E314 Banned Books
Censorship Statement
DUE by Monday 1/20 (MLK Holiday - no classes)
Overview
Research a written work or another kind of text (art, film, music, etc.) that has been banned or censored by some institutional body (school systems, the government, the Catholic Church, other religious officials, etc) to get a sense of what the work is about (especially if you haven't read it) and why it was considered controversial.
Write a comment discussing
(1) the nature of this work - what is it about, why was it found to be controversial?
(2) What measures were taken to ban or restrict access to the work.
(3) Whether or not you find these procedures to be right (ethically, morally, or intellectually).
Censorship Resources
- ALA (American Library Association) lists of frequently challenged books
- Wikipedia list of books banned by governments
- OCLC (Library Database) 112 banned books from the Top 1000 Books List (2005)
- The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (a list of books prohibited by the Catholic Church)-- background & list
- Wikipedia lists of films banned in the United States and worldwide
- Banned visual artwork
- Banned music videos
@RollingStone Banned recording artists @Billboard - The expression "I know it when I see it"
"The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was famously used in this sense by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored" ("I know it when I see it," Wikipedia).
- (VIDEO) New York Public Library Live discussion of censorship and other issues by authors Toni Morrison and Junot Díaz
 |
| Milton's "Areopagitica" word frequency cloud |
Mia Collins
ReplyDeleteHow Not to Have to Dry the Dishes
If you have to dry the dishes
(Such an awful boring chore)
If you have to dry the dishes
(‘Stead of going to the store)
If you have to dry the dishes
And you drop one on the floor
Maybe they won’t let you
Dry the dishes anymore
(Light in the Attic, Harper Collins, 1981)
This poem by Shel Silverstein supposedly encouraged disobedience among elementary students, and resulted in the entire collection A Light in the Attic being banned from Wisconsin public schools. In following years, another collection of poems by Silverstein was banned in various places such as Wisconsin, North Dakota and Pennsylvania because it “promotes drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for authority, and rebellion against parents.” I can see it causing problems as far as getting children to wash and dry dishes, but I would not go so far as to say that Silberstein’s poems encourage any of the aforementioned issues. I do not see this censorship as warranted. Additionally, I support the idea that artists can be creative and write as they please, and believe that most poems and stories not be taken entirely seriously.
John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath is a novel set in the time of the Great Depression that tells the story of poor Oklahoma farm workers and all of the troubles they go through with money, the economy, and society. The farm workers set on a journey to California in hope of a better life. This book is controversial because it told a real story about the poor and people viewed this as propaganda and socialism.
ReplyDeleteIt was banned in many libraries and schools throughout the country by criticisms form the Associated Farmers of California. It was also burned in Ireland and other international countries.
I do not agree with these procedures because they Steinbeck was writing what he thought the truth was and it was a realist novel about the migrant workers of the time period. I do not think it should have been banned in schools or libraries because people need to learn about different perspectives than their own. I feel that authors should be free to write whatever inspires them.
