#it's just like you know like lolita or american psycho where the point is 'the protagonist is absolutely a horrible person'

[hanzajesthanza]

Bez krwi nie ma wampira. Jest to substancja, która decyduje o jego istnieniu, podobnie jak o istnieniu człowieka. Without blood there is no vampire. It is this substance which determines his existence, just as it does the existence of a human.

Maria Janion. "6. Krew i ciało," in Wampir: Biografia symboliczna. ("6. Blood and body," in Vampire: A Symbolic Biography.)

[bumblebirds-menagerie]

The Books I Read Last Year

and what i thought of them (not in chronological order because i forgot, quite long)

Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954) --- I got this from a street library not really thinking I’d love it but I WAS WRONG because for quite a bit of this year it was my favourite book. I found it quite easy to read so I went through it pretty quickly, and I enjoyed seeing how the characters changed throughout.

American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis (1991) --- I really enjoyed this book but I’m hesitant to recommend it because of how many potentially triggering things there are in it. There’s a lot of violence and sickening stuff in it that I don’t want to list, but be aware that’s it’s pretty heavy content. Aside from that, AP is one of my favourite kinds of books: bad people in first person. When it’s being narrated by the ‘villain’ it’s just so interesting. And I loved the narration; it was so matter-of-fact even when he ate a jellyfish. Watch out for long lists of designer brands and chapters devoted to music.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818) --- I feel like almost everyone has at least heard of this book, and for good reason: it was fantastic. I would encourage everyone to read it because the writing is beautiful. And you can see the situation from both Frankenstein’s and the monster’s point of view, so you wonder what you would do if you were Frankenstein.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (1955) --- You know that orangey light you get at 4 pm in summer? That’s how Lolita felt to me (idk why). Anyway, it was a really creepy book due to its being from the perspective of a pedophile and there were parts where the narrator was saying stuff you’d find in a romance book, but it was about a child and it was so yuck to read. Overall, not bad but I’m not in a hurry to read it again.

Dracula by Bram Stoker (1897) --- Dracula was written very differently from how I expected. I thought it would be in third (or maybe first) person, take place all in Transylvania, and only really have Harker and Dracula in it. But instead, it was written as diary entries and newspaper clippings from lots of different characters, and took place in a number of locations, which I actually really liked. And I loved the ‘vamipre hunting gang’ dynamic between the characters, it made the story really enjoyable. Also, Mina Harker is one of my favourite characters in literature, what a queen.

The Book Thief  by Markus Zusak (2005) --- I read this for school and I wasn’t expecting to like it that much considering I’m not a huge fan of historical fiction, but I was pleasantly surprised. I got into it outside of class and I read it when I could have read other books in my spare time. Death’s narration was great and the story was quite funny at times, but do be warned it’s a sad book.

Orlando: A Biography by Virginia Woolf (1928) --- One of my two favourite books ever! I think everyone should read Orlando at least once, I keep reccommending it anyone who hasn’t read it yet. The descriptions of everything from emotions to scenery are so beautiful I wanted to paint them (especially the oak tree and the great frost). Woolf explores a lot of topics in Orlando, most importantly gender, and I liked how she put important ideas in without making the book harsh and grating to read. It just felt comforting to open it up at school and enjoy it with lunch <3

Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert (1856) --- M.B. is a bit different from some of my other reads. It’s about the titular character being unsatisfied with her life and seeking ways to indulge in what she would like. For example, if you are unhappy in your marriage, M.B’s solution would be to have an affair with a rich man you met at your husbands medical practice! I have to say I didn’t enjoy it as much as some of the others, but I think it’s just not my favourite kind of book.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth by Jules Verne (1864) --- When I was younger I read a simplified version from Great Illustrated Classics so I was really interested to see if there were any differences. I read it in 3 days which, for a 300 page book, is really quick for me. It was great to read a book I used to love in its proper form, and it’s a book I think everyone should read.

The Shiralee by D’Arcy Niland (1955) --- An Australian book! After reading lots of European books it was refreshing to read one set in places I’m familiar with. ‘Shiralee’ means a burden, and for the main character (a bushman called Macauley) his daughter Buster is his shiralee as he travels around New South Wales. The story is funny at times, sad at times, and overall heartwarming, and I’d reccommend it for anyone wanting something a bit different and so on (please someone get the reference).

