Re: banning CATCHER

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT) 

OK, Cam,

I'm with you the whole way except your knee-jerk use of the term "Facism".  
Facism is a form of government based on economic expansion through military 
expansion.  Although Facists have burned books, in fact, most book burnings 
have been done by non-facists, including good, old-fashioned capitolist 
American chistians.
I'm not sure why I felt the need to defend facism, but, well,
There it is, then.
Thor


>This all reminds me of an item I once read in `Mad' magazine (yes, as a
>true postmodernist even I go lowbrow occasionally) which was a picture of a
>teenage boy salivating over a copy of `Catcher in the Rye' with a caption
>like `Do those people who ban books really believe kids are going to head
>straight to their local libraries for a bit of titillation'? Book banning
>is akin to book burning which is akin to fascism. I've seen the moral
>minority at work in my own country via the `Lolita' crap (which in any case
>was all a stunt to get a conservative independent MP onto the government's
>side anyway) and it ain't pretty. Still, like Jason said it inspires you to
>read a helluva lot of fine literature you may not have thought of otherwise
>(:
>
>Camille
>verona_beach@geocities.com
>@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
>@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
>
>
> > > Hello, all.
> > >
> > > I would like to come out in defense of the reoccuring plan to ban 
>CITR.
>  It
> > > is a dangerous book.  Nevermind the languge; there's worse on
>prime-time tv.
> > >   In fact, it is dangerous because of its subtlety and underlying
>themes.
> > > The same people who want to ban Salinger are the ones who find
>independant
> > > thinking frightening.  People shouldn't be put through the ringer of
>new
> > > ideas and strange thoughts.
> > > This is the same group that hated Wycliffe, because knowledge in the
>hands
> > > of the public is....  unpredictable.
> > > We need to support the idea of banning.  Not banning per se, just the
>idea
> > > of it.  Do you think more than a handful of people would have read the
> > > Bible's English trans. if the church hadn't fought it tooth-and-nail?
> > > Thank god, (with a small g) for groups that directly affect my life 
>due
>to
> > > their close proximity to me, like Coloradans for Family Values.  
>Groups
>like
> > > this pointed my way as a youth towards books that I may have otherwise
> > > neglected, thanks to their banning wish list.
> > > The old saying "It takes all kinds" is so true: these bizarros work as
>a
> > > near-perfect inverse barometer.
> > > Thank you, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al., you freaks have shown
>me
> > > the light, or at least where I should be looking for it.
> > >
> > > Thor
> >
> > Have to agree with Thor on this one.  In High School I considered the
> > banned book list my summer reading list.  In my high school we also had 
>a
> > pretty crafty English teacher who had the list posted on the wall.  She
> > kept the books in strong box in her closet.  (she used to like to show
>the
> > covers to the class)  Every year she'd recruit a few seniors to spread
>the
> > rumor that the combonation was 12-34-02 for the lock.  Inevitably people
> > stole books from the box.  I stole _1984_. (isn't it funny our school
> > banned this book)  She later told me she has tons of copies of these
>books
> > in her garage at home that she gets from flea markets and the like.  She
> > hopes they get stolen.  Thank you Mrs. Hornick, for understanding simple
> > teen psychology.
> >
> > -j


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com