Squatter, I agree with you about the word 'indoctrination', which might be meant here in its most innocuous sense, but which has unavoidable connotations (we're talking cultural revolution and similar examples here).
However, I don't necessarily agree that the work of Neitzche could be classed as 'dangerous', especially in the same way as you cite de Sade. His works (in translation, anyway) are open to several interpretations and the incitement, if any, of a 'will to power' is far more psychological (and arguably mystical) than the appropriation by half-baked ideologies suggests.
I am not sure also if the difference between censorship in the 'Bowdlerised' sense or the understable restriction of access is necessarily the fundamental point. In either case, the reasons behind any specific
mediation of art (or in the form of a policy decision) are the real issue ...
As you say, a policy decision based on assumptions that could apply to a genre, or perhaps to a themes or keywords, or according to the persona of the author, all of these may well result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater (I wonder if this colloquiallism is self-explanatory enough)?
Tolkien, of course, is hardly the example to use in a discussion of whether censorship of any kind is justifiable, given Mr Underhill's clear analysis of the minimal 'dangers' in his work, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Bill Ferny's polemic -
Quote:
|
Human beings in our society (I’m speaking as an American) have been reduced to the status of automata. In general, the public is pretty much mindless. How can this be in a free society? It is a failure of the educational system, a lack of liberal arts in our high schools and colleges, political correctness, and rampant materialistic consumerism. The very tools that we need to censure responsibly are lacking. We also flood our kids with so many controversial issues and notions without first giving them the tools to deal with them, that they have no choice but to follow the loudest voice in the cacophony, which is more often than not the advertisers.
|
Perhaps it's my age, or merely a tendency to be swayed by articulate ranting [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. But if the internet, for example, can be seen as an acid test of a medium with relatively minimal regulation, then (with honourable exceptions such as The Barrow Downs, grovel [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) then Bill has a fair point.
Maybe this is the dirty reality behind a conception that in principle I feel very antagonistic towards. I would
like to believe that through patient and nurturing dialogue, through enthusiasm and tolerant discussion, through willingness to engage in debate, and through the courage to confront difficult issues, and so on etc., both children and adults can become rounded individuals who make responsible and positive choices about what they read and how they perceive it, are able to rationalise their reactions, share insights and develop self-knowledge, etc. etc.
And indeed this happens. Individuals become (or are) thoughtful, complex, subtle discerning and positive - even when all the environmental factors mitigate against such an outcome. While others, even with all the advantages, turn out the opposite. And sometimes it's the same person at different times in their life - or the same person at the same time, in different areas of their life ... (hmm, better stop, I feel a confession coming on [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] )
The sociological statistics may point towards trends, or a hierarchy of influences, but the variables are highly complex and any axiomatic theories of educational, social, genetic or cultural determinism can be very strongly challenged. And it is nice to see that, despite Bill's angst, the posters here of all ages are generally literate, thoughtful, open-minded and idealistic, or attempting to be!
The point I am making is that the argument that censoring Tolkien is a 'bad' thing does not strengthen the argument that censorship is a 'bad' thing, or vice versa. The two are unrelated.
I think my initial question has been answered as much as it can be. But the Pandora's Box hypotheses leaves room for discussion, or perhaps from a different perspective that ties in to an ancient rant of mine ...
Is it the nature of the current fantasy genre,
by contrast to the work of Tolkien, that makes it vulnerable even to well-intentioned censorship, on the grounds of its exploitative use of mythic, religious or archetypal symbols, coupled with the lack of morality
- in contrast to Tolkein - or any of its other failings (so well documented on these boards)?
Compliments again on such interesting posts!
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]