The Great Gatsby is a literary classic written about the roaring twenties. It is a required reading by many high schools although it has been a challenged and controversial text because of the book’s language and references to sex and alcohol. Baptist College in South Carolina challenged the book in 1987 due to those circumstances. Some of the copies that are read in schools have been improvised from the original text to be more suitable and acceptable for high school readers. I believe altering important elements can change the idea of the book as a whole, holding the reader from its original and accurate version. Also, it is important to keep the original text due to the time period. Modifying it defeats the truth in the historical period of prohibition and the age of speakeasies, glamor, and gangsters. Teachers in high school teach this book because of its excessive literary devices and its accessible read to all students. I believe The Great Gatsby is a better read rather than more difficult readings in high school due to the time period, such as Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteBeloved by Toni Morrison is a novel based post-Civil War about a slave named Sethe who manages to escape from her plantation, Sweet Home, with her four children. Due to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the slave owner finds where she fled and comes to claim her. In an attempt to prevent her children from further living in slavery, she tries to kill her children, but is only successful with her eldest daughter. Sethe eventually escapes with her younger daughter Denver, and lives in a house they believe to be haunted. After an exorcism is performed, a young girl arrives in the town only known as Beloved. The girl turns out to be the ghost of her slaughtered daughter. This novel has been banned for many reasons including violence, sexual content, and language. There are also claims that the book was banned because it is based off of the true story of the slave Margaret Garner, whom truly killed her infant in order to "save her" from slavery, and people do not want to be reminded of the horrible practice of slavery in the United States. This exclusion from the public has occurred multiple times since the book's publication, being banned from several required school reading lists throughout the United States. The book did, however, come to win many awards such as the Pulitzer Prize in 1988 and was produced into a movie in 1998 by Oprah Winfrey. These accomplishments show that the book has literary merit and should not be banned simply because it makes people feel uncomfortable. There are many lessons to be learned from such material and students should be able to read it and study it and gain knowledge from the past. The book was dedicated to the slaves who were taken to the United States through the Atlantic slave trade, and people should read it and be exposed to a different perspective that is not usually portrayed when talking about slavery. The banning of Beloved was unnecessary and I believe the lesson and the showing of how psychologically damaged people can become after maltreatment should be taught to everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe Summer of 2013 could be summed up squarely with Robin Thicke’s song Blurred Lines, which dominated radio waves throughout the summer. The song, though arguably catchy, came under fire for the questionable lyrics that seemed to promote rape and sexist culture.. The questionable lyrics, however, paled in comparison to the music video starring Robin Thicke himself, parading around with topless women. In an effort to restrict the music video from impressionable teenagers and children, YouTube placed a ban on the unrated music video in March of 2013. While the unrated video can still be viewed on Vevo, the banned placed by YouTube, one of the most powerful and largest video hosting sites, significantly reduced traffic to the unrated version. While I believe Thicke holds the right to express his art in the manner he chooses, morally I believe that YouTube was correct in banning the video. Many impressionable children, who frequent the popular YouTube site, were protected from the video’s promotion of negative morals and values. Moreover, because Thicke’s unrated video is still viewable on a less popular site, and because his edited video remains on Youtube, I believe YouTube’s ban to be reasonable and fair to Thick as well.
ReplyDeleteAllen Ginsberg’s poem, Howl, fought its way through a trial for obscenity. It is still not broadcasted on public radio out of fear of fines from the Federal Communications Commission. Howl was seen as obscene in court due to many references to sexual practices and illicit drugs. Though the publisher, owner of City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco, and supporter of Howl said that it was seen as more than just obscene but “a direct attack on American society and the American way of life.” I feel that one of the famous lines in Howl really describes what it is about. It says, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.” Ginsberg wrote about what he observed amongst Americans from the perspective of the Beatnik poets he was apart of. In his opinion, he observed the crushing of creativity, forced social norms, and confinement in American society. In Howl, he attempted to express the true American experience.
ReplyDeleteThe publisher was arrested for printing Howl, and customs seized copies of the poem being imported from London. The judge in the obscenity trial claimed Howl had social importance in America. It was a victory for Howl, but the book is still censored in classrooms and has not been recited on public radio or television in whole.
I can understand that some Americans hold morals that would go against what Howl promotes, but I believe books like Howl should never be censored on an ethical basis. As Americans we have the right to read what we want and create our own morals. Similar to Milton’s ideas in Areopagitica, Americans have the right to find what they believe as good and bad. We should all give Howl a chance.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/books/04howl.html
William Golding’s dystopian novel, Lord of the Flies, has been banned by various school districts. A group of school boys is being evacuated from Britain due to war. The plane crashes on a deserted island stranding the group of boys. The boys attempt to govern themselves, struggling against the benefit of individual welfare vs overall welfare of the group. The result is disastrous, revealing the beast that dwells within each boy. The work was challenged because people claimed the novel is demoralizing to the nature of man, implying that man is nothing more than an animal. Other challenges claimed that the book contained excessive violence, profanity, racist comments, lurid passages about sex, and statements degrading to women, minorities, and those who are disabled. The book was taken off of reading lists and removed from the high school libraries in an attempt to restrict exposure. This book was not banned in my high school and was a part of the reading curriculum. I found it to be a valuable novel that exposed the basic human nature. Ethically and morally the book should not be banned. It depicts a very realistic situation that could arise when an authoritative figure is removed, backed by the very famous Stanford Prison Experiment. The results from the experiment paralleled what the Abu Ghraib prisoners experienced. In a period of 6 days, the students became cruel and sadistic to their fellow peers. Those who encounter and read the novel are warned about what could happen in the absence of a watchful eye. By sheltering students from this novel, society is potentially wounding itself and robbing a good learning experience from the younger generations. The novel sparks an intellectual conversation about human nature and social conditioning. It does contain mature material, but the value of the message in the novel outweighs the value of placating those who have been offended by the novel. The majority of the material that was found offensive was a part of the vernacular language during the time period the novel was written. Banning the book and focusing on smaller issues as opposed to the larger one displayed in the novel is a mistake.
