathy, artistic immersion are the dread of others. Unhappiness. True democracy lies in a society resigning itself to the great multiplicity of human emotion and behavior. If anything, liberty should be making us all miserable.

Truffaut, ever the Frenchman, understood this paradox as well as anyone, and with Fahrenheit 451, he created a cinematic world that celebrates the variety of human experience even as it condemns viewers to the unvaried confines of authoritarianism.
Truffaut found just the right housing slabs to film at just the right point in gray, leafless late autumn to capture the pervading sense of lifelessness compulsory to any dystopian movie. And yet, at the same time, Fahrenheit 451 is the first movie the director ever shot in color – glorious Technicolor, to be exact – and he couldn't resist shooting it as if it were some kind of carnival fun house, a world bursting with colors that both thrill viewers and sicken them with saturation.

Witness the director's ironic, almost cartoonish use of green-screen backgrounds. It was the most blatant and unapologetically artificial manipulation since Hitchcock (his hero), brazen in its acknowledgement of the pure contrivance that is cinematic storytelling. It's a technique that pays tribute to the wonder of film while acting as the perfect visual parallel to Bradbury's condemnation of ersatz broadcast reality and its detrimental effects on the human mind, on human emotion, and on human society.

It's film honoring film and condemning it at the same time.

A curious (and partial) list of movies that have been banned by government officials, Hollywood Production Code administrators, and/or Catholic League of Decency members in the United States (with explanations):
The Birth of a Nation (racism), The Tin Drum (underage sex), The Last Temptation of Christ (blasphemy), Scarface (violence), Frankenstein (cruelty), The Moon Is Blue (existence of female sexuality), The Outlaw (existence of Jane Russell's breasts).
Every year, the American Library Association pays tribute to the lunacy of censorship by organizing events all over the country for Banned Books Week. In Chicago, for example, there's the Read-Out! celebration, where authors and other celebrities recite passages from their favorite banned and challenged books. In Encino, Calif., students at the Valley Beth Shalom Day School will be taken to the school library and invited to explore banned books to see what all the fuss is about (I don't envy them their inevitable disappointment). Even the virtual world of Second Life is staging an event.

Source / Austin Chronicle
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

07 September 2008

Go Tell Sarah : Celebrate the Freedom to Read


Banned Books Week
Celebrating the Freedom to Read
September 27–October 4, 2008

Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. Observed since 1982, this annual ALA event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted. This year, 2008, marks BBW's 27th anniversary (September 27 through October 4).

BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.

BBW is sponsored by the American Booksellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Association of American Publishers, National Association of College Stores, and is endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress.

To learn more about Banned Books Week and this year's activities, go to the American Library Association website.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.