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck (1937) --- Pretty sure lots of people have read it for school. I didn’t hate it but I also didn’t love it; I’m not such a huge fan of these old American stories. The worst part was 100% when they killed the dog.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (1962) --- My other favourite book ever! I can’t really put a finger on why I liked it so much - maybe the slang-riddled writing, maybe the ‘bad people in first person’ thing, maybe the questions it asked - but this story gripped me from start to finish. I did enjoy the challenge of deciphering the nadsat slang (with the help of sparknotes), and I found it made the writing very personal, as if I was seeing into the mind of Alex. I would absolutely recommend it to anyone looking for a book to make them think, but be aware that it contains violence and rape. 

The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty (1971) --- I really hoped it wouldn’t be too scary and thankfully it wasn’t. Obviously it is a horror novel but it wasn’t the kind of horror that keeps you up paranoid at night (at least not for me). And for a good bit of the book the focus is not directly on the possession of Regan but on the priest and excorcist, Karras, which was something I wasn’t expecting. The actual exorcism came quite late, which wasn’t a bad thing. Also I hadn’t heard of Kinderman before reading it and god was I annoyed every time he appeared on the page.

Highway to Nowhere by Richard Shears (1996) --- The only non fiction book I read in my spare time. It’s a true crime book about a series of murders that occurred on the east coast of Australia during the late 80s and early 90s called the backpacker murders. I hadn’t considered backpacking before but after reading this I can say with certainty that I will never do it. It was really interesting to learn about the police’s process in gathering evidence and how court proceedings work, which was something I enjoyed about this book. Piece of advice: if your copy has picture pages, don’t look at them until you’ve finished the book because they reveal who the killer is before the text gets there (thankfully I already knew who it was as most people have at least heard of this case in Aus)

The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka (1915) --- It was a short book, but it delivered its messgae effectively in that space, which was good. You know that ‘would you still love me if I was a worm’ thing? The Metamorphosis is kind of like that: ‘would you still love me if I was a giant bug with the mind of a human?’

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925) --- If you like the roaring 20s and books about rich people having affairs, then you will like TGG. However, I don’t like either of these things, so I really did not like it and only read it for school. I just found every character annoying and most of the book was quite boring.

Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons (1932) --- Ending with a good one! I was mainly inspired to pick up Cold Comfort Farm because of the illustration of the cover, featuring a summary of the residents of Cold Comfort. It’s a book that mocks ‘farm life’ novels, but if, like me, you have not read any before, it is still a very funny book. Something I loved about it was that I never went ‘ugh’ when a character appeared (except Mybug) because even though a lot of them were miserable people in the beginning, they were fun to read about. If I had to pick a favourite character I would probably say Adam or Elfine.

<3

[doloresdisparue]

Okay, I watched the video now and I did not like it. I obviously sympathise with any attempt to set the record straight on the novel, Nabokov's intent and the reality of Dolores so to be clear in the grand scheme of culture I am aligned with this person, we're nitpicking within a circle of people who all broadly agree here, same as when I criticise the Lolita podcast. I already disagree with the premise of the video for several reasons but there were a few points that ticked me off specifically. Under a cut for length.

First of all I think citing from a bunch of opinion pieces, not all of which have scholarly background is not ideal. The essays this person cites also contain some absolutely ludicrous statements. One quote that is cited but cut off right before it gets really bad is From Roxane Gay's essay:

The aesthetics of Lolita in narrative and film are choices, and those choices undo or at the very least diminish the ugliness of the story they represent. Those choices seduce the reader or viewer. They lull us into believing that violation is perhaps not so bad. In most movies that deal with sexual violence, we see beautiful men doing terrible things to beautiful women. Rape is ugly, but rapists never are. This is such a contrast to how most of us imagine rapists. Or that’s what I would like to think. In my mind, rapists are hideous men, repulsive in every way. At least literature can accommodate ugly realities more effectively than film and television. We can write about ugly things beautifully but still make it clear that they are ugly. We aren’t seduced or distracted by images of charming, handsome men with an appealing streak of silver in their hair.

This is such a deeply irresponsible sentiment it boggles my mind that it came from a writer I previously respected. We would certainly like to think that all rapists are hideous because that would be easy but I was under the impression that we had collectively moved on from the Victorian sentiment that beauty equals morality and you can safely know someone is evil if they're not conventionally attractive. Part of the POINT of Lolita is that Humbert gets away with what he does because he is a conventionally attractive, educated, charming white man. That a queer, fat, black person (all things that are or were maligned as inherently bad/ugly by western society) would even suggest that we should not have attractive people do bad things on screen because people who do bad things are ugly inside and therefore ugly outside is so utterly baffling I struggle to put it into words. I also think that the majority of people are, in fact, capable of seeing a hot person do something bad on screen and not immediately conclude that this means they should also do or endorse said thing but maybe I'm optimistic there. I feel similarly about some of the other essays cited but since this is supposed to be about the video I won't go through them too.