ReplyDeleteResources:
http://www.prisonexp.org/
http://bannedbooks.world.edu/2013/11/10/banned-books-awareness-lord-of-the-flies/
Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, is a fantasy novel about a young girl stumbling upon another universe where she meets fantastical creatures of all sorts. This book was banned by many school classrooms and by governments. Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland was deemed controversial because it contained explicit imagery, including “references to masturbation and sexual fantasies”. This novel also portrayed anthropomorphism, which allowed animals and other creatures to have humanistic qualities. People thought it was “disastrous” to compare animals to humans and to put them on the same level as one another. This novel was suspended from classrooms and it was banned by the Governor of Hunan Province in China. The Governor thought this books was an insult to humans because of its anthropomorphism, he also feared that children would believe that animals and humans were equals. I believe that it was unnecessary to ban this book. This children’s novel is definitely not offensive to humans. Many books have talking animals so I do not understand why this book specifically should be banned. I can understand the book being banned within classrooms but I believe the parents should have the final say in if they want their children to read this novel. I think it is ridiculous that this Chinese provincial government banned this book, as I said before I think the parents should have the final say, not the government.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://bannedbooks.world.edu/2011/08/01/banned-books-awareness-alice-wonderland/
https://sites.google.com/a/maricopa.edu/lewis-carroll-alice-in-wonderland/home/censorship
John Steinbeck’s novella, Of Mice and Men, focuses on the lives of a ranch worker and his mentally challenged friend that travel about California during the Great Depression in search of job opportunities. Although a required reading for many schools in America and throughout the world, Of Mice and Men has frequently been banned from various libraries and school districts due to its alleged excessive use of vulgar language, sexual references, and defamation of the disabled and women. Despite good intentions, I do not believe it is appropriate to censor Of Mice and Men. Whether or not the public agrees with the author’s message, the controversial subjects that are covered force the reader to address and form an opinion about these unsavory topics, thus allowing for moral and intellectual development. Censoring Of Mice and Men steals the freedom of choice and prevents this personal growth that is one of the great contributions that many works of literature have to offer society.
ReplyDeleteSource:
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics/reasons
Jazz singer Billie Holiday recorded a song derived from a poetic critique of racism in the south called "Strange Fruit" in the late 1930s. The poem was inspired by the lynching of two African American men. The song's controversial nature made Holiday's main record label refuse to release the song. The radio also refused to play it, but despite the effort to restrict access to the song, it became one of Holiday's biggest hits. I definitely do not agree with the restriction of this song on an ethical, moral, or intellectual level. On the contrary, I found it to be extremely important for Holiday to call attention to racism as a huge moral, ethical, and intellectual flaw that plague/plagues the world. Critiques on racism were imperative for the sake of political, ethical, and moral progress, and restriction from such educational opportunities hinder our progress as co-existing human beings.
ReplyDeleteSources:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.billboard.com/articles/list/513610/banned-music-21-artists-censors-tried-to-silence?page=0%2C18
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/frut-f08.html
In the summer of 2012 it appeared to me everyone was talking about E.L. James’s racy novel, “50 Shades of Grey”. In a nutshell, the main character, Anastasia (a virgin) meets Christian Grey – a rich and very handsome young businessman. Grey proposes Anastasia sign a contract with him to be his “submissive” and shows her his Red Room of Pain sex “playroom”. To me the novel documents the couple’s erotic activities around Seattle and drama escalates as Anastasia’s emotions start to get involved.
