"To censor a book is...to rescue it from oblivion"

I recently encountered the first challenge to my Collection – it was successful, perhaps partly because I shared the reservations about the book.

As sole librarian, I am very conscious of the need to resist censorship based on my own prejudices and tastes.

The 1994 article by Dillon and Williams was therefore of interest to me – particularly because, as it was written before the mass uptake of internet and social media, it concentrates on what is still the backbone of our school's Library.

In the mid-nineties there was great media interest in the effect on children of TV and movie violence. The ratings system for films was revised and there was even stricter censorship on computer games, but literary content was reviewed only on request from any 'interested person' because print was seen as having an in-built exclusion factor: the complexity of the language used automatically excludes those too young to understand.

Dillon & Williams also looked at authorial self-censorship which occurs passively (choosing either 'invasion' or 'settlement' when describing the First Fleet, for example) or actively (deliberate inclusion of characters or plot elements to press a point). The danger here is that 'worthy' books are often boring – but both methods are used with a purpose.

Dillon & Williams surveyed a small sample of school librarians on the issue of challenges, finding that two-thirds were successful. The results also showed that many school librarians self-censor because they anticipate objections – mainly from parents.

These results were largely replicated in a 2008 survey (Whelan 2009a): the main reason for not including an item in the collection was fear of parents' reactions, while a quarter of respondents admitted to self-censorship based on their own views (Whelan, 2009b).

Whelan argues that what should drive collection management is the purpose of the library and literary merit. Whelan confirms Dillon & Williams' observation that children put down what they find they can't yet handle and adds that most authors are very conscious of their youthful readership and include contentious elements only when the context demands it.

While avoiding self-censorship, children's/YA librarians need to remember that they are in loco parentis, especially in schools; they should avoid using the freedom-of-access argument just because it goes against the grain to ban books. Besides, times change – and yesterday's offensive book is today's favourite (Frické, Mathiesen& Fallis, 2000).

Kidd (2009) takes a somewhat different approach. “To censor a book is not to suppress it but.....to rescue it from oblivion” - true censorship occurs when an item is ignored. Thus lists of award-winners or books to be read before leaving childhood, etc, all work to exclude titles – censorship by default.

Having reviewed the challenge I have concluded that the decision was correct: if underlying messages, incorporated passively or actively, are implanted purposefully, they must be assumed to have an effect on readers. In this case, also, as the book is a comic, young children would not be put off by possible linguistic complexity because the pictures carry so much of the story. The item remains off the shelves because of the offensive depiction of Africans and the mindless slaughter of wildlife – however, it will be made available for students researching colonialist attitudes.

The book in question? Hergé's Tim im Kongo – the first of the TinTin series, originally published in 1930.

Topic: Censorship; Activity: Find, read, analyse a peer-reviewed article.

References:

Dillon, K. & Williams, C.L. (1994). Censorship, children & school libraries in Australia: issues of concern. Emergency Librarian. 22(2), 8-15. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=b13aaa85-3898-47be-bd27-72e8821af8bb%40sessionmgr198&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=9412153258

Frické, M., Mathiesen, K. & Fallis, D. (2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library Bill of Rights. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy. 70(4), 468-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4309463

Kidd, K. (2009). Not Censorship but Selection: Censorship and/as Prizing. Children's Literature in Education 40,(3) pp.197-216. DOI: 10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4

Whelan, D.L. (2009a). SLJ self-censorship survey. School Library Journal

http://www.slj.com/2009/02/collection-development/slj-self-censorship-survey/

Whelan, D.L. (2009b). A dirty little secret: self-censorship. School library journal. http://www.slj.com/2009/02/censorship/a-dirty-little-secret-self-censorship/