My friend slipped the book to me with the cover down, glancing furtively down the hall of our stake center.
“We can’t read it in book club,” she said, a slight flush creeping up her freckled neck. “There are some things in it … I hope you won’t be offended, but it is sooo good. I think it is one of the best books I’ve ever read.”
“I am very open-minded and hard to offend,” I assured her, thinking to myself that she didn’t know the half of it.
I slipped her dog-eared copy of the The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffinger into my diaper bag and promised to pass it along to another friend and member of our book club who would be participating in this clandestine extra-curricular reading. When I opened the book later that night, I found that my friend had helpfully censored the book, covering all the fucks and shits and some of the more explicit sex scenes with white-out. Somewhat amused and slightly annoyed I pressed on, holding the text up to the light so I could make out the grey imprint of the words behind my friend’s good intentions.
Of course, she was right about the book club. Some conservative religious communities build bonfires or try to get books banned from public libraries, Mormons censor themselves. The book club — a group of 10 women from the stake — had decided to meet outside the auspices of Relief Society Enrichment clubs precisely so we wouldn’t have to worry about content. But, it didn’t matter; we edited ourselves as though we were submitting our list to the Quorum of the Twelve for approval. It wasn’t just that we avoided books with “adult” content — no swearing, little sex, little violence — we also avoided books that featured any kind of real-life unpleasantness or ambiguity. It left us with a small, meagre list — a few classics, Young Adult novels and a lot of didactic, poorly written Deseret-published books. One time we read Dracula — a somewhat controversial, but meant to be festive, Halloween pick and half of the women sat with their lips pursed, primly stating that they couldn’t get into it and hadn’t wanted to finish it. The women in this book club always talked about reading in terms of mindless or heartwarming entertainment. One woman repeatedly said that she only wanted books to make her feel good.
Reading, especially fiction, has long been a thorny issue for religious people. The Puritans railed against the evils of novel reading; they were afraid, not just of the questionable morals and actions of characters, but also concerned that young people, particularly feeble-minded young ladies, would be absorbing these stories that weren’t literally true — unlike the ones in the Bible — and would be damaged by them. In one of the earliest American novels, The Coquette, which was published in 1797, character Mrs. Sumner explains, “Are there not real woes (if not in our own families, at least among our own friends and neighbours) sufficient to exercise our sympathy and pity, without introducing fictitious ones into our very diversions? How can that be a diversion which racks the soul with grief, even though that grief be imaginary?” Thinking and feeling too much because of a book was a dangerous prospect, better to put novels into their proper place — as mere diversions.
(And, in case you were wondering, The Coquette illuminates just how slippery the flirting-with-boys-slope is for a teenage girl — it is not harmless and it will very likely lead to unwed pregnancy and broken-hearted death.)
That was my last Relief Society book club. For the last four years, I’ve done all my group reading with gentiles, but an article examining Mormon movie censorship, which was published last week on Killing the Buddha, made me think about this incident and what it says about Mormon culture. Author Hillary White, herself a former Mormon who grew up in Utah, writes:
“Keeping yourself from R-rated material is one thing. What I find unsettling are the great lengths Mormons will go to do so. In some ways I understand this. In other ways I respect it. Mormons find strength in abstinence. It’s a means of self-control. To non-members they appear to do what is nearly impossible: refraining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, masturbation, sexual activity before marriage, and so on. Not watching R-rated movies seems like a small sacrifice compared to these things, but I would argue it is the most troubling example of how Mormons separate themselves from “other” culture. That’s what bothers me. It isn’t the editing. It isn’t the films. It’s how this is a symptom of a larger problem: Mormons insulate themselves, either disregarding what they don’t like about the bigger picture-in life, on film-or stubbornly trying to change it to fit their ideals.”
