Every now and then I wonder did someone stuff me into Doc Brown's Delorean-cum-time-machine and set the dial for some era when women always wore gloves to church. What's got me thinking of a somewhat decent Eighties movie (unlike the spate of dreck starring Steve Gutenberg) are the articles I've seen about an award winning book being banned in New Zealand. Do we still ban books? Why would we ban books? Isn't it good to get people reading? The book in question is called 'Into the River' by an author known as Ted Dawe. Hey, if you're reading this, Ted, just remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. The ban follows some pressure applied by a Christian group known as Family First, who objected to the sex and drug use featured in the novel.
Okay, let me play Devil's advocate here, and ask what is more offensive: some sex and drugs in a book, or that a group who believe in a supernatural being can hold such sway that they will influence what I can or cannot read (if I was living in New Zealand). If a business sells the book, it faces a $10,000 fine whilst a private citizen faces a $3,000 fine, if they are unaware of the ban. If they are, then look out, it's gaol time for you. You can still purchase the book from Amazon and view on a kindle.
This has got me shaking my head with my jaw hanging. I cannot believe in this day and age, and in our hemisphere, a book would be banned. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, even surpassing the time a group of people decided it would be a good idea to dispose of a beached whale carcass by using explosives (the laws of physics that deal with mass displacement had whale meat and blubber flying everywhere, causing damage to property - and it had me laughing like a drain). But a book ban is not only stupid, it is downright bloody offensive. Are we to have a new 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' type trial? I'm a grown woman and quite happy to decide for myself what I will read, thank you very much, Family First - if you ever spread your tentacles across the Tasman and try to sway our Classification Board. I'm not complacent in believing it won't happen, trust me on this.
New Zealand strikes me as being a very progressive country. They were the first to give women the vote, and they have beaten us in the legislation of same sex marriage. Something I learned recently, via an article written by my Facebook friend Jeremy Stanford, is they are what I'd affectionately and admiringly call 'colour-blind'. By this I mean skin colour is just not an issue. In Jeremy's article, he spoke of having attended a production in Auckland of Miller's 'All My Sons', and one of the sons was played by a Maori actor, and the rest of the ensemble were white. Jeremy's wife is a Kiwi, and when he commented on the actor having a different skin colour to his on-stage family, she replied it has long been commonplace for Maori actors to be cast with white actors, and nobody even notices. This says a lot. A hell of a bloody lot. I know I would notice if a different coloured actor was cast in a 'family', only because one usually shares the same skin colour as their biological siblings (unless you're Michael Jackson). Jeremy's article was actually about racism, and here's a link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-28/standford-booing-adam-goodes-are-we-even-aware-were-racists/6653108
But yeah, for a country that's progressive, why ban a freakin' book? Why not ban religious books, given the amount of crap that goes on in the name of organised religion? This just in: kids are going to read about drug use and sex (and it's my understanding these are not the pivotal themes of the book in question, anyway). I remember when I was in Year 10, and the book 'Puberty Blues' going around my school. It was my copy, and when it got returned to me it was in utter tatters. I recall one of my male friends, then in Year 9, reading to a group of captivated Year 7s that notorious passage set in the back of the panel van. I'm amazed 'Puberty Blues' didn't get a ban, and I'm glad it didn't; I consider this the 'Catcher in the Rye' for Aussie kids of my era. 'Catcher in the Rye' itself is a book that stirs up controversy, so I wonder have Family First got their narrow-minded views set on that one, too. Do they still teach it in schools? I'd set this for the class essay: 'Holden Caulfield: Symbol of Disenfranchised Youth or Whiny Little Flog. Discuss'.
Hey, Family First - my most recent book deals with same sex marriage, and my protagonist smokes a joint and has casual sex. Got a problem with that? Here's a link to the first chapter: http://www.zeus-publications.com/silver_studs_and_sabre_teeth.htm (see what I did there, folks? Tried to stir up interest in my book).
No comments:
Post a Comment