Hi Everybody,
For your consideration...
Jake Stanko includes CATCHER in his I-Search as one example of a book that's been censored in some high schools. Make your case for including the work in a high school American literature course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
I don't think it's necessary to censor literature. It's how the author wrote it, and that's how it was meant to be read. Also, "curse words" can be very powerful when used at the right spot in a novel. The power of such a word really can get a point across when used in moderation. People reading this book should have developed some sense of maturity and know that words found in "Catcher in the Rye" are simply depictions of the author and not to be laughed at. You shouldn't limit what can be read in schools, it takes away some of the creativity involved in writing.
If everything can't be written about, nothing should be written.
I agree with kevin that this book shouldn't be censored. All of the curswords and slang make the book real and easier to connect with the charecter. If the author took that all out then he would not be portraying a real teen that lived during that era. So I feel that censoring catcher in the Rye woould be wrong becasue all the Author is doing is portraying what life was really like back in the 50's. So I don't think the schools should censor this book just becasue it uses curse words. Finally I believe that the students look past all the swear words and not make a big deal about it. They should just try and figure out the meaning of the book. I feel that this book should not be censored becasue it was a pretty good book.
I agree that censorship of books in High schools is just plain lunacy! I believe that if a book has something relevant to say then it should be aloud to print it with out being censured. I also think that its stuff like this going on that creates scenarios like the one in the book Fahrenheit 451, where books are burned. Censuring books is just another way that we are dumbing down society these days.
I agree with the three students that have commented on this question. I do not understand why a book would be censored due to a few swear words throughout the story. Sure, younger students will be reading the book, but to fully comprehend the meanings of "The Catcher in the Rye," I believe that the reader must be older or at least fairly mature. I am pretty sure that most high school students have heard a swear word at least once before, if not many times. By censoring a book, the author's words are being re-written, potentially losing impact on the reader. There is a reason that the author put a swear word in the text. "The Catcher in the Rye" was told in a troubled teen's own words. Not showing curses in Holden's speech in fear of upsetting immature students would change Holden's words, taking away from his realness to the reader.
Just as everyone else has commented, The Catcher in the Rye is not a book that should be censored. The novel contains quite a few swear words, but to fully understand what is occuring in the novel, the audience must be at the high school level. Once you read the novel, it can teach you a great deal of lessons. Especially since the book is narrorated by a troubled teen, the readers, as teenagers, can relate. I learned from this book that growing up and letting go of my childhood will be tough; but I can never stop nature's course.
Like Austin said, most of us have heard many of the curse words in our daily lives.
I do not think it was necessary for Holden to curse as much as he did, but censoring the book would really change the book a lot. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE tells the story of a troubled teen who has had to go through a lot of pain, and is trying to get through life practically on his own. His parents seem to not care too much about him, as he has already flunked out of many schools and they havent done much about it. I think the curse words in THE CATCHER IN THE RYE give more of an effect to the story. It emphasises Holden's stress and troubles that he goes through in THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. It is written through a teenager's eyes and is a teenager's book. Most teenagers are mature enough to read a book like this without laughing or making dumb remarks about it.
Just to reiterate, I agree that the book should not be censored or kept out of schools because of its content. Although I believe that high school honors students are mature enough to handle swearing in a school novel, I understand both sides of the argument. Some parents may not want their child to be exposed to vulgar language, or the bad example that Holden may set for them. This may seem reasonable to the parents, but whether or not they believe it, every teenager has heard the words used in this book. It is a good example of the reality of the struggles many teens face in their daily lives.
I know that the swearing may be offensive to some people. However, if you really want to understand the real Holden Caulfield, you can't edit out parts and expect to truly know what he's expressing. His choice of words is all that we know about him and is what defines him for us. To get the whole picture you have to receive the whole Holden Caulfield: flaws and all. The language is a classic example of the confusion and mixed feelings inside of him and other teens that were predecessors of the real explosion of the teenage culture. Also, it would be very stupid for the book to be censored just on the basis of swearing alone. This book is full of mature views and opinions expressed by a character that was probably in pain from all of the mixed emotions. If someone is mature enough to read this book and understand it in general, then they shouldn't be worrying about the words used to deliver that same powerful message.
