As you're probably aware, The Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins has earned (in addition to what must be a stupidly large literary fortune) one of the most prestigious and enviable honors in literature: a place on the most banned books list. Lord knows I've dreamt of making the list and I applaud Collins for doing so. But back to the banning: look at the reasons given in that link. Or just look here:
"anti-ethnic; anti-family; insensitivity; offensive language; occult/satanic; violence."
"Violence" is last on the list. And though the reasons do appear to be listed alphabetically, we're talking about a book where child-on-child murder is a central plot point.* And when you draw up complaints like this about any book, you should probably lead with the most egregious offenses, no? Of course, it's not as though violence is the most serious sin in American art. Not even when it involves children. Just ask the MPAA. And this is not to diminish the severity or horror of child-on-child murder. But there's a marked difference between not wanting your kid to read that and deciding no one should be allowed to read.
----
*Full disclosure: I've only read the first two Hunger Games
books. I've been meaning to get around to the third for the last year or
so, but was told that semi-central character and all around
wet blanket Peeta Mellark (SPOILER) does not die. I was told something about him
having a surlier demeanor and possibly trying to kill main character and
reluctant teenage dynamo Katniss Everdeen, which might finally give him
something to do aside from get in Katniss' way and generally be a
useless slug. But then I was led to believe that this was more of a
hypnosis thing, rather than a scorned would-be lover thing (please alert
me if any of this is incorrect), because why should a crucial character ever
be interesting? (END SPOILER) So, as you might've surmised,
my interest was slightly dampened on an otherwise terrific pair of YA
books and combined with an ever growing wishlist on Amazon to attend to,
I haven't gotten to it. Yet.
----
I also notice that Satan (finally managing a bit of luck) was on the list of reasons for Hunger Games' inclusion. Not that I remember him being heavily involved in the story, unless he's a stand-in for the evil that is done by the villainous government upon the children and, thus, their families. In which case, couldn't we argue that drama and conflict are impossible without Beelzebub? And therefore shouldn't we be thanking the Lord of Flies for his contributions to millenniums' old tradition of storytelling? As long as I'm applauding Collins, I might as well save some energy for the paranormal entity that not only makes every banned list, but has made those banned lists possible.
On a similar note, "religious viewpoint" shows up a lot for a lot of books on the list. I'm not even sure what the hell that means. Depicting religion, maybe? So are holy texts out, too? But then, this is a specifically American list, so the offense is more likely related to depicting something that is seemingly counter to whatever narrow, thin-skinned, thick-headed version of fundamentalist Christianity a few bored parents in PTA meetings are huffing at the present moment. That is to say: the dramatic depiction of anything remotely interesting. And, again, it's not to oppose parents' deciding what is and isn't right for their kid; that is their purview. But they don't get a blanket ban for everyone.
Lastly, I want to point out that one of the reasons given for the banning of one my favorite books from high school--Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (and if any teenager/pre-teen liked Hunger Games, Brave New World should be one of their next steps)--was "nudity." Nudity. In a book. Without pictures. Here's the thing: if a kid can read depictions of nudity or sex and comprehend them, then he/she is psychologically and emotionally mature enough to deal with those depictions or otherwise decide they don't want to read them. And you should be, too.
This sort of thing is nothing new (that second link is about the banning of Anne Frank's Diary. Anne Frank's Diary. A fifteen-year old made the list, which means that I have officially wasted my life). And these lists aren't going anywhere, either. I'm not going to make the case that banned lists are stupid. Not because they aren't, or because other people have already said it, or because they often have the reverse effect of making a book more popular, or even because saying "ban banned lists" sounds odd. I'm not going to say that because when you take that honor away, the only thing you leave writers is the hope of making some money with their work. In other words, it leaves us with false hope than we already had.
If Collins were looking for my advice (she's not), I'd say take the honor with joy and aplomb. Do you have any idea what some people would give to be in your position?**
----
**I killed the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in my book! Ban me!
No comments:
Post a Comment