For an early birthday present from my dad this year, I received a ticket to see John Pinette on stage at the Rebecca Cohn theatre in Halifax. The evening was a blast; drank wine, listened to a fat man make fun of his fat for an hour and a half live on stage, and I even got to meet him. I asked him what it was like working with the illustrious ALF, to which he replied "It was weird, the actors were all snooty, like 'Dude, you're on ALF." The night was a rousing success, except this was also the night I learned that my Alma mater, Yarmouth Consolidated Memorial High School, lost just another little piece of its mind.
My tenth grade English teacher, Mr. DeWolfe, was also in attendance and we caught up while waiting for our autograph. I was about the only student in that class who really liked the material (The Chrysalids. READ IT!), so I took an interest in what he was teaching that year. "Still teaching To Kill a Mockingbird," I asked, knowing full well it was about the one book most of my class agreed was excellent. His exact response: "Uh, nope."
Apparently they can no longer teach To Kill a Mockingbird in our high school anymore, because it's a "sensitive issue" that hurts the feelings of pussies who don't get why racial slurs are being used. Why do schools ban books? Why are some of the best examples of literature, such as To Kill a Mockingbird or, one of my personal favorites, Catcher in the Rye, kept outside of arm's reach from young minds?
In my 20 years of life, one thing I've learned about society, especially the spoiled-rotten North American society I live in, is that when something bad happens, we lose our goddamn minds. Some mentally-unbalanced dipshit does something stupid, and suddenly whatever inspired them is ruined for the rest of us.
Take Catcher in the Rye. For years, the worst one could say about this novella was that there were some sexually explicit themes and some bad language. Both good reasons not to let 6th graders read it. But come 1980, Mark David Chapman gave us one more reason; it's a sower of degenerates.
Chapman, according to the American Justice episode about him, used to believe in little people that lived in his walls that talked to him. This was a sick man from the get-go. However, the only thing they remember about him is that he killed John Lennon, and he was "inspired" to do so by The Catcher in the Rye. Almost immediately, the book was taboo. It was as if J.D. Salinger had not written an imaginative and symbolic story of one young man's struggle to hold on to his innocence, but rather an instruction manual for murdering celebrities. If I were Salinger, I'd be a recluse too; I would rather not deal with people that stupid.
Though to be perfectly fair, I can understand how this would be an immediate knee-jerk reaction. Much in the same vein as removing all evidence of the WTC from every movie ever made, shunning a book that inspired a man to kill a Beatle is just the natural progression from an event like that. However, there's an imbalance; I can watch an episode of Friends that showcase the Twin Towers with every transition, but there's still a stigma on the adventures of Holden Caulfield. In fact, when in 11th grade I told my mother I intended to read it, she turned to me with concern and told me not to use it as an excuse to kill anyone. Seriously, she said that. With no hint of irony. She was genuinely concerned that I may decide to undertake murder because I read this book. And what's more, one of my friends from King's tells me that whenever she's tried to read it, she had to keep it a secret from her mother. Because her mother would find it, and dispose of it. It was like this book was the goddamn boogieman.
To Kill a Mockingbird, by contrast, never was made synonymous with the death of anyone famous (to my knowledge anyway), but it uses the N word. And apparently that's enough. Even when we read it in class, Mr. DeWolfe had to warn us not to use the word as we read it aloud, instead replacing it with "N-word" or, my favorite, "Nnn." But y'know what? That word is there for a reason. This book is supposed to be an accurate recreation of the time in which it takes place, in order to teach us a lesson about racism. The people who used the word? The inbred hick-hillbilly Ewells and any other ignorant bumfuck in the book. And through Atticus' shining example, the book teaches those who read it not to judge a man by the color of his skin.
But because some militant PMSing mother's group out there has an issue with the N-word, or "Fuck You" scrawled across a wall, their kids suffer because they miss the lessons taught by these amazing tomes. Angry parents across the globe, here me: you are protecting your children by censoring these books, but you protect them only from intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.
Alex Colgan has told me that Franz Kafka said that books need to hurt people, and I wholeheartedly agree. Books that are approved for reading at High School level, such as The Book of Eve and The Giver, have taught me one thing; nothing. If they taught me anything, it was to hate literature distributed through public school. The Book of Eve, that's a book to fucking ban. Not because of the rape scene or the images of an octogenarian fucking a middle aged dutch man who can barely speak English, but because it's just BAD. Horrid. GAH! *ahem* But I digress. The classics, the really good books that could actually teach something to these nitwits in high school today, are being kept away from them because it may hurt some one's feelings somewhere. Well, you know what I say? Let that pussy cry. Maybe the rest of society can get past the crib and actually progress intellectually.
So in closing, all those young minds who may chance upon Swedile, hear this; if your school won't let you read anything good, strive to do so on your own time. That's what I did. Here's a great, comprehensive list of some excellent books to get you started. Or if you're too lazy, you can wait for University. There ain't no pussies in post-secondary education.
