Henry Reichman, in his research titled Censorship and Selection, Concerns and Answers for Schools. Censorship specifies censorship as the “the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic or academic products … on the grounds that these are ethically or otherwise objectionable in light of the requirements applied by the censor” (Cromwell, 2005). Typically, the evaluating of the books as unfit for public or class usage is done unilaterally by a licensed policymaking body tasked with oversight functions.
This has negative impact to the teachers’ exercise of scholastic and imaginative liberty ensured by the First Amendment that protects “the students’ right to understand and the teachers’ right to scholastic liberty” (Shupe, 2004). Throughout the history of literature, censorship of literary texts and judging them as unfit for public usage has actually constantly provoked social and political arguments. The offending supporters who posture themselves as guardians of morality and social order insist that the society requires defense from devastating components that may damage its ethical and social fibers.
The protective side, on the other hand, promotes the maintaining of constitutional rights for free expression, slamming censorship us a curtailment of this fundamental human right. Paradoxically, banning the books from public consumption has proven to have actually done the reverse. The public becomes much more curious, discovers imaginative methods to get hold of these prohibited books and find on their own that the very reason of the prohibiting need to be the exact same reason the general public ought to read them in the very first location.
For example, while Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was challenged because of its racial slur, many in the scholastic circles think that it ought to all the more read by the public to learn about bigotry and its adverse social effect (Shupe, 2004). Restraining the general public from reading a literary text that reflects this social reality does not and can not shield itself from seeing this occurring in real life. Unsurprisingly for that reason, these banned books or literary texts whose subjects are considered taboos by the authorities became all-time finest sellers constantly being “consumed” by the public.
The general public’s interest has been sustained by the authority’s consistent efforts to dictate what the general public can and can not check out defying the arrangements of the Very first Modifications that preserves imaginative and academic liberty (Shupe, 2004). This has all the more invigorated the general public’s tendency to rebel against repressive authorities. Prohibiting the reading of what the public considered well-known literature appears not just illogical but baseless. This has made acclaimed banned books like the Lord of the Flies sustained its popularity generations after generations.
I. The Lord of the Flies Restrained from Flying To comprehend the “restraint flight” of the novel, it may be considered necessary to trace its roots from its conception to publication, illuminating the turbulent paths it has actually taken prior to it reached the general public eye. William Gerald Golding composed the novel less than ten years after World War II after serving in the Royal Navy from 1940-1945 where he saw man’s unnerving capacity for atrocities. As it is commonly thought, war brings the worst and the best of guy’s humanity.
However expectedly so, Golding determined more on the evil side of man, owing to his background as a disillusioned supporter of rationalism, championed by his daddy Alec Golding, a school instructor and ardent believer of rationalism. In his writing about his wartime experience, he wrote: “Guy produces evil as a bee produces honey” (Gyllensten, 1983). He felt that the atrocities committed by the Nazis in such magnitude might be devoted simply as well by any other nations owing to mankind’s innately evil nature.
He composed the book at a time of Cold War, fresh from the hostilities of the Holocaust, the widespread dehumanizing aftereffects of atomic bombs, and the danger of the so-called “Reds” behind the Iron Drape. 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 general public, the Lord of the Flies has actually gone through an unstable path. Rejected by publishers a record of 21 times, the book was adjudged as “ridiculous and boring … rubbish and dull” (Conrad, 2009).
Conrad (2009) recalls that the book seemed to have reached a dead end, till a former lawyer employed as editor from the Faber publishing house, Charles Monteith, reanimated the book from its near oblivion and persuaded his colleagues at Faber to release the book at a meager amount of? 60. As it ended up, Monteith’s service impulse made Faber countless pounds as the book offered millions of copies around the world and continues to do so up to this time triggering the author of the book to retort that he thinks about the royalty earnings as “Monopoly money” (Conrad, 2009).
The book’s huge commercial success can be attributed to two things: first, it has an excellent story filled with thrilling action and a style that magnifies the unlimited fight in between good and evil; and second, it has actually been continually challenged by certain school authorities making it even more attractive to readers. The more it has actually ended up being questionable, the more it has actually gathered cult following, assuming celeb status as a literary text. The thesis of the book underscores the tendency of male for violence.
In the novel, a group of British school children are caught in a tropical island after the plane that would take them to someplace much safer from the nuclear war crashed. At first acting in a more civilized way, these schoolboys form some sort of a social group with a leader and sets of guidelines. As they discover the troubles of such an arrangement within the unpredictability that surrounds them because tropical island, they start to question the existence of that social order and begin to defy its conventions.
The “great force” is led by Ralph who represents guy’s adherence to civilization and correct social decorum; while Jack leads the “evil forces” signifying guy’s inherent wicked nature that manifests with appropriate ecological stimuli stimulated by the extreme truths of life such as surviving in a jungle. As the story advances and the uncertainty of being saved become remote, Jack starts to reconfigure the structure of the social order initiated by Ralph. Within these contesting ideologies, Jack begins to emerge as the leader of choice by the majority of the group.
Choosing that Jack’s aggressive stunts and hunting abilities are the required abilities of a leader in such an extreme environment, most of the kids move their loyalty to him and leave the “organized” and “civilized” management of Ralph. With Jack’s management, the boys undergo a downward spiral and rely on dreadful violence to dismantle civilized social constructs in the name of survival. In so doing, 2 young boys are killed and they would have continued to move down to ultimate self-destruction had their eventual rescue stopped working to come in the nick of time.
Released in 1954 and composed by Golding, the Lord of the Flies has been constantly challenged and prohibited from school curricula in the United States and other parts of the world. The Nettverksgruppa (1996) or NVG, an association of trainees and personnel at the Norwegian University of Science and Innovation (NTNU) in Trondheim recounts that the following academic institutions challenged this unique for its so-called “demoralizing impact that indicates that man is little bit more than an animal”: