Response to "Darkness too visible"

The Article "Darkness too visible" by Megan Cox Gurdon" addresses the all too prevalent issue of young adult fiction, and what's considered "appropriate". Gurdon backs the side of those who believe that overly adult themes such as, Incest, pederasty, and self mutilation should be banned.

She uses loaded words and imagery to suppport her point. For example she she calls books of this sort "Horrendous" and says that any young reader who seeks out this "Depravity" will be surrounded by, "brutality and losses", of the, "Most horrendous kinds." She also uses imagery by describing the world of teen fiction as a "hall of funhouse mirrors, constantly reflecting back distorted portrayls of what life is.

Lastly, she quotes a person who's viewpoint is opposite of hers, and then describes his ranting against censorship as "bemoaning". The restrictions set on him. This is effective because she gives her counterattack an ear, then points out faults in it to weaken it. Explaining how not censoring books can be considered a "dereliction" of a parents duty. Yet when editors do this as part of their job, they are incriminated.

I partially agree with the author. I don't think that adolescents should be sheltered, and have an idea of the dark parts of this world. However they shouldn't be entertaining themselves with it by reading a book solely about self-mutilation. When it comes down to how much children are influenced, it really depends on the child's maturity and their parents decision.

Book Report

10/19/14

           

             What can be defined as holy? I have a personal definition of holy, and I’m sure you do as well. However, your view of religion may differ from what I believe. As we grow up, we all develop our own belief system. Whether it’s through organized religion or personal experience, these can be easily affected by books, holy or secular. Parents who belong to a certain religion, might want to guard their children from holy books of other religions or books that have very religious or anti-religious themes. Dracula is a fine example of a book parents might want to censor. The book features characters with strong personal ties to Christianity fighting the forces of evil. Some may look at this and argue that since Dracula is a time tested, well-loved classic, it is appropriate to read for people of all faiths and ages and therefore could fall into the category of mandatory reading. I believe that books like this should not be assigned as such.

            One reason that this book is inappropriate for school is Dracula’s involvement in black magic. As a vampire, he practices telepathy, shape-shifting, and mind control. These practices are demonic. The practitioner relies on supernatural and uncanny power. Because of this element, this book can confuse and frighten the reader. You would not be surprised to know that the characters in the book are equally terrified by these things, and combat them by using “holy” items, things such as Crucifixes that scare Dracula away. This book blatantly promotes idolatry. For example regarding Crucifixes, Van Helsing a character in the book says that,  “whilst this is close to you no foul thing can approach.”  This raises another problem, some youths, scared by these items and presented with a seemingly effective route of combating supernatural things may begin to put faith in amulets. Many people’s religions don’t teach Idolatry as acceptable. If a child were to pre-maturely changed what he was raised to believe based on this book, the results could be disastrous.

            Another way that books like Dracula can be inappropriate for children, is the way it challenges religious norms. Most of the classics I have read are against Catholicism. Toward the beginning of Dracula, one of the main characters, Johnathan Harker, being a devout Anglican wants to refuse a rosary from a catholic woman. He calls it “Idolatrous.” Such language would offend a devout Catholic. Another book that is similar in this respect is “The Three Musketeers” by Alexander Dumas. In this book Dumas portrays a Cardinal as an immoral person, with a political agenda on top of being a priest. This could offend a catholic person as well. In addition to being detrimental in this way, the books can cause young Catholics to doubt catholic doctrine as well as their Patriarchy.

            Now please don’t misunderstand me. I’m very much for independent thinking children. I don’t have anything against people reading innovative material. However would you call heavily embellished, biased material like this appropriate? Bram Stoker was an Irish Protestant and most likely hated Catholicism. Therefore his writing about Catholicism is biased. Dumas could very likely have exaggerated Richielieu’s immorality and corruption to serve as an antagonist in his book. As children mature and develop discernment, they may realize how embellished and biased these authors are. However, in schools, there is a huge disparity in levels of maturity and reasoning power. This makes schools the least appropriate place to introduce these books.

            I personally regret having read Dracula. It didn’t challenge my beliefs because I understand that there is no such thing as vampires. I also understand that the effect of the amulets was fabricated. I am neither Catholic nor Anglican, so the religious controversy doesn’t offend me. What does offend me is Stoker’s graphic  descriptions of black magic, as well as how he describes the power of amulets. I read Dracula independently as an intellectual challenge. However I can’t separate my heart from my mind. This book left me feeling disgusted. If I were to be mandated to read this book, I would refuse. I feel every reader has the right take that position based on their religious beliefs. When it comes to such controversial literature, this situation should not even arise.