Banned Books

This week, September 30 - October 6, 2012, is Banned Books Week, so what better time to take a look at books that have been banned over the years in various countries?  I'll select a few examples, and discuss a bit about why they were banned.  Should be not only fun, but hopefully insightful.

Several classic science fiction novels have been banned in various countries, including some of the most iconic examples of the genre: Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell; Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley; and Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.  Those are some pretty heavy hitters, and books that are now on many educational reading lists.  But why were they banned?

Brave New World was supposedly banned in Ireland for "references of sexual promiscuity," and in fact many books in many different countries were banned for similar reasons, including Frankenstein.  Obscenity seems to be a common theme for those pushing to ban certain books, and one does not have to look very far to find examples of books banned for obscenity as recently as this year.

I get the obscenity angle, the push to keep society (and children, of course) as Puritan as possible.  Many countries, the United Kingdom and America especially, have been quite prudish regarding this sort of thing.  But while it's understandable to shield those not mature enough to handle certain situations from them, it's another altogether to push an agenda of morality on a country's citizenry.  Banning something on moral grounds indicates not only mistrust in people to make rational decisions based on the content for themselves, but also behavior that stifles the ability to learn rational decision-making.  After all, if one is shielded from anything deemed inappropriate, how can they learn the process of identifying it as such for themselves?  "Because I said so" works well with toddlers.  They have limited experience with making sound decisions.  But once a person matures to the point where they are supposed to make decisions on their own, that is no longer a viable reason.

George Orwell's works have been banned for much more obvious reasons: they are outright political satire, and were banned because of their criticism of communism and corruption in government.  Stalin knew Nineteen Eighty-Four was a clear jab at him and his leadership, and enacted a ban on the book throughout the U.S.S.R that continued through 1990, when it was edited and re-released.

These are clear cases of the suppression of free speech, and key indicators of those governments' stances toward that basic human right.  Interestingly, communist-led countries were not the only ones to ban Orwell's books.  Allied forces banned Animal Farm during parts of World War II because of its critical look at the U.S.S.R., and was deemed too "controversial" to print during wartime.

Many other books have been banned for any number of reasons, with "subversive material," "hate literature," "insulting material," and "unflattering portrayal" of individuals, religions, governments, or populations cited as reasons.  Books as old as the Bible and as innocuous as dictionaries have been banned.  Generally, it appears that if a book contains anything someone somewhere would find objectionable, it's going to get banned.

And that's a shame.  A book may not be tasteful or politically correct.  It may be lewd, inappropriate, or offensive.  It may even be downright vile or provocative.  And none of that matters.  It's still just a book.  Words.  Nothing in any book should exempt the actions of a human being, capable of making conscious choice to commit those actions.

We've seen this tested recently, with the terror attacks in Benghazi, supposedly linked to outrage over an amateur movie.  We've seen calls to limit offensive or provocative speech.  Will common sense prevail, or as Fahrenheit 451 alluded to, will they one day come for our books in an effort to suppress dissent, quell unrest, or create the illusion of peace and prosperity?

Dystopia and the Occupy Movement

Hama Al-Assy Square 2011-07-22, © Syriana2011

The winds of change are blowing.  The world is changing.  As early as the Arab Spring, which began in late 2010, a cry of protest rose, the effects of which I think we have only begun to see.  Similar sentiment rushed through the Middle East, with speed and intensity only matched by a wildfire.

Large anti-Mubarak protest in Egypt's Alexandria, © Al Jazeera English

Well over a dozen countries there have seen protests, from minor rallies in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, to complete chaos, fighting, and the overthrow of governments in Egypt and Libya.

Where the Smoke Clouds Came From, © Al Jazeera English

In an earlier post, I wrote about the dystopian reality we can find around us, with images of stark decay, squalor, and crumbled infrastructure, pictures of places time has seemingly abandoned.  This time, let's take a look at the societal aspect of dystopia, and how it can be seen in the world events unfolding around us.

Occupy Wall Street Day 14, © David Shankbone

Whether triggered by the protests in the Middle East, or only coincidentally related, the Occupy Wall Street movement has become a key discussion point in today's discourse.  Not since the 1970's have we seen this level of widespread and volatile dissension in the United States.