ReplyDeleteThis book was dubbed “mommy porn” due to its sexual nature and the middle-aged housewife audience it seemed to attract. I have to admit, I even tried read the book (just to see what all the rage was about), but was too embarrassed to carry it around with me outside of my house!
Public libraries in several states pulled the “Fifty Shades” trilogy from their shelves due to its steamy nature and poorly written text. I am unsure what measures were taken to ban the book, but from my research it appears most libraries "banning" it simply did not order the book.
I agree with Deborah Caldwell’s (deputy director of the American Library Association's office for intellectual freedom) opinion that “When a book is removed from the shelf, folks who can't afford a Nook or a Kindle, the book is no longer available to them.” I believe libraries play a vital role in providing people access to books; however, due to the nature and content of this book, I do believe certain steps should be taken to insure mature adult audiences are the only people who read the book.
Hannah Aven
ReplyDeleteAlvin Schwartz’s series of books, Scary Stories to tell in the Dark, are a collection of stories meant for children based on American folklore and urban legends. These stories have been very controversial because they consist of cannibalism, murderers, witchcraft, ghosts, and very disturbing and gruesome illustrations. The American Library Association banned this series because of complaints from an elementary school in Michigan, as it really scared a group of first graders. The teachers took the issue to the principal who took the issue to the American Library Association, which banned the book. I completely support the decision to ban this because I was also a scared first grader when I read these books. I had no idea how frightening they would be, but I knew it was fun to read them with my friend. But I was way too young to understand the consequences of such scary stories. Although I believe people should be able to read whatever they want, I do support the decision to ban a children’s book, because they are too young to understand that the material is so frightening.
Animal Farm by George Orwell, is a satirical and allegorical novel about a group of animals who take over the farm on which they live. They then run the farm themselves, which only leads to a tyrannical power of their own creation. The book was banned in many schools in the United Arab Emirates because it goes against Islamic values and is also still banned in Cuba and North Korea. The book was found to be controversial in the sense that it criticized the U.S.S.R. (allies of Britain in WWII) which led to trouble in actually publishing the book at first. Then once published, the USSR and other communistic countries banned it for its anti-communist views. Since I was born and raised here in the states, I personally believe that it is ridiculous that the book was banned for its “anti-communistic” views. I do see how many governments, especially North Korea’s for example, may get the idea that people will want to revolt after reading it, but still the banning of the book is just a further example of the oppression these people must go through. It makes the human mind fixated to a certain viewpoint when countries try to censor the ideas and thoughts that books may bring to the intellectual development of an individual, and that to me is ethically wrong.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics/reasons
Noe Caballero
ReplyDeleteMark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is arguably the most distinguished creation of American literature. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn depicts the journey of a boy and an escaped slave along the Mississippi River, including their thought-provoking encounters with the society surrounding them. The work has been frequently challenged by many different groups and for a multiplicity of reasons ever since its publication in 1885. Most recent challenges of the work point out its use of racial slurs and its unsavory depictions of Jim as grounds for removing it from the approved reading list in public schools. Perhaps the most famous of these challenges is John Wallace’s argument, which begins by stating Huckleberry Finn “is the most grotesque example of racist trash ever written” and goes on to describe it as an “embarrassment” to black heritage. In order to restrict the ability of students to read such controversial material, the work has at times been removed from approved textbook lists. Additionally, multiple versions of the work have been published with much of the potentially offensive language removed so as to make the work more appropriate for a younger audience. While I may instinctively disapprove of censorship of any type, the case of Huck Finn requires many things to be considered. For example, there was a study carried out in 1983 that found that students in the ninth grade read the book “at the level of an adventure story,” thereby showing that junior high students are not mature enough to understand the satirical aspects of the book. One might also consider Langston Hughes’ statement that “the word nigger… sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America.” With these things in mind, I can somewhat understand the desire that this book be removed from schools, especially junior high schools, or altered. However, at the intellectual level I think that it is wrong to ban the reading and teaching of this book in its original form to discriminating students.