While I largely agree with White, I think her evaluation of Mormons and their motivations may be too simplistic. For one thing, even if Mormons draw more lines than the average person, we all draw lines in the sand and turn away from things that make us uncomfortable or offend our sensibilities. I don’t think twice about watching most R-rated movies, but I won’t be rushing out to see the next installment of the Saw franchise or anything of that ilk. Ditto for romcoms, pornography and Harlequin Romances. Furthermore, we all have double standards. I am offended and a little mystified by the sexist view of men and women presented by the Charlie Sheen vehicle ‘Two and a Half Men’ (Who watches that show?! How can it still be on?!), but I have to confess to loving some songs and videos with questionable misogynistic lyrics, like Jay-Z’s 99 Problems. (Damn Rick Rubin’s brilliant production!) My point is that we all have holes in our ideals.
However, I think it is more difficult to unpack the motivations of Mormons who censor themselves. I suspect that my friend wasn’t consciously using her white out to turn away from things that made her uncomfortable. A married woman with two children, I wonder if she was really shocked by the language or sex in the book — especially given that The Time Traveller’s Wife is about a passionate love affair between a married couple that transcends space and time — a subject that might be uniquely poignant for Mormons. I think my friend was mostly acting in faith and obedience. The real question is not the hypocrisy that her actions implied, but the fear underlying the legalistic approach our leadership takes toward art and entertainment and whether such measures really achieve the aim of uplifting the Saints.
White says: “When Mormons use technologies like ClearPlay to change a film to fit their standards, they are only seeing what they want to see and what they already know. You can’t do that in real life. Life is rated R, or worse. It can be unpredictable, violent, miserable, and unfair. In trying to live “clean in thought and deed” there is a constant battle to keep things in the PG realm. It’s not only a losing battle, but an act of willful ignorance.”White goes on to argue that “willful ignorance” can seep into real life, making Mormons ill-equipped to deal with the inevitable ups and downs of life. Again, I don’t think Mormons are the only people to do this, but I do believe this fear is misplaced and art has the power to expand our horizons and strengthen our morality, not weaken it.
Personally, I’ve never been any good at censoring anything I read or watch. When people at church begin their unavoidable complaining about how terrible the world is and especially the media — sometimes it seems to come up more often than Jesus — I sit on my hands, feeling offended on behalf of my beloved movies and books. My R-rated movie bans (which I’ve given up completely in the last few years) were always brief and inevitably doomed. I never even really tried to edit my reading material. I have no problem with people wanting to be entertained when they read or watch a movie; I understand the pleasure of escaping into a book that will leave no mark — intellectually or otherwise — but escapism is not the main reason I turn to books, music and film.
I turn to art to be illuminated, to explore the world, to vicariously work through the difficulties of life and increase my compassion by experiencing viewpoints that differ from my own. Even when characters behave badly, there is something hugely life affirming about seeing humanity in action and watching people work through grey areas and difficult problems. Identifying with imperfect people — adulterers, liars, users, those who are weak or selfish — helps me work through those traits in myself and, hopefully, avoid the bad choices characters make. In truth, my R-rated movie bans never stuck because my consumption of literature and film has always felt deeply moral and, when I’m experiencing a true work of art that conveys human beings in all their complexity, transcendent and closer to God.
Photo by DML East Branch on Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons
Thank you for this insightful, honest and important post, Heidi. I appreciated your reflection on the danger of ‘insulation’ as encouraged by LDS doctrine and culture, and the sensitivity to the wider tendency to do this in all groups and societies. It’s human nature to desire ‘escapism’ from the pain of an unfair and unsympathetic world – and in some degree, a logical extension to extend that ‘escape’ to the totality of our experience.
In the past I’ve carried out ‘purges’ of my music collection (in particular), inspired by a youth fireside or lesson. Like you, these never lasted too long: it’s difficult for anyone to deny the ‘feelings of the spirit’ that accompany clearly ‘non approved’ media. I remember a huge moment of realisation that occurred when I felt what I recognised as the positive feelings of the Spirit confirming my ‘testimony’ of Dr Dre’s ‘2001’ album. :)
We all bring our own background of knowledge and experience, not to mention personal taste, to art experiences. It makes no sense for an adult to let someone else decide what is appropriate for her. In the words of Byron Katie, “Don’t try to be spiritual. Be honest instead.”
