|
Vlad!
|
 |
« on: July 24, 2003, 09:34:34 AM » |
|
We touched on this a little bit in our discussion of The Giver, and Josh seems to take a perverse pleasure in championing art that fundamental Christians would spurn because of its language. So I have to ask: what books have you phorumers read that have impacted your lives (or just been plain good books) and that contain language that is generally considered bad?
My list:
Of Mice and Men: my family recently read this book together, and I think it's a decent read. Unfortunately, there's a lot of coarse language in it.
Snow Crash: A popular book among people who like computers or technology, but the language is pretty extreme. I thought it was a good book, but I couldn't recommend it to a lot of people I know because of the offensive language.
There are several more books I know I've read that contain naughty words, but I can't remember any right now. As I think of more I'll suppliment my list.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2003, 09:50:44 AM » |
|
OH, JOY! I LOVE TALKING ABOUT BOOKS THAT WOULD MAKE REACTIONARY FUNDAMENTALISTS PHYSICALLY ILL! IT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE PASTIMES!
A few that I can think of off the top of my head...
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye
Catch-22 (haven't finished this one yet)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Emericana
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2003, 10:44:44 AM » |
|
To Kill A Mockingbird was a bit sketchy. Big Trouble, Dave Barry's novel, dropped F-Bombs like it was 1942. It was in character though, how would you expect a hitman and a Upper Class Miami A-hole to talk?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2003, 11:38:02 AM » |
|
I know the main reason they don't teach Catcher in the Rye at CAK [the Christian private school many of us go/went to] is the language... I've read TKAM, and honestly I don't remember any bad language. I thought it was a good book, though. I guess I've read enough books with blatantly bad language that those with only a few potentially offensive words seem positively benign  I've read Big Trouble and its sequel, and although both of them were quite funny (and had a very large number of naughty words  ) I wouldn't call them influential. They WERE in character (Barry actually has a preface addressing this issue in his second book), but I still thought it was a little extreme. But hey, I laughed. I admit it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Emericana
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2003, 12:24:10 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2003, 12:42:02 PM » |
|
Of Mice and Men is a good one. But as Vlad mentioned, there's a lot of language in it. In Baltimore County Public Schools and other schools in the state of Maryland (where I live! =D ), The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is banned because of the "n" word. Now, being a person of African descent, and having read this book twice now, I was not offended by its usage. Mark Twain was portraying the way things were during the days of slavery, and black people were often referred to as **nword**. Jim, one of the main characters and a runaway slave, is actually portrayed as a *gasp* human being, despite his skin color. Unlike many authors of his day, Twain painted a real, genuine picture of blacks and showed that they were humans just like white people. They had feelings and emotions. And they could love. (Jim in fact develops into a kind of father for Huck Finn.) Definitely a lot different than the bumbling "Sambo" that many people viewed blacks in those days. (I also think To Kill a Mockingbird is banned for the same reason. Once again, the book shows how things were in those days, and once again paints an accurate picture of black people as God-made human beings like their white counterparts. Why in the world would you want to band books like these from our schools?) Oh, and here's another one. Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. My Enlgish teacher has tried to get that book approved at my former high school for years. I read this year and wrote a report on it. It's very good. I'm not trying to play the race card, but honestly... My school is predominately white and we read only one novel with blacks in it as main characters. That would be Huck Finn (I went to private Christian school, so the ban was not in affect there). It just seems awfully strange to me, and my English teacher thinks this may have played a part in the decision (she's white, btw). Also, (probably another main reason) the main character Janie (I think) has extramarital sexual relations. *GASP* No way...you mean not everyone in the world is God-fearing, holier-than-thou, perfect, rock-music-is-evil, fundamentalist extremist? We can't have our students reading this. It may burst the perfect Christian bubble we been trying to put around them. They might realize the world is sinful... Oh no! Horrors! Okay, I'll stop. I'll try to be good from now on. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2003, 03:50:27 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2003, 03:53:30 PM » |
|
I agree with your assessment of Huck Finn...Twain uses irony to show that Huck is right (in trying to save Jim and treating him well) and society is wrong, even though Huck himself feels that he's wrong for doing what he did. And don't worry about sarcasm; we use it (and abuse it) all the time On an unrelated note, my former roommate was from Ellicott City, MD. So see, we're practically related  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
linds
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2003, 04:10:56 PM » |
|
at my old school, a 'fundy' christian institution, The Grapes of Wrath was banished from the library because of foul language. doesn't that just make you sick? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"I saved Latin. What did you ever do?\"
--Rushmore
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2003, 04:33:58 PM » |
|
It makes me, well, wrathful :angry:
Half the time the 'parents' that insist that these books be banned haven't even read them ]_[
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2003, 05:04:19 PM » |
|
It's all about context, so banning without reading is nothing short of absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2003, 06:40:38 PM » |
|