Sources:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~acareywe/huck.html
http://www.mrllewellyn.com/uploads/7/7/0/0/7700160/31_-_the_case_against_huck_finn.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/literature/huck.html
The British 1979 production of Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a comedic film that follows Brian Cohen’s story in a biblical setting. Brian, being born on the same day as Jesus Christ in the next manger over, is constantly mistaken for the messiah, son of God. Many saw this religious satire as blasphemy, and many religious groups rose up in protest of what they saw as a grossly offensive depiction of the Christian religion. Though the film was a huge financial success, thirty-nine in the United Kingdom either imposed and X rating on the film or completely banned it. Several countries like Ireland and Norway banned the film within their boarders, which the producers used to their advantage with marketing (“So funny it was banned in Norway!”). Ethically, I do not find these bans necessary or right, as banning an artistic work for religious reasons is a limit on freedom of speech, however offended the group may be. The film was not intended to offend but to entertain.
ReplyDeleteKaren Finley, a “performance artist who uses her voice and body as props,” has repeatedly used art as a medium to shed light on multiple issues that horrify society at large, including “pornography and violence against women, and…the ravages of alcohol, child abuse and drugs on the American family.” She does so in a way that is plainly intended to make the viewer uncomfortable, but that is designed to create discussion and provoke thought. Her performance art pieces vary in their subject and specific details, but most include profanity, nudity, and violence as she re-creates and depicts some of society’s darkest issues, spanning from the AIDS epidemic to sexual abuse.
ReplyDeleteIn 1990, North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms urged Congress to pass a bill that would include bans against "obscenity" in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which supplies artists with grant money. Because of this, even before Congress voted on the measure, Karen Finley, along with three other performance artists (all of whom were previous recipients of NEA grants), were each denied $10,000 grants in an attempt to censor their art.
Even though this is a different form of censorship, in that the artists aren’t being prevented from making or sharing their art, but instead being denied a means to make their art, I still believe that any attempt to censor art is wrong. I think art in its many forms provides a new way for the public to be exposed to, examine, discuss, and ultimately change many of the issues that society faces. Simply ignoring the real issues that are present doesn’t actually fix the issues themselves; the inclusion of obscene or offensive subject matter, when used in a genuine attempt to educate or relay a message and not in an attempt to simply entertain, is more effective in maintaining an educated and aware society. In the words of Karen Helms, "My show may be the opposite of what some people see as entertainment. Instead of escaping, people are confronted with their problems. I wish I lived in a world where I could paint bouquets of petunias and rainbows, but that's not our experience in 1990."
Source: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118410,00.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMonty Python's Life of Brian is a film that was banned for its mockery of the Christian religion. It is a religious satire about a man named Brian who seems to be Jesus, but just kind of... down the block. As a result, he gets mistaken for Christ at various events. For example, in the beginning of the movie, as he is born, three magi walk in to where he was born, and come to pay their respects. Upon realizing that the christ child was in the next barn over, they took their gifts and left, while the mother shouted at them, saying it was her gold, and why would you give myrrh to an infant. Many religous groups found it offensive to the sancitity of the story of Jesus that is depicted in the bible, because the way that Brian is portrayed in the story, and is mistaken for Christ, implies that Jesus himself isn't actually all that special, maybe he's just another 'Brian'. According to the Wiki article on it, it was given an age restriction of 18 by 39 local authorities in the UK. But, the distributors of the film would not allow it to be edited, or shown, unless it was given the original age restriction of 14. As a result, it was not shown in many places. The makers of the film used the restrictions and bans as a marketing tool, making posters that said "So funny it was banned in Norway!"