Occupy Wall Street Day 14, © David Shankbone

This is neither a pro- nor an anti-OWS post, so if you're here for that, you'll be sorely disappointed.  I am not here to make a statement, whether ideologically, politically, or morally, regarding the pros or cons of the movement.  I see it as portraying a number of key social discussion points that appear in many works of science fiction.  There are discussion points from both ends of the spectrum, many with no clear-cut answers.

Occupy Wall Street Day 60, © David Shankbone

Sociology and science fiction are linked, perhaps far more closely than the average reader imagines.  It's not hard to draw parallels and see examples of these discussion points whenever there is a significant social movement.

Occupy Wall Street Day 28, © David Shankbone

Whether art imitates life, or it's the other way around, we find subcultures, factions, and cliques emerge whenever there is a large group of people put together for any significant amount of time.  It's who we are as social animals.  It's inherent in our makeup as humans.

Occupy Wall Street Protests, © Caroline Schiff Photography

No two people think or act alike, and as such, even while we see blatant examples of Orwell's doublethink at work, we see factions and differing opinions presenting themselves as well.

Occupy Wall Street Day 17, © David Shankbone

Seaking of Orwell, we indeed see examples of his dystopian 1984 world alive and well on both sides of the Occupy movement.  Not only do we see protesters echoing a singular voice, often without fully understanding what they're supporting, we see a similar solidarity and unity of action with the police forces reacting to these protests.  An individual supporting either side would probably react less strongly one way or the other outside the context of collectivism within their like-minded group.  I'm hardly the first to recognize links to 1984, and I won't be the last.

Occupy Rome 1984 Orwell, © Remo Cassella

There are countless pictures of the movement, which isn't hard to imagine with a crowd whose every member wields a camera.  Some are iconic, viral examples of the passionate nature of the movement.  Most are obviously taken to express a singular point of view, either for or against these protests, but when viewed as a whole they provide a mosaic from which we can study the sociological issues at play here.

Occupy Wall Street Day 14, © David Shankbone

From the absurd to the ironic, one can see almost anything whenever a large group of people amass.  And each singular view is necessary to view the mosaic as a whole.  Each picture tells its own story, or even conflicting stories.

Occupy Wall Street Day 60, © David Shankbone

No matter what your position regarding this movement, or what "percent" you claim to be a part of, these images present a number of key social issues and questions that apply to both reality and fiction.

Occupy Wall Street Day 14, © David Shankbone

What does a government owe its citizens, if anything?  What does a citizen owe society, if anything?  Should personal responsibility be graded on a sliding scale?  Where does one draw lines in the gray area between universal human rights offered to all and benefits offered to some?  Is what is good for an individual the same as what is good for society as a whole?  How about the other way around?  Do the rights of the many merit sacrificing the rights of the few, or are the human rights of each individual sacrosanct, even to the detriment of others?  We generally agree that one person's rights end where another's begin, but the main bone of contention seems to be exactly where that imaginary line is drawn.

Occupy Portland, © Kit Seeborg

Sometimes these questions are not only difficult to answer, but may not be immediately apparent.  For example, most people would probably agree everyone should be given equal treatment and opportunity.  But on what basis do we form this equality?  Some argue we should create a higher standard of equality for the many by enforcing unequal treatment to the few.  Some argue we should enforce strict equal treatment to all, regardless of success or need.

Occupy Rome, 15 October, © Remo Cassella

Again, this circles back to the question of who owes what to whom, a question impossible to answer.  For every ten people asked, you'd probably get eleven impassioned answers.  One could make the argument that different societies would answer these questions in very different manners, producing very different societies, much as we see in various countries around the world.

Occupy Sevilla, © Tom Raftery

These are vital questions not only to actual society, but to authors of science fiction.  For as a creator of a society, no matter how fictional, the structures which hold that society in place have to make sense to the reader.  If the society you describe is not a viable, realistic society, it compromises belief in your entire story, not just those elements.

