CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 16, 20 January 1936, Page 8

CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The Hon. W. Nash, according lo "The Post" report of January 16 on I book censorship, expressed his opinion that there was no need fur censorship of books, and seemed to be content to leave what shall be read to the j booksellers of the Dominion, placing ion their shoulders "the responsibility I for seeing that the public are breaking ! fresh ground in economics, sociology, ! science, politics, and religion." He seems to have a naive belief in this fresh ground which is to be broken even in the sphere of religion; but why he should be content to let the booksellers be the judges rather than some responsible board of censorship seems to postulate an almost childlike faith in the probity and idealism of the business man. If he had read your weekly book notes recently he would recall the opinion of Mr. Compton MacKenzie, who condemned 90 per cent.^of modern English novels for filth, and in a later article gave as his considered judgment that a ' strict censorship should stop the publishing of such books. Anyone who has read much of modern novels, or who has anything to do with the selection of books for libraries, will agree with this opinion. I have heard Mr. Nash-before condemning this horrible Fascism and praising our noble democracy. In your same issue Mr. Savage, in answer to the manufacturers' delegation, blamed the past 16 years of misgovernment of New Zealand for the parlous state of our secondary industries. I suppose the condition for the nobility of our democracy is that it be governed by the Labour Party. Let Mr. Nash consider when he condemns these terrible Fascist countries for their book censorship that while they keep out such doctrines as Communism (see Mr. Semple to the Ashley River relief workers), they also forbid these pornographic novels, and let him compare the divorce, the murder, the illegitimate birth statistics with those of our wonderful democratic New Zealand. Perhaps he may change his opinion. T Qjfi GtC T. G. WESTFIELD. (To the Editor.) Sir,— Surely your correspondent Mr. L D. Austin, who affirms in Saturday's "Post" that the censorship of books is as essential as that for films and for the same reason, is not really serious in his contention. There is a very wide difference between the two cases. Whereas films are easily accessible to all classes of the community, including children of all ages, and require no mental effort for their assimilation, books, on the other hand, both good and bad, are not so easily accessible,, and further, require mental exertion in order to understand their contents. Children in the latter case are not affected, whilst with the films considered unsuitable for children, a boost is given to them by their being tagged "Recommended for adult audiences." There is not such a demand for the pornographic type of literature which your correspondent seems to think exists, and greatly deplores, and asserts has polluted the libraries of Great Britain and America. Great Britain so far has shown no evil effects from this alleged pollution, but rather shows signs that she still leads the world in literature, the arts, and • the sciences, as well as exercising a benign influence in the affairs of the world generally. Perhaps a little more of this so-called pollution in New Zealand might galvanise its authors into producing something really worth while in literature. There can be no true fulfilment in this respect whilst a large fund of human knowledge is withheld through a narrow-minded and mistaken notion that it is for the general good of the community. As a corrective to these mistaken ideas it would be well for those who have been alarmed by Mr. Nash's pronouncement to make acquaintance with John Milton's famous "Areopagitica." The author of "Paradise Lost" was a stern old Puritan but in the defence of unrestricted printing he could write as follows.' "Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates and hearing all manner of reason? And this is the benefit which may be had of books promiscuously read. Books were as freely admitted into the world as any other birth, the issue of the brain was no more stifled than the issue of the womb. To the pure all things are pure, not only meat and drink, but all kinds of knowledge whether good or evil, the knowledge cannot defile, nor consequently the books if the will and conscience be not defiled. Bad books serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate. Opinions and understandings are not such wares as to be monopolised and traded in by tickets and statutes and standards. We must not think to make a staple commodity of all the knowledge in the land to mask and licence it like our broadcloth or our woolpacks." If Mr. Nash errs, he certainly errs in the best of company.—l am, etc.,

J. CAMPBELL.