Thomas Sowell writes, “Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are ‘interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity,’ people who “read the classics.’
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.”
Thomas Sowell writes, “Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are ‘interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity,’ people who “read the classics.’
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.”
Americans appear to read a good bit of fiction, from what we see from the last 15 years of bestsellers as tracked by USA Today.
Sens. McCain and Obama list their favorite books and San Francisco authors comment.
How stories do their work on us: “Real life doesn’t always feel like a great adventure. Sometimes doing the right thing is rather dull. Great adventure stories remind us that in the end, the choices we make every day are the stuff of greatness. The world is changed by people who choose to tell the truth, to show kindness, to be courageous.”
Tony Woodlief praises the public reading program in Wichita, Kansas, and their choice of Willa Cather’s My Antonia.
This wag, a TV writer and probably far more wealthy than I am, has a list of books not to bother with, as if he knows something about it. He says The Lord of the Rings isn’t worthy reading and makes for a good screen against unacceptable friends. He hates Joyce’s Ulysses too, so his list isn’t all bad.
This seems appropriate for this week. It’s an excerpt from Frederick Douglass’ My Bondage and My Freedom.
The frequent hearing of my mistress reading the Bible — for she often read aloud when her husband was absent — soon awakened my curiosity in respect to this mystery of reading, and roused in me the desire to learn. Having no fear of my kind mistress before my eyes, (she had then given me no reason to fear,) I frankly asked her to teach me to read; and, without hesitation, the dear woman began the task, and very soon, by her assistance, I was master of the alphabet, and could spell words of three or four letters.
My mistress seemed almost as proud of my progress, as if I had been her own child; and, supposing that her husband would be as well pleased, she made no secret of what she was doing for me. Indeed, she exultingly told him of the aptness of her pupil, of her intention to persevere in teaching me, and of the duty which she felt it to teach me, at least to read the Bible.
Here arose the first cloud over my Baltimore prospects, the precursor of drenching rains and chilling blasts. Master Hugh was amazed at the simplicity of his spouse, and, probably for the first time, he unfolded to her the true philosophy of slavery, and the peculiar rules necessary to be observed by masters and mistresses, in the management of their human chattels. Mr. Auld promptly forbade the continuance of her instruction; telling her, in the first place, that the thing itself was unlawful; that it was also unsafe, and could only lead to mischief.
To use his own words, further, he said, “if you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell;” “he should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn to obey it.” “Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world;” “if you teach that nigger — speaking of myself — how to read the bible, there will be no keeping him;” “it would forever unfit him for the duties of a slave;” and “as to himself, learning would do him no good, but probably, a great deal of harm — making him disconsolate and unhappy.” “If you learn him how to read, he’ll want to know how to write; and, this accomplished, he’ll be running away with himself.” Such was the tenor of Master Hugh’s oracular exposition of the true philosophy of training a human chattel ; and it must be confessed that he very clearly comprehended the nature and the requirements of the relation of master and slave. His discourse was the first decidedly anti-slavery lecture to which it had been my lot to listen.
Mrs. Auld evidently felt the force of his remarks; and, like an obedient wife, began to shape her course in the direction indicated by her husband. The effect of his words, on me, was neither slight nor transitory. His iron sentences — cold and harsh — sunk deep into my heart, and stirred up not only my feelings into a sort of rebellion, but awakened within me a slumbering train of vital thought. It was a new and special revelation, dispelling a painful mystery, against which my youthful understanding had struggled, and struggled in vain, to wit : the white man’s power to perpetuate the enslavement of the black man. “Very well,” thought I ; “knowledge unfits a child to be a slave.” I instinctively assented to the proposition . . .
Seized with a determination to learn to read, at any cost, I hit upon many expedients to accomplish the desired end. The plea which I mainly adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of using my young white playmates, with whom I met in the street, as teachers. I used to carry, almost constantly, a copy of Webster’s spelling book in my pocket; and, when sent of errands, or when play time was allowed me, I would step, with my young friends, aside, and take a lesson in spelling. I generally paid my tuition fee to the boys, with bread, which I also carried in my pocket. For a single biscuit, any of my hungry little comrades would give me a lesson more valuable to me than bread. Not every one, however, demanded this consideration, for there were those who took pleasure in teaching me, whenever I had a chance to be taught by them. I am strongly tempted to give the names of two or three of those little boys, as a slight testimonial of the gratitude and affection I bear them, but prudence forbids ; not that it would injure me, but it might, possibly, embarrass them ; for it is almost an unpardonable offense to do any thing, directly or indirectly, to promote a slave’s freedom, in a slave state.
Of course–not to restate the obvious–reading the Bible is particularly beneficial to fostering freedom.
Thanks for Dan Kleinman for pointing out Thomas Sowell’s criticism of Banned Books Week. Sowell is quoted saying:
If the criterion of censorship is that the objection comes from the general public, rather than from people who run schools and libraries, then that is saying the parents and taxpayers have no right to a say about what is done with their own children or their own money. . . . No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village. It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that is it called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.
David Ulin says Banned Books Week is a little difficult for him because it focuses attention on a good topic and trivializes it at the same time.
It’s foolish, self-defeating even, to pretend that books are innocuous, that we don’t need to concern ourselves with what they say. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t really matter if we ban them, because we have already stripped them of their power.
Books do change things: Just think of “Common Sense,” which lighted the fuse of the American Revolution, or “Mein Kampf,” which laid out the blueprint for Hitler’s Germany.
This reminds me of an essay I saw in a homeschooling magazine/catalog. It referred to parents who feared the Harry Potter books were dangerous and thus should not be read. He said they were dangerous, and that’s why they could be read along with many others. He urged parents to understand that reading only a few books was far worse than reading many of them, because with more reading comes more experience with ideas, words, and images.
Ideas are especially dangerous when taken in small amounts, but when you see or think about many ideas, you have more opportunity to spot the ridiculous ones at first blush and test the good ones against popular bad ones. (link via Books, Inq.)
“Free access to information is a core American value that should be protected,” said Judith F. Krug, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. “Not every book is right for each reader, but an individual’s interpretation of a book should not take away my right to select reading materials for my family or myself.”
This quote comes in an article headlining the fact that “And Tango Makes Three” was the most challenged or “banned” book last year, and I think this may highlight our argument for Banned Books Week. How does “free access to information” apply to children’s stories or any story for that matter? If parents believe a book, which the librarian believes with worth reading, should be placed in a somewhat restricted access section in order to guard young reader, do that bar anyone from access to whatever information is in it? Of course not.
But as readers of this blog have said before, the best parental guard against children reading inappropriate material is parental involvement and moral instruction. Children can understand a good bit with loving instruction. Where “And Tango Makes Three” is concerned, it may be a good idea for children to read it, ask questions about what makes a family, and receive thoughtful answers from their parents. Perhaps a book like this makes the top of the challenged list because some parents don’t want to face uncomfortable issues.
I believe we live in difficult times, and I don’t think Christians and god-fearing people will gain any ground by trying to shut out bad ideas or “information” from their libraries. We have to know the truth, love our neighbors, and speak appropriately about issues wherever we can–to speak as a humanist. To speak as a Christian, we should love our Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind, and then know the truth, love our neighbors, and speak appropriately.