Down at the middle, for one period of time, a list of books that had been censored by certain schools. I didn't realize that I would be reading one of the books on that list. Catcher in the Rye, a book that I could see being censored in some more conservative areas, was about a very contreversial topic. I think that censoring books and not allowing high school students to read whatever they want is a direct violation of the part of the constitution that guarentees us free speech. Books may not really be speech, but they are a form of media that allows it's creators to say anything they want. Books must not be censored in order protect our right to free speech. If this book is considered a true classic, then it should be taught in high schools across the country.
It would be very wired to censor books. As long as the book is at a proper age for the reader, then they shouldn't be censored. I think most high schoolers are mature enought to read this book. Most high schoolers enconter swear words daily. Books shouldn't be censored because it makes the characters.
I don't think you should ever censor books. If the author can't express the language, i don't think you get a real sense of the book at all. I think a big part of the book is the language that is used. Language expresses more of the character too.I think if schools are going to censor it, they sholdn't even read it.
I agree. Literature is when you are expressing your thoughts and putting them in a book for others to read your ideas. Last I knew, America was land of the FREE. Have you ever heard of FREEdom of speech? "The Catcher in the Rye" should be allowed in high schools. This is especially for high school research papers, like the I-Search.
I am gonna have to agree with just about everyone who has commented so far. I do not believe that literature like The Cather in the Rye should be censored for many reasons. To start I think that it is the readers disgression to read the book and therefore the author should have no limitations on he/she chooses to write. Also without Holdens slightly offensive word choice the developement of him as a character would not have been the same at all. I mean the author can say all he wants on who Holden is as a person, but when Holden is narrating the story, his image come across alot stronger when he uses his foul language.
american liturature shoudld definetely not be censored. Without all of the novels conten, you can not fully grasp the meanign and importance of the book. I think that if literature is censored you are kind of reading a phony book. As Holdne would say. The book isn'nt competely real, since part of it is censored.
I think if the book the Catcher In the Rye was censored, then you wouldn’t really get a feel for Holden’s character. There is quite a lot of swearing, but that’s just who Holden is. I can understand the reasoning for this book not being available in some high school libraries because you have to draw the line at some point, but the book is very well written, and can send a great message to the student who read it. Like Kevin said, you can achieve authority by swearing because the person listening to you will know you are trying to get your point across. The book wouldn't be the same if it was censored.
I don’t think the book “The Catcher in the Rye” should be censored. I agree that it does have a lot of swear words, but if he didn’t swear as much you wouldn’t get the same effect. I also think that if the book was censored you wouldn’t get to know Holden as well. You also wouldn’t get the same impact as you do when he swears all the time because back in the 50’s it was accepted to swear, but not as much as Holden does. I fell that he swears all the time because he tries it fit in, also to convey a point. I believe that even though that some books have a lot of swearing, they should not be censored and they are appropriate for high school age students.
Something I forgot to add... I agree with everyone who said you should be at a high school age to read The Catcher In the Rye. I think people in 9th grade or above (well, at least most of us...) can handle the maturity of swearing in a book.
I thought I'd post on this blog again. I agree with everyone in that censoring books takes away the meaning of the book. There are so many vulgar words in the book that censoring it would be taking out almost every word in the book. I think it would ruin the book. Holden swearing makes you relize the troubles he goes through in his life.
Ok so books should deffinatly not be censored at all. Every book tells a story and the choice of words used makes the story its very own. Plus the words that the author chose for Holden and every other character in the book shows their personality. Everybody has their own prsonality and swearing makes a person different from someone else who doesnt swear, if that makes any sence. It shouldnt matter the use of langauge in a book anyhow because if ur mature enough then you should be able to handle it. Im pretty sure high school students are indeed mature enough, well most of us in that matter. If you were to give this book to middle schoolers, now thats a whole different story. I don't think there really mature enough to read a book like this with swear words on pretty much every page. It depends on the age and even with that in mind I honestly dont think that books have a right to be censored and that high school students have the right to read "every" word in the book even if they are displeasng.
I think instead of censoring a book publishers should just have like "ratings". Like movies but with books. I know most books say like 17+ or something but I mean you could have a 19 year old not be able to handle that kind of material. So I guess I agree with Kevin and Jim but like there should be some restrictions.