The video posits that since Nabokov wrote for five years and wrote towards the trappings of a specific medium, changing said medium is "irresponsible". Firstly, five years is not a long time for a film to be in development, nor even a script. Secondly, this, to me, speaks of a very flat uninspired view of the concept of adaptation. Just because a story was geared towards a specific medium doesn't mean you can't adapt it. Of course you can't film Lolita 1:1 the way it is written. THAT would, in fact, be fatal. But there are plenty of films that skillfully depict unreliably narrators, including ones engaged in very bad behaviour (Gone Girl, American Psycho, Fight Club, Black Swan, to only name a few mainstream titles). There are also a plethora of movies filmed from a Bad Guy perspective in general, innumerable horror films where you follow someone doing awful things, often someone who fully believes they are justified in what they do. Somehow people arguing against a visual adaptation always forget that the novel has a VERY clear framing device. Humbert is introduced by someone who declares him cuckoo-bananas and only valuable as a case study and then we have him talking to a potential jury. I know the previous movies also ignored that but that doesn't mean it HAS to be ignored. I would argue it is a central pillar of the way the novel works and it is very easy to adapt. Have it the way the musical does, put him opposite a prison psychiatrist, open and end the movie that way, have the psychiatrist either comment in voiceover or flash between the actions of the past and the interview if you're scared of the actors pretty face distracting the simple minded viewer too much. It is NOT hard to frame the story just like Nabokov did and I fully believe there are talented scriptwriters who can do that. Calling a medium change inherently irresponsible is just stupid, I'm sorry. There is nothing irresponsible about changing the medium of a story per se. All the ethics of it lie in the production.

The potential impact on child actors is metioned and I fully agree with their point that it would be irresponsible to cast a little girl. While some movies (like one of their very examples, Mysterious Skin) have filmed scenes of child sexual abuse ethically with strict precautions to protect the child actors that would be very difficult to do for a story like Lolita and, as the video says, I would rather not risk it because real life children matter more. Regardless of the filming itself the media attention and reaction would no doubt be EXTREMELY damaging to any child actor so, no, we should not cast a child as Lolita. However, the other example the video cites as a good CSA movie features a 22 year-old playing 15 and we live in a day and age where studios are distastefully adding whole CGI replicas of dead actors into their movies so I don't understand why the possibility of casting a short, skinny 20 year old and digitally augmenting her face and proportions a little is never brought up. I have personally seen someone call the cops on an ongoing production featuring a 23 year-old because she was styled to look young. It works. This is entirely leaving out the fact that animated films that are not for children do, in fact, exist and animation is a medium that can be used to tell adult stories. The association of animation with childhood could, depending on the style, even work in the favour of the horror of it all if one were to adapt Lolita that way.

However, while I agree wholeheartedly about the ethics of casting a real child and I massively appreciate linking the topic to parent influencers and the way young child "influencers" are treated because that is a really important topic there is also an idea throughout the video that I don't love and that is the depiction = endorsement idea. Especially in the context of claiming a Lolita movie would be pandering to pedophiles and therefore be equivalent to CSEM. I understand this in the context of a real child being sexualized or made to act out a kiss or similar things with an adult actor (though even then I think it is HIGHLY irresponsible to equate this to filmed evidence of actual CSA) but none of that is a prerequisite for a Lolita movie, as I stated above, which leaves us sliding down the slippery slope of the 1996 CPPA which declared everything CSEM that showed a character implied to be a minor engaging in sexual conduct. If you think about that for longer than the reactionary kneejerk Protect The Children this essentially bans any and all teen movies and shows. There is nothing inherently wrong with adult actors playing kids engaging in acts real kids should not engage in. This applies to media about sexuality (which is vital for teens) just as much as it does to media about children experiencing violence and trauma. In fact it's GOOD across the board, regardless of genre, because child labor laws in the US film industry have historically been awful and I'd much rather squint a little to pretend that 30 year old is 16. Media showing underage characters in sexual situations is not inherently unethical. There are degrees of taste, obviously, but implying media with underage characters or depicting CSA could appeal to pedophiles and is therefore close to CSEM is not only stupid but also wildly disrespectful. It's also a nonsensical argument because any movie featuring a real child could appeal to pedophiles. Just like the rest of us they don't need to have the object of their attraction presented pin-up style to find them attractive. If you want to prevent children in movies from potentially appealing to pedophiles you're going to have to ban children in movies.