I read this quote once in a book: “I’ve never met a bigot who was a reader.”
Sure, there are bigots who are readers, but I like the idea that reading widely helps make us more sympathetic, empathetic, understanding, accepting, etc. I know that has been the case for me. The more I read, the more I realize how little I know and the less confident I have become that I am doing things “the right way,” or that my life is “normal,” etc.
Avoiding books/music/music that are uncomfortable might make us feel cozy, but it doesn’t do anything for helping us better able to understand the human condition. And isn’t that an important part of life?
Heidi, what a lovely post. I remember going through all kinds of mental gymnastics trying to mash together my love for literature and what I was told in church about appropriate content. It’s even more confusing when the LDS messages of seeking uplifting media is inconsistent. I would oscillate between being 100% good by going even beyond what was expected, and then thinking that it didn’t make any sense. How confusing to fret over whether or not to read my freshman year reading list in high school.
I am much more comfortable these days, having let go of the notion that god cares about the minutia of my reading habits. It makes a lot more sense to me that the beauty of creation is here on Earth to be enjoyed in it’s entirety, not to be censored and judged. It is what it is. No more judgements. I am free, and content, to choose what I read and watch.
I don’t think I’ve even tried to censor myself, just never seemed that important. There’s a big difference between what is degrading and spiritually deadening (most obviously, pornography) and everything else. I think it’s subjects just like this which has kept me separated from my LDS peers. This brings to mind our freshmen year at BYU, living in Deseret Towers, and watching ‘The Usual Suspects’ at full volume. It felt a little outrageous, rebellious, and we certainly offended most anyone within earshot of Benicio. But can you imagine missing that movie?
I can’t. :) (That is still one of my most successful movie-watching campaigns and memories.)
I loved this post. It made me think of the reaction my church peers had to taking my young children to “Shindler’s List” We all have strong feelings regarding censorship. We have a deeply personal set of standards by which we decide what we watch, listen to and read. I have always believed that one standard applied, “Experience, evaluate, and Educate. Now the one part of this standard that matters is that the standard only allows each individual to determine what they personally will see as well as what would be good for their own children. One day I came home to see that my sons and friends had been playing with fire. We ran out to rent “Backdraft” it was really disturbing and the fire was a huge villain in this movie. Just exactly what those fire bugs needed to see. When we use media to open a conversation instead of believeing it is a unchangeable statement, we learn that giving our children the “whys?” of life will prepare them to create a deeply personal set of standards for themselves.
There are times when the word “fuck” in usage as a verb, adverb, adjective, interjection or noun is the the best way to express the point a person is trying to make…
Absolutely – I’ve always found the argument that ‘they’re too inarticulate to use better words’, ridiculous. ‘Profane’ terms are among the most linguistically complex and sophisticated of our words.
Loved it, Heidi! I once hand a Mormon sunday school teacher (I guess I was about 14 or so) who highly recommended the R-rated film Ordinary People. She prefaced with some good points about choosing for other reasons than a general restriction. It seemed somewhat scandalous to me at the time … and juicy. I’m thankful that I had people like this sunday school teacher in my life.
I learned from my days as a Y film censor that there is always an audience looking to art for affirmation, as well as one looking for exploration. Most active LDS that I have known fall easily into the former category, though they are not by any means alone. There is also the notion that most going to the movies are not really seeking art, but entertainment. Do the two have to be so separated, to the point that film makers, bands and authors who achieve a high level of commercial success are frequently looked down upon as sell-outs? Probably a discussion for another time, but I think that conflict between art and entertainment is a fequent subtext to these sorts of conversations.