I think that Catcher in the Rye was okay for our age level. I mean they didn't really do a good job as far as censoring it. I remember trying to read it out loud on the way down to South Carolina for spring break and it was talking about prostitutes and saying all these swear words. It's hard to read something like that to your parents. Especially people who have parents that want to be involved in their school work. I kinda had to "butt them out" for this book. It was just so awkward telling them about Holden and the things that he did.
I agree with mostly everyone. It would take away from the novel if cursewords were censored. In "The Catcher in the Rye," it would sometimes be hard to tell what Holden was say because he swears so much! I agree with Emily when she says that everyone (9th grade and above) can probably handle this book.
Did you know that between 1961 and 1982, "The Cathcher in the Rye" was the most censored book in highschool libraries in the whole U.S.!!
Censorship is a means of defense against unwholesome values, but this does not mean that it is an effective one. Censorship attempts to defend our society against unwholesome values by not allowing the population to recognize the threat. The government and censors might believe that by reducing the population's exposure to the moral threat, they are protecting us. However, I believe that this is one of the cases where ignorance is not, in fact, bliss. Ignoring the unavoidable cruelty of the world, attempting to play down the world's brutality to something of little importance, is not something that should be done. Similar to Singapore in the Second World War, ignorance could in fact be our downfall.
By not allowing the population to be exposed to the moral threats surrounding them; by attempting to hide the unwholesome values that are unavoidable in life, censorship might even cause the threat of unwholesome values to worsen. It is impossible to shield people from the unwholesome values of the world for their whole lives. Censorship will not effectively serve as a long term solution, as the population will mature and be exposed to various unwholesome values in due time. If they are not accustomed to it, this censorship could in fact backfire, and as such I do not agree to a large extent that censorship is justifiable as a means of defense against unwholesome values.
I agree with Devin: If people are exposed to something early they won't be tempted to abuse it later on in life. Take food for instance. If your parents put you on a diet at a young age and have you eat all organic food, you'll probably jump for joy when you try a cupcake in your later years, which would cause you to eat more fatty foods since you had never eaten them as a child. This sounds kind of silly the way I put it, but it's true.
Just to disagree with everyone else, I would say that books should be censored, but that would be a lie. The author wrote the book, to tell the story HE wanted. If it has swear words, and adult content, it is meant to be in the novel. Novels are written about different types of people, they are written by different people, and in different time periods. Books should not be censored, because it is obviously how the author wanted it, and thats what the people should be reading.
I agree with most of all of you here that it isn't at all necessary to censor a book. I think it would take away the power and emotion whether the character be feeling angry, sad, or happy. I agree with the opinion (idk exactly who it was) that people have the choice to read a book, and if they don't like the content, they should stop reading it!
I know that some parents (like rainey said) may not want their child being exposed to this language or the some of the things that the characters say or do. It's even worse when one of your parents have read the book. Trust me my dad was reading the book while i was too!! So it can be a little akward and embarssing, but i do not think that its that censoring is the right thing to do.
-Emily Vizzini
Although there is a ton of bad language in this book, I don't think it should be banned, or censored. The author wrote it the way he/she wanted it, and it should stay that way. Even if the language is bad, this is how a normal high school student would act.
I don't think that any literature at all should be censored, people have to understand that their is all kinds of people out there
well as the author of this wonderful question, I'll tell my opinion on the censorship. I feel that the book does use some pretty graphic language, but we understand why he uses it. In the 1950's my standpoint from reading the book is that all teenagers must have talked like this which made it acceptable. Also, we all understand that what Holden says is vulgar, and we should not repeat it, so it is okay. PS: this is cool i didn't know i was gunna get my own question.
I also think that books are kind of like movies, there is bad language and situations, but everyone just sort of think that it's a way of life, and they just ignore it. Whenever there is a movie that comes out in the theators, no one ever censors that. So why should they censor books?
And I also think that Jake Shiblanko did a very good job in coming up with this question, and so did Mrs. Hurt by incorperating this into a blog post. So thank you
Unfortunitally i think that questionable langauge is a part of our culture and i dont see why we should censor it.If a student does not want to participate, Their choice should be respected, but other wise this book can show what times were like in america from a unique point of view.
Post a Comment