I'm not even going to touch on their attempt to claim that depicting murder is fine but you have to draw the line at CSA because "murder is an exclusively physical act" as if we haven't had endless conversations about the normalisation of violence in media and movies being used for propaganda that LEADS TO murder. I have to assume the maker of this video is American because the people trying to cleanly separate sexual violence from "acceptable" physical violence usually are. That cultural disconnect is too complex to go into here but let's leave it at I Strongly Disagree. If you're going to handwring about Forbidden Subjects at least be consistent. I think Stephen Schiff is a hack who never should have gotten to touch Lolita but he was absolutely correct about the American movie landscape being accepting towards movies depicting nonsexual violence versus sexuality being immediate cause for censorship. His main issue (among many others) was viewing Lolita as a story of primarily sexuality in the first place not in pointing out the hypocrisy of American media standards.

This also goes hand in hand with what I think is actually an irrelevant comparison. The video mentions "good" examples of CSA movies that are told from the POV of the child victim. This is irrelevant. Lolita from the POV of Dolores is fundamentally a different story with a different point and narrative function. We can talk about wanting that story too but it has no place in talking about adaptations of the novel. It is funny that an example given is Mysterious Skin though, because that does also very prominently an uncomfortable start with mostly POV shots from the perpetrators perspective on the child as the abuse is happening. This is deeply uncomfortable on purpose as much as it is a technique to keep the child actors safe because they were filmed entirely separately with no full idea of the nature of the story and it shows that there are very effective ways of depicting CSA even from the point of the abuser without turning out garbage like the Lolita movies provided the films are actually made by people who view the story as CSA and think CSA is bad.

If one is actually interested in seriously considering or discussing this instead of bringing movies into this conversation an example to go off would be Michael (which also took pains to safeguard the child actor) as a child abuser POV movie that presents an entirely uneroticised view in the style of Haneke. You could look at Hard Candy for cinematography that toes the line but stays painfully uncomfortable by virtue of presenting the child as A CHILD (though an unnamed production member did attempt to assault the child actor at some point so no points of real life safety here) or The Babadook for a movie largely about someone abusing a child that featured said child for large chunks of the movie but still upheld extremely strict standards to safeguard the child actor. I could go on but I've already spent too long typing this breakdown.

I also notice that the video REALLY tries hard to deflect the blame from Kubrick in regards to the awful movie adaptation and the abuse of Sue Lyon. Given their mention of a Kubrick loving phase I'm not feeling inclined to be charitable about that. James B. Harris was the abuser of Lyon and the producer of the movie, yes, but Kubrick was the writer and director. Kubrick was also FAMOUS for micromanaging his sets and nothing getting done without his explicit approval. He is as much if not MORE responsible for the tone of the movie than Harris. He was the one who re-wrote the script. He and Harris had a production company TOGETHER, they were on equal footing. They were friends. Lyons abuse was an open secret, NEWSPAPERS called her a Lolita jokingly referencing her "relationship" with Harris. Kubrick knew and he let it happen. He is responsible for the movie and he is responsible for either turning a blind eye of facilitating the sexual abuse of Sue Lyon. His grave is a gender neutral bathroom as far as I'm concerned.

The whole argument Kubrick makes that this video blindly regurgitates regarding the Hays Code is also nonsense. There were movies before Lolita that depicted child sexual abuse. Kubrick's argument was in regards to wanting to make the movie more erotic and sexually explicit because he too saw it as a love story (as he said himself). It would absolutely have been possible to make the movie about child sexual abuse, the book doesn't feature any explicit sexual interaction either. It would have still been a struggle and rest mostly on implication but the Hays Code did not keep Kubrick from making a good movie his own disgusting views of the story did.

Lastly, throughout the video they use the word "pedophilia" to mean anything from actual pedophilia to child sexual abuse. These things are not synonymous and muddying the waters adds to a cultural belief that anyone with an attraction to children is inevitably destined to also abuse children which drives pedophiles away from seeking help and learning to manage any urges safely and instead only exacerbates mental health issues. I know no one likes to think about the well-being of pedophiles but no one chooses to be born with that attraction and for the prevention of child sexual abuse helping people who suffer from it to access therapy resources IS important and will benefit everyone. The believe that pedophilia = child sexual abuse also helps offenders who are not pedophiles (which, by the way, as far as available numbers go is THE MAJORITY) brush their own actions under the rug as not driven by a persistent exclusive attraction to children and therefore negligible. Let's not add to any of that. And while Lolita is, of course, a story about a little girl the language in this video seems to relegate CSA in general to something that is done solely to girls by men which, again, from the available numbers we have, is NOT THE CASE and perpetuates a societal belief that protects female abusers and leaves male victims alone and without support. Let's not.

new lolita video essay by finalgirlstudios!! i think you'd like it

i have to say the title does not make me inclined to watch but maybe that's a fault of the clickbait economy and the actual point of the video is more nuanced.

[aclockworkfilmsnob]

Why do you think clockwork orange is growing in popularity?

Because it's a timeless tale that will forever remain relevant. Malcolm McDowell once said that new generations own it in different ways, they always manage to make it their own, and there are so many reasons for that. Even though it will never be as disturbing as it was to mainstream audiences in 1971, it still taps in to off putting ideas that will never age. Never being safe in your own home, the human attraction to violence, the illusion of morality, the ideas of free will, the exploitative government, opposite ends of the political, religious, and moral spectrum ultimately being inherently awful. Yeah, it's not as filled to the brim with gore as any of the Saw sequels are, and it's not as heavy on the rape and ultraviolence as something like A Serbian Film is, and for that reason people label it as "tame in comparison." But I'm about 99% sure that 50 years from now, the new and edgy stuff that only exists for shock value will be laughed at and mocked by future standards, and Clockwork will still have that chilling edge that sends eternally shivers down people's spines.It fits so well with what's going on in our society now between gang violence on the rise (especially here in NY), and corrupt politicians as far as the glazzies can viddy. It's this perfect kind of story that exposes the harsh reality of it all and still invites us to laugh at its absurdity and revel in its insanity, which adds an extra dimension of nightmare fuel, the idea that we can connect with and enjoy such a terrifying ordeal.Not to mention, on a purely cinematic level, it seems as though it could have come out today with all of the dark comedies coming out. Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, and Martin McDonagh put out films that have the same demented sense of humor that ACO has, and for that it can be accepted on a different level than it has been before. With movies like American Psycho and Reservoir Dogs so celebrated and beloved in the mid 90's to today, it's kind of mind boggling to think that Stanley Kubrick made something so god damn similar such a long time ago, and with complete intention, as Malcolm McDowell and even the film's original trailer insisted that it was made with the intention to be funny. So many of Kubrick's films are completely timeless, easily everything he made post Lolita, with the obvious inclusion of Paths of Glory. They cement cinema as an art form, I think at this point, to ask why we still talk about A Clockwork Orange is like asking why we still talk about The Mona Lisa. It's a masterpiece with a gigantic cultural impact and it's fundamentally impossible for the film to become irrelevant as long as humanity remains alive. I do think there's a degree of pseudo intellectualism with Clockwork's recent influx in popularity, somewhat similar to the Rick and Morty fandom, where people insist on citing and referencing it to seem like they're smart and have a brilliant taste in cinema, I've noticed it in a lot of video essays on irrelevant topics. I appreciate a great Clockwork reference but a lot of these are redundant and forced. I think like Rick and Morty, it is smart, but you do not have to be smart to enjoy it, or even to get it for that matter, it's very on the nose. Something always has to exist to fuel our egos, whether it's every political talk radio station mentioning how they read 1984 once, to people who have to insist on how much they like Clockwork and how superior that seems to make them feel. Things like that will always exist, there's nothing we can do about it, but I think it adds to how popular it has become among a myriad of other things. For whatever reason I can't escape the feeling that maybe I played a very minor role in something of a spike in popularity, between a few memes I've made on the film becoming popular, and some thesis points I've cited on the film's themes and visual language that I previously found no one talking about before, but recently they've become the subject of every clockwork analysis video, from the recent screenprism essay to a Part 2 of Rob Ager's analysis… I don't know, I'm probably just being paranoid, but from the long history of large YouTubers stealing from smaller content creators, I'm not so quick to accept that it's nothing. Hundreds of people have stolen my memes, they can steal my ideas too. But does that have anything to do with why people love it so much? No, because it's more about the film's entertainment and replay value. It's fingerprints are all over cinema today, references to it are seemingly placed everywhere in the entertainment industry. Yet it still feels so new and fresh when watching it. What kind of film has that kind of power, where you can see it quoted and referenced so many times to the point of almost seeing the whole movie through tribute, yet watching it for the first time still feels like something completely new? Not many films, I can tell you that.It has had copy cats since its conception, but it will outlive all of them. I know I've basically gone this whole post without mentioning the book, but keep in mind, I've read the book only twice and I've seen the film over 20 times. Not to mention the fact that the story has been eternalized through the film, even if the book itself has a timeless quality to it, and my feelings towards it are very similar towards the film, I think it will remain relevant as well. We as humans are fascinated by what we refuse to accept. I can't imagine there will ever be a point in time where it's not worth talking about, it's always a conversation worthy work of art. Between my tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory as to why I am the key to all of this, and the objective truth that ACO taps in to eternally relevant themes, there are so many things that keep the story fresh. And that's why perpetuates the popularity, I dare say it will forever go in a Clockwork direction.

