Topic: Censorship

Activity: Find, read and analyse a peer-reviewed journal article.

Description of activity:

For this activity, I chose to analyse a journal article from Bookbird, the journal of The International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY) (Analysis at Appendix A).  

The author Cherie Givens has composed an article on the issue of hidden forms of censorship in children’s literature. While reading the article, I took notes on the main arguments raised by the author, the references used within the article and the conclusion. During the analysis I noted that the article is based upon a study conducted in Canada in 2007, however there is very little information in regard to the study and there is no indication as to how many people were interviewed, how the interviewees were selected and details of their backgrounds. 

What did I learn?

The activity was both a practical experience in selecting an article, analytical writing, and exploration into the controversial issue of censorship. I located this article following a search of the Charles Sturt University Library catalogue by limiting my search to articles from 2005 onwards and peer reviewed journal articles.  Although the article is not of Australian origin, the topic of hidden forms of censorship may very well apply to the Australian publishing industry.

The censorship of children’s literature can have many implications, particularly when censorship changes the way in which children are educated or the literature to which they are exposed. As Reichman (2001, p.4) states, “the purpose of education is not only to promote factual information, but to develop in the young the ability to discriminate and choose”. To develop this skill, children and young adults by necessity should be exposed to a wide range of writing, authors and illustrators with varying opinions and backgrounds.

To discover the validity of the article, I searched for additional articles that supported the prevalence of these forms of censorship. I had already discovered an article that discussed a similar notion of the power wielded by book award committees for my blog entry on this topic (Mcleod, 2011). This was supported by Kidd (2008, p.200) who discusses the change from censorship of controversial books to the promotion of ‘good’ books in the form of prizing. An article published this year in The Weekly Standard (Anon, 2015, p.5) condemned Oxford University Press for developing a new series of guidelines that advises authors to avoid using references to pigs or sausage to avoid censorship.

How was the activity relevant to my professional practice?

Writing an analysis of a journal article was a valuable experience, not just in the process of writing a review, but also in the process of reading and selecting journal articles on the topic. When working in the industry, very little time is given to reading current articles for professional development and this process has reminded me of the importance of keeping abreast with current topics. This in turn forces me to think critically about the library in which I work, my selection for the collection and ensuring that I do not censor my selections with any personal ideals or beliefs.

Were any gaps in your knowledge revealed?

The process of finding a journal article and writing an analysis on a particular topic was one that I have not embarked upon for many years. Finding a relevant peer-reviewed article and analysing it was a useful and practical activity. I can apply this practice back to my own position in a public library where I am at times called upon to assist TAFE and University students with their assignments.

The article topic was an interesting, if controversial one. I was aware that there is a certain amount of editing of children’s literature, particularly educational material. However the concept of pre-publication censorship taking place to avoid post-publication censorship was a concept I had not considered. As this article was written and based on issued in the Canadian publication industry, it would be of interest to seek similar studies in the Australian context.

References

Kidd, K. (2009). “Not censorship but selection”: Censorship and/as prizing. Children’s Literature in Education. (40). pp. 197–216. doi: 10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4

McLeod, M. (2011). The Children’s Book Council of Australia Book of the Year and the         image problem. Access. 25(1), 27-34. Retrieved from                      http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/861637419?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo

Reichman, H. (2001). Censorship and selection: issues and answers for schools. (3^rd ed.). Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from Google Books.

This little piggy got banned. (2015, January 26). The Weekly Standard. pp 4-5.

Appendix A

Journal Analysis

Givens, C. (2009) Hidden forms of censorship and their impact. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature, 47, 22-28. doi: 10.1353/bkb.0.0184.

Censorship of children’s and young adult written material is a common yet controversial issue that arises both in public and school library settings. We often think of censorship as being the removal or control of items that are allowed in a library. This article focuses instead on pre-publication censorship, the unseen censorship placed on authors, illustrators and publishers. The author, Givens, discusses the results of a series of interviews that took place in Canada in 2007, asking authors and illustrators to share their experiences of pre-publication censorship.

A number of interviewees, all of which remained anonymous, shared situations of having been advised to change names, gender, ethnicity and age of central characters in an attempt to avoid post publication censorship. Givens suggests that the pre-publication censorship is obvious in both children’s fiction and non-fiction educational publications. Censorship may be in the form of removing content that is too biased towards a particular religion or considered too sensitive, such as mentioning Halloween. Books may have their content adjusted if it shows a particular political stance or leaning, such as showing support for the monarchy.

The final form of hidden censorship discussed in the article is that of book awards. Given suggests that the selection of books for short lists in book awards can itself be a form of censorship. This argument is supported by the experiences of one author who discovered her book had been rejected by just one awards panelist based on her own understanding of some Italian words used in the book. Authors know that being on a short list of a book award can significantly increase not just the sale of their books but also its exposure and acceptance as a quality text.

  

This article raises some interesting questions in regard to hidden forms of censorship. The use of examples from the 2007 interviews shows how prevalent these forms of censorship may be, in particular the subtle changes being made pre-publication to suit the perceived requirements of the public. The thought that publishers are changing and influencing authors works to avoid complaints or censorship post publication is somewhat disturbing. The interviewees were from a number of different countries, so this is not an issue that is arising just in one location.

Overall, this article raises some interesting considerations when selecting books. One thought in particular is to ensure that when selecting books, it is from a variety of publishers to avoid having a collection dominated by any one publisher’s material and in turn their particular guidelines or policies on what is currently controversial and objectionable.