Henry Reichman, in his research study titled Censorship and Selection, Concerns and Responses for Schools. Censorship specifies censorship as the “the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic or academic materials … on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in light of the requirements used by the censor” (Cromwell, 2005). Frequently, the judging of the books as unsuited for public or classroom intake is done unilaterally by an authorized policymaking body charged with oversight functions.
This has adverse effect to the teachers’ exercise of scholastic and imaginative flexibility guaranteed by the First Change that safeguards “the students’ right to know and the instructors’ right to academic liberty” (Shupe, 2004). Throughout the history of literature, censorship of literary texts and judging them as unsuited for public usage has actually constantly provoked social and political debates. The offending advocates who pose themselves as guardians of morality and social order insist that the society requires defense from devastating aspects that might damage its moral and social fibers.
The protective side, on the other hand, promotes the promoting of humans rights for free expression, criticizing censorship us a curtailment of this basic human right. Ironically, banning the books from public consumption has actually shown to have done the opposite. The public ends up being much more curious, finds innovative methods to acquire these banned books and find on their own that the very factor of the banning must be the very same reason the general public must read them in the very first place.
For instance, while Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was challenged because of its racial slur, many in the academic circles believe that it must even more read by the public to discover bigotry and its adverse social effect (Shupe, 2004). Restraining the general public from reading a literary text that shows this social reality does not and can not shield itself from seeing this occurring in real life. Unsurprisingly for that reason, these prohibited books or literary texts whose topics are considered taboos by the authorities became all-time best sellers continuously being “taken in” by the public.
The public’s curiosity has actually been sustained by the authority’s persistent efforts to determine what the public can and can not read defying the provisions of the Very first Modifications that preserves imaginative and scholastic liberty (Shupe, 2004). This has even more invigorated the general public’s propensity to rebel against repressive authorities. Banning the reading of what the public thought about well-known literature seems not simply illogical but unwarranted. This has made acclaimed banned books like the Lord of the Flies sustained its appeal generations after generations.
I. The Lord of the Flies Restrained from Flying To understand the “restraint flight” of the unique, it might be considered essential to trace its roots from its conception to publication, illuminating the tumultuous paths it has taken prior to it reached the general public eye. William Gerald Golding wrote the unique less than ten years after World War II after serving in the Royal Navy from 1940-1945 where he saw male’s unnerving capacity for atrocities. As it is typically thought, war brings the worst and the best of guy’s human nature.
But expectedly so, Golding recognized more on the evil side of man, owing to his background as a disillusioned supporter of rationalism, championed by his dad Alec Golding, a school teacher and ardent follower of rationalism. In his writing about his wartime experience, he composed: “Man produces evil as a bee produces honey” (Gyllensten, 1983). He felt that the atrocities dedicated by the Nazis in such magnitude could be dedicated simply as well by any other nations owing to humankind’s innately evil nature.
He wrote the book at a time of Cold War, fresh from the hostilities of the Holocaust, the widespread dehumanizing consequences of atomic bombs, and the threat of the so-called “Reds” behind the Iron Curtain. These conditions all discovered their method to the book, making it a great study of the political and ideological underpinnings of this scene. From its pre-publication to its promotion to the public, the Lord of the Flies has gone through a rough course. Turned down by publishers a record of 21 times, the book was adjudged as “ridiculous and uninteresting … rubbish and dull” (Conrad, 2009).
Conrad (2009) remembers that the book appeared to have reached a dead end, up until a former attorney hired as editor from the Faber publishing house, Charles Monteith, resurrected the book from its near oblivion and persuaded his coworkers at Faber to release the book at a meager amount of? 60. As it ended up, Monteith’s organisation impulse made Faber millions of pounds as the book sold countless copies worldwide and continues to do so up to this time prompting the author of the book to retort that he thinks about the royalty earnings as “Monopoly money” (Conrad, 2009).
The book’s huge business success can be credited to 2 things: initially, it has a great story filled with thrilling action and a style that magnifies the limitless battle between excellent and wicked; and 2nd, it has actually been constantly challenged by certain school authorities making it even more attractive to readers. The more it has ended up being controversial, the more it has collected cult following, presuming celebrity status as a literary text. The thesis of the book highlights the tendency of guy for violence.
In the novel, a group of British school children are trapped in a tropical island after the aircraft that would take them to someplace much safer from the nuclear war crashed. Initially acting in a more civilized way, these schoolboys form some sort of a social group with a leader and sets of rules. As they find the difficulties of such a plan within the unpredictability that surrounds them because tropical island, they start to question the presence of that social order and begin to defy its conventions.
The “good force” is led by Ralph who symbolizes male’s adherence to civilization and proper social decorum; while Jack leads the “evil forces” symbolizing male’s inherent wicked nature that manifests with proper environmental stimuli engendered by the extreme realities of life such as surviving in a jungle. As the story advances and the uncertainty of being saved ended up being remote, Jack starts to reconfigure the composition of the social order started by Ralph. Within these contesting ideologies, Jack starts to become the leader of choice by the majority of the group.
Choosing that Jack’s aggressive stunts and searching abilities are the required abilities of a leader in such a severe environment, the majority of the kids shift their loyalty to him and leave the “orderly” and “civilized” management of Ralph. With Jack’s management, the boys go through a downward spiral and turn to dreadful violence to take apart civilized social constructs in the name of survival. In so doing, 2 boys are killed and they would have continued to move down to supreme self-destruction had their eventual rescue failed to come just in time.
Released in 1954 and written by Golding, the Lord of the Flies has been constantly challenged and banned from school curricula in the United States and other parts of the world. The Nettverksgruppa (1996) or NVG, an association of students and staff at the Norwegian University of Science and Innovation (NTNU) in Trondheim recounts that the following academic organizations challenged this unique for its so-called “demoralizing impact that suggests that man is little more than an animal”: