CENSORSHIP AND MORALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 47, 24 February 1923, Page 13

CENSORSHIP AND MORALS.

A N UNSOLVED PROBLEM. ,Hv sl-Mf'N Mll R.J

lec-cnt Ji.«-uwioii on (he matter' rf the ro.vM.~nou* 5.7.. bawhat may justly be failed an im pos P ible situation. TJ» trltHwn from England rmtod cm, thari while a «ork j *•■ reputed to I* of high nWu-al or .cienUtir value wh, evluded uml,r | our haphazard .vnsor-iiii'. other works! rf fvfc« practical value, it »J any j value at all. were allowed to pass in tin- j checked. Thn, a volume by a master , in biology might be barred, while, a j „„,. „.,.] prurient novel, written toy i u ::nirZ '.«*.«.« * *••«** °,J|x would In- allowed to pass in with j SHU,*he *«*«T the"; llbel." Inquiry ZU to those who did not already m o; that the criticienn was wellolied, and the diPCUwLon that has ZZ& has <lono one iiood a> least in to also revealed the fart that no one , eH n9 ansiOUe to claim the honour of LnsorsWp. The Comptroller of Curtoms -fuses admiss'-on to tTie 'banned book?, jyt the ban coniee from -ome other functionary, whose identity is a? mysterious as that of the man in the iron jpajk. It is, indeed, learned that Miis functionary is a member of some derowtjient of the Civil .Service, and works m conjunction or consultation with tlve Cion-n Solicitor. But that i< a? far as onr information goes. The Comipbro'ller of Cuetoius gives his views on the matMr *nd naturally approves oi the existing censorship; 'but it mig-lU lie suggested that tih'e talents which make an excellent Comptroller ere not exactly those per se. which ma.kp a competent critic' of literature and morals. ■Whotwr t'be censor may be. lie muet get the full sympathy of all real lovers and students" of literature. His task is one which should never i>e placed upon one man —'which can never, never be satisfactorily discharged by on? man. If ■his critical faculties 'be those of a genius, and hie moral outlook an exalted and excellent, one. he must still fail, for as men differ so much their opinions on literature and morals differ. It stems, indeed, as if no system of censorship ever devised, or ever to be devised, could work satisfactorily, 'hut tht worst possible system is to centralise all its arbitrary pow»rs in the hinds of one man. If it b" at all neees«*ry—a moot point—'for the preservation or protection of our mnraJ etandwde, it slioudd at 'least be administered by a board constituted of men or ■wonitn who might apjfroxima.te in th«ir outlook and opinions to the men and women to whcee serric? they have feen called. But how has this ' silent, uneeen, obscure censorship fc>en worktag? This is how it one contemporary.

THE PORNOGRAPHIC NOVEL. No one who knows New Zealand well. or'has mixed with its various classes, will dispute that for years amongst certain classes the pornographic novel has been facile princeps in the matter of popularity and public demand. To one fresh from England, which even a. decade »go was not over-squeamish or overprudish in its acceptance of rather dubious stories, it was n revelation to Md in Aew Zealand here, on farm or nation, in the rabbiter's camp or the narvye tent, novels of the most luridly immoral character— works whose only claim to public notice was their brutal «nd unashamed parading of intimate •emal relationships, which are never discussed publicly by clean, white! People. Tf there was a censorship then—' the whole question of the censorship isveiled in a deep and mysterious •bsctmty—how was it that these books "" "omitted by the thousand? It w» scarcely have been that they were a», or that even the majority of them, «ffi smuggled in as opium or tobacco is often smuggled. Their universal presence everywhere seemed to indicate Mat_ they came in and passed with the passive benediction of the powers that ™.v Z 8 *'™' here and there °"c wild see these shameless novels in the ranks of decent books on the booksellers , •hehes, just a 8 one can see the M ° t u rU , bbin " sh °«'derß in the busy nreet with ladies of spotless character. «»ould be quite easy to cite the names d, ?• aUm^ r Of theße Pernicious protons, but that would mean a free ™ Mm ? nt for what every decent nan would suppress if he could. But f!nn Pre^ nce of theee worthless productheir vogue amongst so many ■riS**! V \ lh WOrks of a scientific or hun,»n , cha ™ etcr »i«ned at widening «S™ k ; now 'edge are banned, shows mat much is wrong in whatever system Lnt ft Byetem P revai 's- To ban the 2,1 W ° rk and P aBB the lecherous ™ye is a travesty of all censorship, S 1 ' 11 * hat b* been done for years, ita. ♦ I' Dow,lie «tewart is besfinSd t'f h , B , e the fact ' and has P r ° ™*A I to tackle the problem, but it is T° l BUch difficulty and complexity "at no one will envy him the task.

SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES, thp Hi(s M 'w? ter q uite cleaHv realieee to Z, Ch WOuld tax a ™7 Solomon with - He says, l * at the English astern is lit N.t T1 criticiwn a » the system Lγ a ?" d - Yet < aftpr "". that SSrf*? 7 , , --"" wa y towards the 8ol «- ---irt IVf dlffic »'ty- The broad, salient tw7 lch mußt be accepted by all is B»l: a r y Byßtem of censorship which «d effi ci a "r herP mußt te a* Perfect! "be H is huma "'y possible tnd «-* i, c a wnsorsliip centred maV te rr lled one individual, no charal T h K h a "d noble his Uste i,i'J ,ow wide and catholic his experim ' I ' era *" re ' is « doubtful' ifc-, Bu V f jt b0 to one.; Ct. ' r the Rake of economy in miaht h ♦ !' mes Ruch an appointment o4 Ih tolerated '. then he should be I v . nT" Btandin S in literature or I unnuprii R r y lTitiK should be nigh the wT d and unquestionable within then let ° f his S"»"iiction. Even! tions r an - vonc contemplate the ques-: were to T^ 11 havP l " decide. If he UiL» draw tlle 'in-" at works con their S on P » aSßagCß w,,ich ' a P art from mntnT teXt - W<mUl never paw, he •U the earh U V Ve r IsiWe and neall - v tlie dr a rj d a "- or nparl y all, of te blott 1 ' BtS ° f ttle Stuart " a would »ouli no? ,° ;it - Fieldin & and Sm » lle t " be gent , V ? a eh * n ™< Burns would sent packing. Shelley would be Byron ° n at ' oo,lnt of the "Cenci." the nZ aCCOUnt 0{ " Don J "in." and so Until V,- P ro< : cc « would be continued it toh= Sl ,itera 'ure, as we know would be robbed of its chief •ik f« who is tllere W "O would Io «- an expurgated Bible, or Shake-

•peare or Shelley? Yet if Shelley and Shakespeare be allowed to pass* why han writers of to-day whose writings are nu more dubious'in morality? Is ■'Tom Jones"' to bo praised because its author, Fielding, is dead for hundreds of years? Is "Jude the Obscure" or •■The Woman Thnu Gayest Mc" to be dnmned because Hardy and Hall Came are still alive? Or when does a work, damned by the rensor on account of its immoral tone, become moral, and pans into the sacrosanct realm of real literature? , Does it take a decade or a century, or is there no rule at all. but just a haphazard system which strikes ' out blindly anyhow and anywhere? Perhaps most lovers of literature : would not have any censorship of any ; kind, leaving to the public sense of ] decency the whole question of what i should or should not be read. Bad and I vicious books will continue to be written I and published and read while there are I bad and vicious writers and publishers ; and readers in the world. But it is very ! possible that in an uncensored country j literature and her devotees would see Ito it that a high standard of morality i should be maintained, and the worthless panders to the depraved tastes of people who revel in the gross might meet their nemesis in the stern disapproval of the clean public, and the contempt of even those they pander to. One thing is certain—with or without a censor, real Literature will always live. She is indeed impatient of the mothering care of the censor. And those pernicious productions that can alone give excuse tor the office of censor will pass away speedily without having done a tithe of the harm they are supposed to do. The real solution lies in the education of the public taste, which is a matter for generations, not for one Parliamentary session. But if there be a censor at all in New Zealand, for heaven's sake let him lie one whose character as a literary man and a sane and clearheaded citizen is respected by all. To shroud him in anonymity, as has been the case hitherto, is unfair to him and rather contemptuous towards the public over whom he rules like an autocrat.