[trueloveisrarelyafairytale]

20 Banned Books you've probably read

Banning books from schools and libraries is a form of censorship that predominantly hurts the people that would benefit most from keeping the book(s) available. It is not up to a few to say what book is available to who. Making a choice for a group of people based on the decision of a small group is morally wrong in my opinion. There is a difference from a book being challenged, which probably happens to just about every book at one point, and banning, which is when the book is actually removed from a library or school. The following is a list of some of the best books ever written that were banned at one time or another.  

1. The Scarlet Letter by: Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) A woman has an affair with a man of the church which results in a love child. As a punishment for her transgressions, she has to wear the scarlet letter “A” for Adulterer.  There were some that felt the author was too lenient in the character Hester and that she didn’t get what she deserved. There was complaint of immoral content and sympathy to the sins committed. Considering the time this was written, this one isn’t too surprising.   2. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1865) My wedding was Alice in Wonderland themed so this is obviously one of my favorite books. This has had some controversy because of suggested drug use (eating mushrooms that change your size, a caterpillar smoking a hookah…) as well as speaking animals which is considered evil or something. It was banned in Hunan China for that reason in 1931 because of the way the animals acted like humans. The Censor General feared children would see animals and humans as equals and also believed allowing the animals to speak was offensive to humans. I have also read something about the author’s sexual preference, but that refers to Lewis Carroll, not the story.   3. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by: Mark Twain (1884) I enjoyed this book quite a bit growing up. I was oblivious to the racism in it as a child, but ultimately that is why it was banned. Now, of course racism isn’t ok, but during the time the story takes place (and at the time it was banned oddly enough), racism was a very large part of everyday life. Jim was Huck’s friend and seeing the way he was treated was cruel. Though, I personally feel it was showing the intensity of racism many feel like the book itself was racist. While it may have been called “trash”, it is now considered an American classic.   4. The Tale of Peter Rabbit by: Beatrix Potter (1902) When I saw this book was banned, I couldn’t think of a single thing that would do it besides the fact that Peter’s father was killed. That wasn’t it. This book was banned for portraying “Middle class rabbits”. Yep. I don’t even really know what that means, so while I technically know why the book has had controversy, I’m still really confused.   5. The Great Gatsby by: F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925) This was fairly recently made into a film that did well, and it’s a favorite of many readers, but this novel has had its fair share of complaints. The novel contains a sexual affair (which is never portrayed in detail), bad language, and violence, which is the formula to set people off. The novel is set during the prohibition where the drinking was heavy and the partying described was also considered uncomfortable to some.   6. Winnie the Pooh by: A.A. Milne (1926) Pooh? Pooh was banned? This one was a little all over the place. The talking animals being against God is brought up with this one as well. Piglet being a pig had some controversy over if it would offend Muslim children. One thing that blew my mind, was apparently pooh wore a swastika and was seen as a Nazi supporter. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, but I don’t remember that.   7. Gone with the Wind by: Margaret Mitchell (1936) This is the only book on this list that I have never read, which is horrible considering I am a romance writer. I will remedy that soon, but that is neither here nor there. The book was primarily banned because of the racism and the way they treated slaves. Like I said, I haven’t read it, but I’m pretty sure slaves were never treated well, hence the name “slave”. As an author I strive for authenticity, and while slavery has never been acceptable, it did happen. Slaves were, in fact abused, so reading about it isn’t going to be pleasant.   8. Of Mice and Men by: J.D. Salinger (1937) I remember the effect this book had on me the first time I read it. While it was intense I still don’t feel as if I was too young to be reading it (around 12). A major complaint was that this book didn’t fit in with the age group it was being taught to in schools. There is bad language and violence, but another problem was that the book glorified euthanasia. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but ok.   9. The Catcher in the Rye by: J.D. Salinger (1951) The Character Holden is often compared to number three’s main character Huckleberry Finn. The book follows a teenager who has a pension for drinking (Underage) and a potty mouth. Those were two large reasons the book was banned combined with sexual content. While the book still faces controversy, it has come back from being banned and continues to have an influence on teenagers all over the United States.   10. Fahrenheit 451 by: Ray Bradbury (1953) Yeah, a book about burning/banning books was itself banned. No irony there. Yes, there is bad language, blasphemy, as well as the bible being burned, which is what lead to the banning, but I think the message of this one was lost on more than a few.   11. Lord of the Rings by: J.R.R. Tolkien (1954) This was another beloved book that spawned multiple, wildly popular films. One issue with this book is the smoking. The characters do smoke, from a pipe mostly, but if we ban all books with smoking in them… that is a lot of books. The magic involved is seen as witchcraft and un-Christian. What I find interesting is that apparently, J.R.R. Tolkien was not only a Catholic, but the book are said to be symbolic to Christianity. Similar to The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis (with whom he was actually friends).   