Indecent Publications Bill
Sir, —“Higher Standards” cannot evade my arguments with such a piece of dissimulation; I was brought up in the midst of maledictions against leading authors such as Hall Caine, Marie Corelli. Rider Haggard, Victoria Cross, Ouida, Elinor Glyn, and Joseph (or was it Silas?) Hocking. Now Stanley Hall, in his ‘ Memories of a Psychologist,” relates what a long and painful struggle it was for him to free himself of the New England mawkishness in which he had been brought up, and how his re-orientated mind was such a standby that he was able to pull through in the management of the new and struggling Clark University.—Yours, etc., R. M. THOMSON. . July 16, 1963.
Sir,—The head of a wellknown English publishing house recently observed that he lived in a part of Surrey dubbed the “gin and Jaguar belt;’’ and that next door to him was a luxurious establishment with three cars, 15 pet poodles, and not a single bookshelf. Probably television in the bathroom as well. That, one might suggest, symbolises just the kind of intellectual vacuum so prevalent today; and so easily and subversively filled by the type of literature all this correspondence is about. Anyway, until something is done to discourage what goes on under our very noses by way of specious and distasteful publicity, nothing much is likely to be achieved in a far wider field. —Yours etc., HAM. July 16, 1963.
Sir, —Is Mr Sadler for, or against, the publication of lewd books in the community? Why is he so angry with my generation? Forty or 50 years ago I was buying books on marriage and lending them to people about to get married. The old folks’ advice often proved a great help. Does not Mr Sadler know that it is the wonderful techniques of the cinema, thrusting sexual ideas before us from early childhood, that has lowered the standards and instilled wrong ideas and debased the outlook of youth? Had the cinema been artistic, what a difference would have been seen! Anyhow, let’s have clean, healthy, happy books. — Yours, etc.. CLARION CALL. . July 15, 1963.
Sir,—Since the mere assertion by "Common Sense” of Biblical repudiation by Havelock Ellis constitutes “forthright debunking” ot Ellis, according to “Reviewer,” then "Reviewer” is indeed uncritical—or was that just “bad' journalese,” too? I am glad, however, that "Reviewer” accepts the essential recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, while nevertheless inconsistently rejecting Ellis. Both “Common Sense” (my reply was not printed) and “Reviewer” are trapped within a polarised circle of “moral idiocy.” Whereas' “Common Sense” sees absurdity (or “the dirty little secret"—to use Lawrence’s phrase). "Reviewer” sees " They would react similarly on meeting, say.
a giraffe for .the first time. Let them escape from their selfmade prison and perceive with William Blake (and Lawrence) the holiness of "minute particulars,” or with St. Paul, "that there is nothing unclean of itself.” —Yours, etc., READER. July 16. 1963.
Indecent Publications Bill
Press, Volume CII, Issue 30185, 17 July 1963, Page 7
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.