I’ll add that the apparent LDS appetite for sanitized entertainment/art has it’s weak spots. I was fequently cheered by the audience whenever I missed an edit of an obscenity. Perhaps the believers in the audience felt that having plopped down a whole $1 on a ticket for a cleaned up flick absolved them from harm brought about by human error. I suppose the blood of light-weight saltiness will stain my hands forevermore…
Dan, those are valid questions and points (and since I feel art is about exploring and learning about the world, every time I see a film that does that is affirming for me :)) Still, I wasn’t being facetious when I said I understand the pleasures of reading or viewing solely for entertainment, I think entertainment is important too. I just question the balance of things when entertainment or affirmation become the only acceptable reasons to view art. I think about the way that Jesus taught or the way we are encouraged to look for lessons in the scriptures. Narratives are a powerful way to explore who we are.
In answer to your question about commercial success, I have a few thoughts. One is that haters gotta hate, meaning an element will always exist that is waiting to pull the rug out from under someone else’s success. My other thought is that a lot of what is sold as “life-affirming” is deeply cynical and cliched, selling-out before the audience is even involved.
This reminds me of the brouhaha (sp.?) that occurred a few years back when Oprah picked Franzen’s The Corrections for her book club and he refused to participate. Please. So he was too good to have his book read by thousands upon thousands of people? Then why did he publish it then? Didn’t he want people to read it?
Heather, the Oprah-Franzen story really didn’t happen like that.
Oprah picked Franzen’s book. Franzen accepted, even sitting down with Oprah to record an interview. Later, during an interview with The Oregonian, Franzen expressed some mild anxiety about being selected for the Oprah book club, worrying that male readers might perceive The Corrections as a book “for women.” (Not an unfair characterization or anxiety, mind you, given the types of books that had been chosen for Oprah’s Book Club up to 2001, but a remark he probably should have kept to himself.) Nevertheless, Oprah was offended by Franzen’s remark and rescinded the invitation for him to appear on her show. So yes, while Franzen’s remark might have been poorly worded, Oprah’s response was classic self-righteous overreaction. Neither came off looking good, but the episode is remembered as “Franzen Rejects Oprah!”
Of course, all was forgiven this year when Oprah chose Franzen’s “Freedom” for her most recent book club.
Thanks for clearing that up Matt, I was just going to do that.
Interesting. I guess I either heard it wrong back then or remembered it wrong. ;)
Heidi your writing is beautiful and your vocabulary shows what a voracious reader you must be. I’m glad you found a new book club.
My favorite line is:
“The real question is not the hypocrisy that her actions implied, but the fear underlying the legalistic approach our leadership takes toward art and entertainment and whether such measures really achieve the aim of uplifting the Saints.”
Well said! This ‘legalistic approach” to protect and censor limits Mormons’ decisions. The leaders think they are doing us a favor by setting all these guidelines, but these guidelines are doing more to steal our agency. How do we get more strength by having our choices limited to read and view what someone else has decided is appropriate or worthy of our time? These viewing restrictions even aid some members in climbing up their rammeumptums (sp?) to better judge and separate the good Mormons from the bad. And the fear! Are Mormons more concerned about what they are watching or reading or whether anyone will see what they are watching or reading? My poor Dad came to visit and excitedly made a healthy stack of movies from our DVD collection. I chose to gently remind him that he needed to get out his glasses and check the ratings first, before he started his own movie festival that would certainly have ended with half-finished movies or self-hatred for having watched R-rated flicks.
And as for the “uplifting that saints”…. It is very rare when I have finally taken a book or movie advice from my mother or grandmother and found myself moved, transformed, or uplifted. Don’t Mormons realize that there are no Stake Presidents sitting on the rating boards that they trust so implicitly? The movie rating system is a better tool for advertising than it is to warn of content. For me an R-rating tells me that I have to be an adult to understand the plot and content. I am usually not satisfied watching material that is appropriate for a 13-year-old to understand or reading books about Christmas boxes. Give me some meat!
When has censorship ever worked?
Anyone who actually buys into the whole rating system needs to watch the documentary *This Film is Not Yet Rated.* Wow. Just wow. I had no idea how that process works.
Agreed. Fascinating movie — I was just talking about that the other day in regards to Blue Valentine and the back and forth over its rating.
The Franzen thing was widely reported wrong, papers kept taking what Franzen said out of context, so the evil media is probably to blame. :)