12. Lolita by: Vladimir Nabokov (1955) When I first heard what this book was about, I was shocked that it was put into print, but later found it was done so through a pornographic press.  When my curiosity got the best of me and I read it, I was stunned because it was so beautifully written. Yes, the story is about a pedophile that makes my skin crawl, and is infatuated with a twelve year old, but the truth is, it was so tastefully told that it didn’t make me as uncomfortable as it would have otherwise. Humbert Humbert was the narrator, and I hated him, but still, I loved the book. France, United Kingdom, Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa have all banned it for its obscenities and is was temporarily so in Canada.   13. Green Eggs and Ham by: Dr. Seuss (1960) I thought for sure we would have more talking animal issues, but the only complaint I have been able to find is that portrayed “early Marxism”. Dr. Seuss was open about the fact that he wanted kids to question their government. From what I can gather (because I had no idea what that meant), Marxism is a belief that our social class system, and the constant conflict between upper and lower class, is responsible for the way history has turned out. And apparently that’s why it was banned, but the ban has been lifted since the death of Dr. Seuss.   14. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by: Ken Kesey (1962) This book is pretty crazy. There is a lot of sexual material and has been called “pornographic”. Many parents and school boards have fought to get this removed from shelves. It was said to glorify immoral activity and the profanity, torture, and death was seen as inappropriate for high school students. Let me just say, the story is told by a character who is mentally ill, which I always saw as unique and eye-opening and is set in a mental hospital so it isn’t going to be gumdrops and unicorns.   15. Where the Wild Things Are by: Maurice Sendak (1963) The fact that any childhood is without this book is sad to me, but when I saw why this book was banned, I had to laugh. Because Max was sent to bed without his supper, apparently his hunger sent him into hallucinations of monsters, and is “psychologically damaging” to young children. Really? Because he missed one meal? The book made it clear that Max has an active imagination and was rambunctious hence why his mother called him “Wild Thing”.   16. Where the Sidewalk Ends by: Shel Silverstein (1974) This book is a fantastic compilation of poems that often have the message to not listen to everything you are told, and use your imagination. A lot of parents and teachers don’t like that message because they believe it teaches them to be disrespectful. It was also accused of having references of suicide, Satanism, and drug use. There is one poem called “Dreadful” about the baby being eaten and the narrator burps at the end insinuating he ate the baby. Ok, maybe it’s a little disturbing, but children are just going to find it funny and amusing, not resort to cannibalism as some parents were concerned would happen.   17. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis (1991)  In Australia, the book may be purchased by someone over the age of eighteen, but at one point in the State of Queensland sale and purchase of the novel was illegal. The story is of a man who is extremely concerned with how the world sees him is also a sadistic killer. It was a concern that the book would bring about violence. Simon and Schuster dropped the title three months before the book was scheduled to be released because of a lot of pushback from the media. The problem people had was with the inner dialogue of Bateman, but when you write, the characters become their own entity in a sense. That was who Bateman was, and being true to the characters and their story is the art of storytelling.      18. Harry Potter Series by: J.K. Rowling (1997 -2007) The most common problem with these books, is the fact that the characters are good witches and wizards that perform magic. Since religious teachings say witchcraft, demons, sorcery, etc. are a sin against God, they feel this is confusing to children because the [main] characters are seen a good. The themes in the book can get somewhat dark and there were concerns that it would be too intense for children. However, the millions of adolescent Harry Potter fans would probably disagree. Another problem is the fact that Harry and his friends lie, sneak around, steal, and break other rules to accomplish what they are doing in the story. Parents were upset that he never got in trouble, but that’s probably because the headmaster was in on it half the time.   19. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by: Stephen Chbosky (1999) This is a novel about teenagers coming of age. The sexual content is the main concern, especially the witnessing of date rape. There were complaints by parents for drug and alcohol use…did I mention the book was about teenagers? The mention of masturbation was reason for some controversy (Again…teenagers). What really got me, is the fact that people were appalled that homosexuality is even mentioned in the book. Like homosexuality is some terrible thing. You want to talk about offensive… and this was published less than twenty years ago.   20. Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy (2011-2012) Compared to the other books on this list, this isn’t exactly surprising, but I primarily read and write within the same genre as FSOG, and this book is like the training wheels for the genre. I kind of have to wonder what these people would say about books like “Captive in the Dark”. It was taken out of libraries for immoral content and sadism. They don’t want pornography or erotica in their libraries, and there were also concerns of the character’s religious views. It’s no secret what these books are about (Hot young Billionaire + Virginal young woman + mild BDSM= Book), so if someone wants to read it should be available for them to do so.   These are the books that have shaped us (Well, maybe with the exception of number twenty) and if these books aren’t safe, I don’t know that any books are. I am a proud reader of banned books and will do my part to fight censorship in any way possible.   *What would you add to the list? Did you enjoy this post? I would love to hear from you!     Charity B.