ReplyDeleteI have seen the movie myself, and find it to be very funny. I do not think that the film should be banned, but then again I don't really believe in censorship. The movie itself is a satire, and seems to mock religion, but it's just a comedy, and some people took it way to seriously. If you don't want your kids to be influenced by this film then don't let them watch it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteR&B-singer Rihanna is known for pushing boundaries. Whether she is posting scandalous pictures on Instagram or wearing questionable outfits, Rihanna is not afraid of being criticized for her actions. In 2011, she released a song titled 'S&M', which refers to the practice of Sadomasochism and its counter-culture. S&M refers to the giving and receiving of pleasure from acts involving pain or humiliation. When Rihanna released a music video for "S&M," it indeed portrayed the culture of Sadomasochism and involved men being characterized as Rihanna's pets. It also portrayed men as sex slaves with the use of whips, gag balls, tape, rope, sex dolls, and latex outfits. Because of the song and video's openness to the topic of sex and fetishes, the music video was seen as controversial and inappropriate. Not only was the music video deemed "inappropriate for some users" on YouTube and banned in 11 countries, radio stations banned the song altogether because of the song's racy lyrics. As mentioned in the song, "chains and whips" excite Rihanna. Ironically, the theme of the music video can also be seen as an opposition to censorship. Rihanna mocks the media by wearing a newspaper dress wrapped in plastic, showing the lack of freedom artists have with their works. Rihanna even wears a shirt with the word "censored," as she whips men and women with name tags "Press". It is clear that she believes in freedom of production when it comes to writing a song about something deemed taboo in society. As for me, I find the censoring of Rihanna's music video and song a little overrated. In reality, these works were created "as is" by the artists, and to have them censored or flagged because it has the potential to offend and expose audiences to different types of cultures is over the top. Sure, it can be seen as shocking to many people, but the video did not show anyone naked or did not use any inappropriate language. If we live our lives in fear of offending people or society, we aren't truly living, and I feel that making a controversial song and music video was a great move on Rihanna's part.
ReplyDeleteLaurel Lunsford
ReplyDeleteCensorship Statement
1927 marked the formation the National Socialist Society for German Culture in Nazi Germany. This organization’s primary purpose was to define what bad art was and to stop this art from corrupting the art world. They believed in a correlation between this “Degenerate” art and one’s race.
Most modern art and any produced by Jewish hands became dissolute. Pieces were confiscated from galleries and museums across Germany. In an effort to degrade all such art the National Socialist Society for German Culture organized a showing of the seized works. The exhibition featured the works surrounded by graffiti and quotes from Hitler’s speeches placing hate onto them.
Marc Chagall’s works in particular were said to display the evils of modern art. Chagall was Russian born and raised Jewish. He drew much of his inspiration from the Hebrew Bible. His childlike renderings and use of bright color combined with his background made his works a very popular target.
Art is a form of expression and should not be limited to some small category, such as realism. Nazi Germany forced their narrow minded opinions of art onto the people, restricted their access to such art, and brutally punished artists that were making art that did not meet their standards. They created an argument to dehumanize a group of people and discredit their lives’ works. It was wrong and a tragic occurrence in German history.
Sources:
fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/arts/artdegen.htm
http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/art-2/degenerate-art/
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown was banned in Lebanon (and other countries for periods of time) because it challenged traditional Christian beliefs. It was, in particular, offensive to the Catholic Church. They primary offense is that is suggests that Jesus Christ may have had an intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene, and that his line had continued.
ReplyDeleteSecurity officials in Lebanon forced shop owners to remove copies of the book in French, English, and Arabic alike.
Father Abdou Abu Kasm, president of Lebanon's Catholic Information Center said that "Christianity is not about forgiveness to the point of insulting Jesus Christ," but I don't find this to be a valid reason to ban the book. The book is clearly fiction, as many have pointed out the historical inaccuracies, but I don't think that it is insulting to Jesus to wonder what would have happened if history were different. I, as a Christian myself, really enjoyed this book, but I have my own problems with it. That being said, I am grounded enough in my faith to realize many things aren't what I agree with, and maybe it's not the best thing for me to be reading. The point is, though, that I am able to make this decision on my own, and not have an authority censor it for me. If people are questioning the validity of their faith because of a fictional book, I think that has more to say about their religious institution, rather than the author of the book.