- Silent G
My tenth grade English teacher, Mr. DeWolfe, was also in attendance and we caught up while waiting for our autograph. I was about the only student in that class who really liked the material (The Chrysalids. READ IT!), so I took an interest in what he was teaching that year. "Still teaching To Kill a Mockingbird," I asked, knowing full well it was about the one book most of my class agreed was excellent. His exact response: "Uh, nope."
Apparently they can no longer teach To Kill a Mockingbird in our high school anymore, because it's a "sensitive issue" that hurts the feelings of pussies who don't get why racial slurs are being used. Why do schools ban books? Why are some of the best examples of literature, such as To Kill a Mockingbird or, one of my personal favorites, Catcher in the Rye, kept outside of arm's reach from young minds?
In my 20 years of life, one thing I've learned about society, especially the spoiled-rotten North American society I live in, is that when something bad happens, we lose our goddamn minds. Some mentally-unbalanced dipshit does something stupid, and suddenly whatever inspired them is ruined for the rest of us.
Take Catcher in the Rye. For years, the worst one could say about this novella was that there were some sexually explicit themes and some bad language. Both good reasons not to let 6th graders read it. But come 1980, Mark David Chapman gave us one more reason; it's a sower of degenerates.
Chapman, according to the American Justice episode about him, used to believe in little people that lived in his walls that talked to him. This was a sick man from the get-go. However, the only thing they remember about him is that he killed John Lennon, and he was "inspired" to do so by The Catcher in the Rye. Almost immediately, the book was taboo. It was as if J.D. Salinger had not written an imaginative and symbolic story of one young man's struggle to hold on to his innocence, but rather an instruction manual for murdering celebrities. If I were Salinger, I'd be a recluse too; I would rather not deal with people that stupid.
Though to be perfectly fair, I can understand how this would be an immediate knee-jerk reaction. Much in the same vein as removing all evidence of the WTC from every movie ever made, shunning a book that inspired a man to kill a Beatle is just the natural progression from an event like that. However, there's an imbalance; I can watch an episode of Friends that showcase the Twin Towers with every transition, but there's still a stigma on the adventures of Holden Caulfield. In fact, when in 11th grade I told my mother I intended to read it, she turned to me with concern and told me not to use it as an excuse to kill anyone. Seriously, she said that. With no hint of irony. She was genuinely concerned that I may decide to undertake murder because I read this book. And what's more, one of my friends from King's tells me that whenever she's tried to read it, she had to keep it a secret from her mother. Because her mother would find it, and dispose of it. It was like this book was the goddamn boogieman.
To Kill a Mockingbird, by contrast, never was made synonymous with the death of anyone famous (to my knowledge anyway), but it uses the N word. And apparently that's enough. Even when we read it in class, Mr. DeWolfe had to warn us not to use the word as we read it aloud, instead replacing it with "N-word" or, my favorite, "Nnn." But y'know what? That word is there for a reason. This book is supposed to be an accurate recreation of the time in which it takes place, in order to teach us a lesson about racism. The people who used the word? The inbred hick-hillbilly Ewells and any other ignorant bumfuck in the book. And through Atticus' shining example, the book teaches those who read it not to judge a man by the color of his skin.
But because some militant PMSing mother's group out there has an issue with the N-word, or "Fuck You" scrawled across a wall, their kids suffer because they miss the lessons taught by these amazing tomes. Angry parents across the globe, here me: you are protecting your children by censoring these books, but you protect them only from intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.
Alex Colgan has told me that Franz Kafka said that books need to hurt people, and I wholeheartedly agree. Books that are approved for reading at High School level, such as The Book of Eve and The Giver, have taught me one thing; nothing. If they taught me anything, it was to hate literature distributed through public school. The Book of Eve, that's a book to fucking ban. Not because of the rape scene or the images of an octogenarian fucking a middle aged dutch man who can barely speak English, but because it's just BAD. Horrid. GAH! *ahem* But I digress. The classics, the really good books that could actually teach something to these nitwits in high school today, are being kept away from them because it may hurt some one's feelings somewhere. Well, you know what I say? Let that pussy cry. Maybe the rest of society can get past the crib and actually progress intellectually.
So in closing, all those young minds who may chance upon Swedile, hear this; if your school won't let you read anything good, strive to do so on your own time. That's what I did. Here's a great, comprehensive list of some excellent books to get you started. Or if you're too lazy, you can wait for University. There ain't no pussies in post-secondary education.
- Silent G
1 comment:
Indeed, as Kafka said, art must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. Books that truly educate must shock and awe; they must destroy and create; they must shake our foundations and illuminate our sins. High school books do none of these things. The stories read in schools are little more than sanitized shit. No wonder so many are turned off reading.
Post a Comment