[jocelyn-wellson]

Yeah there’s a lot wrong with this “breakdown” of First Person.

• This notion that the narrator must survive is garbage. You don’t need to look any further than Nabakov’s Lolita for that. Indeed, the reason why we extend empathy to Humbert Humbert — and why it’s inordinately uncomfortable to us to do so — is because we know it’s a dead man’s book. He literally tells us up front he’s dying and if we’re reading it, he’s dead. This device is quite effective at both building empathy ... and at dragging the reader in, if deployed correctly.

• “If your audience doesn’t like the voice... it’ll be a horrible experience...” Don’t think this doesn’t apply to all writing, irrespective of POV. Crappy writing is crappy writing; voices which disagree with our preferred just won’t work for us. Conversely, perhaps it may be worth immersing yourself into the book and asking “Why does this character’s voice bother me BUT the author’s voice does not?” Authors are not stupid; there’s a reason characters sound like they do. Rather than just chuck the book, give it a shot. Great example (for me) was Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho. It is one of the only books I came close to setting down and throwing a match to ... until I realized what was going on with the narrator, how absurd their reality was, and the purpose of the grotesque violence the narrator supposedly undertook. At the opposite end of the spectrum lies Moby-Dick; there was a point where I was just like shut the fuck up about whales and tell the story! until about page 522... and then I realized the epic cosmic brain moment Herman Melville had planned. It’s totally worth the payout ... if you stick with it long enough.

• Also, if you mean to tell me that fucking Moby-Dick isn’t an epic scope because it’s not in third-person, that’s some sad English lit reading right there. Same with Toni Morrison’s Sula or Nella Larsen’s Passing. “Scope” has far less to do with giant battle scenes (though you can still absolutely pull it off, see Moby-Dick), than it does with societal and cultural issues. Both Morrison and Larsen do so with gusto.

• “First person is so limiting...” You might not want to tell that to Virginia Woolf. The majority of To The Lighthouse is told through shifting first person perspectives. And they are *all* very different. Why? Because her characters aren’t cookie cutters. If your characters are different enough, they will — of course — have different voices. Don’t fall for this thirst trap of an argument.

• General note on Epistolaries. They’re an option both first and third and (yes, even) second. How you choose to utilize a Journal, bunch of letters, or videos is constrained only by your creativity. Think: literally every found footage movie, every faux documentary, classics like Frankenstein, the Letters to the Romans, etc...

• Misconception about First Person. The unreliable narrator. Not all first person narrators are unreliable. They’re just not. Have you actually read The Great Gatsby? For as much as is made about Nick Carraway’s unreliability, he’s remarkably transparent about it; that is, he’ll TELL us when he’s not to be believed (like after he got wasted). Not so in American Psycho ... it’s all kinds of batshit. And that’s largely the point. Narrative unreliability lies on a spectrum. Don’t get sucked into the belief that all first-person narrators are liars.

• Oh. And I have a memoir for you where the narrator does nothing but lie. It’s called Lying by Lauren Slater. If you want to see how fucking hard it is to write a serial liar as an unreliable narrator for whom we are still supposed to feel empathy? There’s your book.

Well that’s about it for me. Until the next post I read that’s full of bullshit, I am, respectfully yours,

Dr B

how do i decide if i want to write in first or third person