Banning Shakespeare, AIBU to think

[FluffBalled]

it's about time isn't it?

All that transphobia, prejudice and antisemitic language - it is amazing schools have allowed this stuff to continue.

How can we have LESS banning of books when NO books are currently banned

Not sure that is entirely true.

Libraries used to ban Enid Blyton - there may not be any legislative book banning but there's definitely been selective curating for a long time.

If we don't ban Shakespeare because he was of his time, why do we ban 1970s TV shows that were of their time? Because one is exalted as the father of literature and the other was just entertainment?

Personally I think Shakespeare is completely overrated! Not that I am suggesting in any way that his works should be banned!

@Xenia - totally agree.

Enid Blyton was never banned, but her racist titles featuring gollies Waggie, Woggie and N-r were put behind the counter, and quite right too.

Enid Blyton was never banned, but her racist titles featuring gollies Waggie, Woggie and N-r were put behind the counter, and quite right too.

It's not just individual words. As I remember, EB drips with a vomit inducing "Aren't we English so superior to those funny foreigners" from every page.

Almost as bad as Dennis Wheatley, which was DMs guilty pleasure.

That said, pretty certain the whole country was on alert for "foreigners" during the war. Especially suspicious ones.

That episode of faulty towers was offensive. All you racists can defend it however you want but it is true. It’s no way comparable to Shakespeare, who because he copied many Persian stories, actually had a great deal of diversity in his stories.

Enid Blyton wasnt banned, they changed some of the names and language in a few of the books then changed it back- the conservative grievance industry just lied about it.

hahah you think Orwell is some high class exclusive thing to have read? you were really pleased with that wernt you?

You lot dont know the first bloody thing about Orwell. He went to spain to shoot racists and you lot are whining about a slavers statue being removed. We also all know about the Rights track record with culture.

Enid Blyton wasn't banned, they changed some of the names and language in a few of the books

How about the imperialist and sexist attitudes ?

He went to spain to shoot racists

As did a lot of Brits.

If anyone can find it "Land and Freedom" is an excellent Ken Loach film set in that time. Bit of a weepy at the end (well I sniffed leastways).

No idea I dont read that shite.

Yeah I watched it a few years ago, cant actually remember the ending, Homage to Catalonia was a bit dissapointing as a book I thought.

A moment of war by Laurie Lee is the best spanish civil war book

Always relevant.

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/everything-orwellian-say-idiots-2013092579759

No idea I dont read that shite.

OK, you can consider your virtue well and truly signalled.

For myself it was an inescapable rite of passage - even if you dodged it at school, you parents would have had their copies around.

Funny that Billy Bunter (mysterious set in a private boys school) seems to avoid the same opprobrium. I was given some of my uncles books from his schooldays.

And it's be a shame to lose Jennings - despite being almost exclusively white and privileged. Except for one book set during a holiday with his aunt in "the city" somewhere.

I think Enid Blyton was originally banned in Libraries cos people thought it was teaching kids bad reading habits wasnt it? in the 50s

Burn films, burn TV programs, tear down statues and now burn Shakespeare.
Its frightening what is happening.

Societies that destroy what came before to fit current ideology never seem to end up doing very well do they?

Russian revolution.
Nazi Germany.
Taliban
Pol Pot Year zero
Puritanism and The English Civil War

I'm sure they thought they were "right" at the beginning didn't they? Forging a new path. Making things good and whole again.

I don't mind admitting that I am terrified.

Ahhh yes I remember Lenin's testament on the evils of UKTV showing Keeping Up Appearances

We study literary texts as being ‘of their time’ and consider how modern audience responses (given changing attitudes etc) might shape the meaning or impact of the drama. If you see the plays merely as vehicles for promoting gang violence, racism, male dominance etc, that could be problematic, but it would be quite a superficial approach.

If you see the plays merely as vehicles for promoting gang violence, racism, male dominance etc, that could be problematic, but it would be quite a superficial approach.

It's reception theory, and we can see it here. Leavis is dead, decomposed and his atoms used for something else. The intention of the author is no longer priveliged, and so many schools no longer teach Wesker's Roots because some kids and/or parents complain that it is cultural appropriation.

Goodness knows what Matthew Arnold would make of this world. The certainties of Culture & Anarchy have been swept away like the shingle on Dover Beach.

Shakey had a similar problem in his day. He had to appeal to the Poshies in the rafters and the great unwashed getting a shower down at the front. He may have had his cake and ate it in the process with the likes of Othello, Shylock, silly French princesses and excitable Italians doing extreme things at the slightest excuse, etc.

And so we can say that the meaning of texts changes over time. Yesterday's iconoclastic avant-garde is today's boring establishment. Twas ever thus.

Shakespeare ...copied many Persian stories.

In fact, his real name was Walid Shakesh Kapur: Indian!

@CHIRIBAYA

I've never read the bible, so I'm not sure, but it doesn't actually tell us Adam or Eve's skin colour does it?

I think when we study a book or play that contains language, themes or characters that are racist or sexist or whatever, it is a springboard for discussion. Whereas dated TV shows with disgusting racial slurs fall into a different category (especially where even the creator agrees). Different again would be a documentary or drama highlighting an historic event. I do think it’s time for a conversation about the statues displayed in our towns and cities. Statues, by their nature, celebrate the person, and it’s right to question who or what we are celebrating. I’m not saying destroy them, but some maybe now would be better placed in museums. (Sorry if that’s a bit of a ramble, I just think it’s a really nuanced issue.)

I think the idea that books and plays are worthy of respect but TV shows deserve only contempt regardless of all the acclaim and awards they have won is a highly reactionary culturist stance that Leavis and Arnold would agree with.

Oh, and if you think you're being clever calling it "Faulty Towers," you may not have grasped the concept of comedy in that deliberate pun by the authors. Neither have you seen the show with its running gag about the name.

If you want to refer to the writers of Fawlty Towers please include Connie Booth (or as she is a woman is this not allowed?)

Whereas dated TV shows with disgusting racial slurs fall into a different category

Why?

Why are books/plays with disgusting racial slurs ‘springboards for discussion’, but TV shows aren’t?

Why are books/plays with disgusting racial slurs ‘springboards for discussion’, but TV shows aren’t?

Cultural snobbery.

Cultural snobbery.

I certainly can’t think of another reason