Occupy Berlin, © Adam Groffman

If you create utopia, the checks and balances must be there to maintain it as such, while at the same time exposing issues which may ride just under the surface as they did a year ago.  Because the word utopia resembles both the Greek words for "no place", outopos, and for "good place", eutopos, utopian fiction usually portrays a society which seems perfect on the outside, while leaving several critical sociological issues unresolved.  This allows the author to weave plot into the tapestry of the environment of the story and create the possibility for conflict and climax.

Occupy Wall Street, © Mat McDermott

If you create dystopia, on the other hand, the basic elements for strong conflict should be in the forefront, with no easy resolution in sight.  I like to think of a dystopian society as one slightly older than a utopian one.  Once the basic tenets of the utopian society have crumbled, dystopia emerges as the main framework of scene.

Oakland Police Ready for Violence, by Soozarti1

I don't think anyone could accurately tell whether or not what we're seeing with these movements reflects this change.  I don't think anyone wants it to.  But regardless of what happens in the future, what is happening is a great opportunity to look at elements of a dystopian society.  For a science fiction author like me, that is an additional facet to it, and one that makes it more fascinating than it might otherwise be.

Book Review: 1984

When reading or watching a work of speculative fiction, it's easy to see why the genre easily becomes dated and appears old fashioned or very simple in its basic premises of scientific innovation.  Science fiction films of the 1950's, 60's and 70's provide numerous examples.

Even some of the works of the last couple of decades appear outdated with the advances in technology we've seen.  Technological discoveries have increased exponentially over the last century, and even more so over the last few years.

This means a work of science fiction has a far greater chance of becoming dated even sooner than before.  So how is it that some are able to stand the test of time to become classics, still viable after years?  Let's take a look at a great example of one that has.

George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has been a classic for many years, and still stands as cutting social commentary in today's world.  Not only this, many of the unique words or phrases he used in the novel are a part of today's vernacular.  We use the terms "thought police", "doublespeak", "groupthink", and "Big Brother" nowadays without hardly a thought as to their origins.  In fact, even the author's name in the adjectival "Orwellian", has come to mean that of a totalitarian agenda, referring to revisionist history and manipulation of perception.  The book itself conveys thoughts of nationalism, surveillance, privacy, and censorship, topics which are very much at the forefront of today's headlines.  If anything, it becomes more and more valid as time goes by.  Not bad for a novel first published in 1949.

So how did he do it?  How did Orwell create such a masterpiece, that rings true and current even today and well into the future?  How did he create a work of science fiction that does not seem to age much at all, even with the relatively recent explosion of new technology?

He used themes which are at the core of every civilization, and which strike chords close to everyone on an individual level.  He made humanity the core element of his plot, with themes anyone can relate with.  He did not rely solely on technology to drive the plot.  And while technology does move the plot, with cameras and two-way television screens, the main force is of a very real human nature.  The real focus of the book was the nature of the relationship between a government and its civilians, and even more compelling, the way the government turned each and every one of its citizens into spies against the rest.

The bad guy as it turns out in the book is much more than the ubiquitous Big Brother.  While government entities under sanction of Big Brother are hard at work monitoring, censoring, and revising history, its very citizens are spying on each other.  Everyone is a willing participant in the persecution they themselves are subject to, because although they never really know who's watching, someone is always watching.  Whether it's an undercover agent of the Thought Police or a next door neighbor, when one is turned in for unacceptable behavior, it really doesn't matter who it was that turned them in.  This perpetuates the cycle, and ingrains it into the children of the society who are taught warped ideals and beliefs from an early age.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a fascinating tale that strikes to the core of our sense of values, morals and humanity.  It gives us a horribly chilling view of a terrifying society at one extreme end of the spectrum, while offering a glimpse at the core of real humanity on a very personal level.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and George Orwell's masterpiece is a prime example of this.  The book has been adapted a number of times in film, television, stage, radio, and many other media forms.  It's seen countless derivatives spring up over the years, and has been the inspiration behind huge numbers of creative works.  It's been a tremendous inspiration to me in my own writing, and I'm certain many other authors can say the same.

All in all, it's one of the best pieces of literature to come from the last century, and is something everyone should have on their bookshelf or in their e-reader.