For some reason, I am more tolerant of bad words in books than in music. I'm not sure why. But anyways, Catcher in the Rye certainly had some bad words, and Huck Finn has the n-word(and I think its silly to ban it becasue of that). I read Grapes of Wrath, but that didn't have much language at all, I thought. Not compared to Tom Clancy, or other modern writers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2003, 06:48:46 PM » |
|
It's all about context, so banning without reading is nothing short of absurd. I think you hit the nail on the head Josh. Context is crucial. You don't see fundamentalists banning the Songs of Solomon from Church's do you? Heh...that would actually be kind of funny. A movement of extreme fundamentalists trying to censor Songs of Solomon from the Bible. Or better yet, rating the books of the Bible like movies. I could see it now...Genesis: parental discretion advised, not suitable for children under the ages of 13... Anyway.. =) On an unrelated note, my former roommate was from Ellicott City, MD. So see, we're practically related LOL, Vlad!. Yeah, we're cousins thrice removed or something, now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2003, 06:52:19 PM » |
|
I think you hit the nail on the head Josh. Context is crucial. You don't see fundamentalists banning the Songs of Solomon from Church's do you? Heh...that would actually be kind of funny. A movement of extreme fundamentalists trying to censor Songs of Solomon from the Bible. Or better yet, rating the books of the Bible like movies. I could see it now...Genesis: parental discretion advised, not suitable for children under the ages of 13... Anyway.. =)
A Lark News story in the making, if I ever heard one. =D I think Genesis would rate the worst because it has the most sexual situations. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2003, 08:14:12 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2003, 08:44:40 AM » |
|
Incidentally, I would like to remark that I gave up reading Tom Clancy novels because I noticed that they were having an effect on me: I would start thinking of profanity in situations where its usage would be common. Since I didn't want (and don't want) to become a person to whom such language is commonplace, I stopped reading them. So I wouldn't say that any book with bad language is necessarily something you should be reading. But that's me; if you can read books and not have the language affect you, go for it.
Hey, I hear you. I stopped reading one of his books because of profanity( The Bear and the Dragon). His old ones, Hunt for the Red Cotober and such weren't bad, but if all his new ones are like The Bear and the Dragon(we are talking like 4-5 profanities per page), I can't read them for fear that I will be desensitived to the language. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 26, 2003, 05:09:13 PM by DvChWi »
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2003, 10:07:32 AM » |
|
Ok, so this is the pot calling the kettle black here, but a little proofreading is always a good thing ;]
Serously, though, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and the line kina moves for each person. I don't particularly blame Clancy for sticking profanity in his writing, but (and I think Josh disagrees with me on this, and I can see his point) I wouldn't really think the story had any less validity if the cursing was cut down or even eliminated entirely. On the other hand, I don't see how Huck Finn could have pulled off its irony and cultural accuracy without the words it uses. Maybe I'm seeing shades of difference that aren't really there, but that's how I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2003, 10:30:50 AM » |
|
I don't particularly blame Clancy for sticking profanity in his writing, but (and I think Josh disagrees with me on this, and I can see his point) I wouldn't really think the story had any less validity if the cursing was cut down or even eliminated entirely. I've never read Clancey. From what I know of his work, the language that he uses is probably an accurate portrayal of the way real people would talk in those situations. Does he ever take it to far and uses exessive ammounts of swearing? Quite possibly. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. But I think profanity is often needed for a sense of realism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2003, 10:44:51 AM » |
|
Ha, realism. Realism in the movies means that they'll show you gore, violence, swearing, nudity and sex, but you'll never see a zit, toenail fungus, or a person with excessive amounts of earwax. Sensationalism sells, realism doesn't.
Not to say that real soldiers don't use real profanity. But just because it happens doesn't mean I necessarily want to read it all the time...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
smartash
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2003, 04:28:09 PM » |
|
anything by toni morrison, "song of solomon" specifically. and on a side note, i remember reading "rascal" in my 5th grade class in a private christian school and all of us gasping at the line "damn the man who cut this tree."
....wow, for some reason thats probably the funniest line i've heard in awhile, ha!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"I haven't come for only you, but for my people to pursue. you cannot care for Me with no regard for Her; if you love Me you will love the Church.\"
\"i am a whore i do confess, i put You on just like a wedding dress and i run down the aisle, run down the aisle. i'm a prodical with no way home, i put You on just like a ring of gold and i run down the aisle, i run down the aisle to You.\"
-- Derek Webb, She must and Shall Go Free
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2003, 08:20:26 PM » |
|
A few that I can think of off the top of my head...
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye
Catch-22 (haven't finished this one yet) Yes, Catcher and Catch-22 have lots of foul language. Could it be the name similiarity? Maybe I should look into this... Catch=Cussing... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2003, 08:27:28 PM » |
|
I think the ammount of profanity makes sense in both cases. Catch-22 is a war novel, for crying out loud, and I expect soldiers to use foul language from time to time. I don't remember it being that heavy, but it's been a while...
And Catcher... well... it's Holden Caulfield. 'Nuf said.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
