"There's more than one way to burn a book." - Ray Bradbury
This article, about the censorship of the Harry Potter books, appeared in the daily_snitch yesterday. As a fanatic HP fan and avid reader, I scoff at the notion. I retreat back into HP fandom. I might be subject to censorship at school, but at home, on my computer, I am safe.
Or perhaps not.
Incidentally, I am reading Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 for class. Two things I read today struck home for me.
It [censorship] didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick..." (Page 58, 50th anniversary edition)
There's more than one way to burn a book. (Page 176, 50th anniversary edition)
The woman asking for Harry Potter to be taken off school bookshelves is a fireman, literally censoring the books.
So where does that leave us?
Don't get me wrong, a good portion of fandom is represented by the woman who will not leave her house as her books are burned, but that certainly is not all of us.
Let's look at fandom's response to HBP!Tonks (who, I would argue, is merely Tonks. theregoesyamum wrote a brilliant essay on the issue, so I won't dwell on it here).
Fandom's problem with Tonks is that, essentially, she has flaws. We put our hope in Tonks as the feminist of the HP series. And she couldn't be just any feminist, but the perfect feminist - a woman who is capable of standing strong no matter what. But she came up shy. Her emotions got to her (regardless of what you believe those emotions came from and whether or not her breakdown was understandable).
And so fandom reacted violently with a string of essays/fanfiction that bashed and/or ignored this new character development.
It is in the books. It is canon. It is JKR's book and her character.
We are entitled to our opinions, but is it Jo's job to cater to them? Is it her job to cater to the politics of her fans? Should she have written Tonks differently because she knew the feminist minority of the world would react to Tonks's portrayal?
Many fans seem to think that is precisely what JKR's job is, and expecting such from JKR is a form of censorship in itself.
We burn books in fandom. We merely use a different match.
A/N: I used Tonks and feminism as an example. It is in other places as well (racism, obesity, etc.).
sexy-bartok:
I was going to answer your challenge (well, technically, your friend's challenge) today, but this meta was just calling to me! lol. Some other day...
Or perhaps not.
Incidentally, I am reading Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 for class. Two things I read today struck home for me.
It [censorship] didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick..." (Page 58, 50th anniversary edition)
There's more than one way to burn a book. (Page 176, 50th anniversary edition)
The woman asking for Harry Potter to be taken off school bookshelves is a fireman, literally censoring the books.
So where does that leave us?
Don't get me wrong, a good portion of fandom is represented by the woman who will not leave her house as her books are burned, but that certainly is not all of us.
Let's look at fandom's response to HBP!Tonks (who, I would argue, is merely Tonks. theregoesyamum wrote a brilliant essay on the issue, so I won't dwell on it here).
Fandom's problem with Tonks is that, essentially, she has flaws. We put our hope in Tonks as the feminist of the HP series. And she couldn't be just any feminist, but the perfect feminist - a woman who is capable of standing strong no matter what. But she came up shy. Her emotions got to her (regardless of what you believe those emotions came from and whether or not her breakdown was understandable).
And so fandom reacted violently with a string of essays/fanfiction that bashed and/or ignored this new character development.
It is in the books. It is canon. It is JKR's book and her character.
We are entitled to our opinions, but is it Jo's job to cater to them? Is it her job to cater to the politics of her fans? Should she have written Tonks differently because she knew the feminist minority of the world would react to Tonks's portrayal?
Many fans seem to think that is precisely what JKR's job is, and expecting such from JKR is a form of censorship in itself.
We burn books in fandom. We merely use a different match.
A/N: I used Tonks and feminism as an example. It is in other places as well (racism, obesity, etc.).
sexy-bartok:
I was going to answer your challenge (well, technically, your friend's challenge) today, but this meta was just calling to me! lol. Some other day...