Is the politically correct censoring of classic fiction what the world really needs?

“There are forces at work in the book world that want to control fiction writing in terms of who “has a right” to write about that. Some even advocate the out and out censorship of older works using words we now deem wholly unacceptable. Some are critical of novels involving rape. Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color; and Christians should not write novels involving Jews or topics involving Jews. I think all this is dangerous. I think we have to stand up for the freedom of fiction writers to write what they want to write no matter how offensive it might be to some one else.” – Anne Rice

Running a bookshop that is often frequented by young men and women is an extremely rewarding job.  Placing a copy of Shakespeare collected works, or  Catcher in the Rye , or On the Road in the hands of a hungry young mind for the first time in a world where reading and thinking have been sadly devalued makes going to work a pleasure.

Recently I have come into contact with a growing movement that seeks to censor classic works of fiction through a ‘Politically correct’ agenda, who react with horror and disgust at some of my recommendations.  Even now, it is becoming increasingly difficult to source some authors from our suppliers, among them legends like Hemingway, Mailer, Updike, Kerouac and even our own Behan.

“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.” - George Bernard Shaw

Two years ago American columnist Rebecca Solnit wrote a scathing attack on classic male authors of the 20th century in an article for Literary Hub called “80 books no woman should read.”  Solnit had taken issue with an earlier Esquire article called “80 books every man should read” and decided to launch an incredible attack on some of the 20th century’s literary heroes, some of whom she later admitted having never read.

“I just think some books are instructions on why women are dirt or hardly exist at all except as accessories or are inherently evil and empty,” Solnit wrote, “Or they’re instructions in the version of masculinity that means being unkind and unaware, that set of values that expands out into violence at home, in war, and by economic means.”

She then went on to rubbish and effectively call for censorship of books by Ernest Hemingway (a homophobic antisemitic misognynist), Norman Mailer (Wife stabber), William Burroughs (Wife shooter), Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski, Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, Vladimir Nabokov, Henry Miller and John Updike.  It is ironic that in an article decrying sexism, Solnit manages to be aggressively anti man in her article suggesting that the discussion of male emotions by male writers was “the worst kind of sentimental, because it’s deluded about itself in a way that, say, honestly emotional Dickens never was.”

Its unfortunate that people with thinly veiled political agendas find the confidence to speak on behalf of an entire gender and somehow interpret the works of great authors as being misogynistic or misanthropic, while ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary.  For example, Solnit criticises Nabokovs masterpiece, Lolita, as being blatantly anti female but ignores the fact that his wife Vera saved the novel from their fire after Nabokov tried to destroy it, or that she served as his editor and literary agent.
She also ignores the fact that the collective works of talented authors like Hemingway, Miller and Roth not only inspire men, but millions of women also.  The fact that Hemingway won the Noble Prize for Literature in 1954; Roth, Updike, Bellow and Mailer have won Pulitizer Prizes for Fiction; and that these authors frequently feature near the top of readers favourites lists should convince Solnit that the appeal of these writers is far more universal than she seems to realise.

“An attack upon our ability to tell stories is not just censorship - it is a crime against our nature as human beings.” - Salman Rushdie

There is no doubt that there are instances of sexism is some of these works as there is no ignoring the language of racism and xenophobia which pops up in many of the classics, from Dickens to Austen to Twain.  What’s worth remembering is the authors who wrote these great works were products of their environment and time.  That doesn’t mean that we cannot still read these works in awe of their brilliance.

The pc attack on authors who expressed sentiments of masculinity is a serious threat to modern literature.  It’s proponents would argue for the elimination of a string of world famous authors while praising the often soulless mass marketing of easy reader romance and thrillers.  They cannot be unaware that turning authors like Hemingway and Steinbeck into literary pariahs can only be the beginning of a devastating chain reaction.

 If we censor Kerouac, then we also have to ‘disappear’ Joyce, Heller, Twain and  .  If Jonathan Franzen has to go then so too do Junot Díaz, Roddy Doyle, Irvine Welsh, Chuck Palahniuk and John Irving.  If Hemingway must be judged on perceived sexism and not on literary talent, then so do Beckett, Tolstoy, TS Eliot and even the king himself, William Shakespeare.

Huxley and Orwell created two of literatures most enduring dystopian world’s in Brave New World and 1984, but in this new book censoring horror no one will ever read those works as both authors will be judged to have only ever created 2-dimensional female characters.  No Jack London.  No JRR Tolkien.  No Herman Melville.  No Joseph Conrad.  No Brendan Behan.  No Kurt Vonnegut.  No William Golding.  No Isaac Asimov.  No Philip K Dick.

This is the world that we are facing.  A world where every word written down by an author will be scrutinised for social error and, if found guilty, be sent to Orwells Room 101 for termination.  A world where EL James is praised as a feminist for writing bdsm porn while wonderful wordsmiths are hidden out of the reach of readers for fear that they might cause a gossip columnist offense.

Maybe Bukowski put it best when he said, “Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them; I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence.”