If mockery corrodes respect for the state, if blasphemy insults God, if pornography demeans the passions, surely it will suffice if stronger and more convincing countervoices are raised defending the authority of the state, praising God, exalting chaste love.
At the moment, you have more rights to free speech than this, and a great duty to use them. It is a reflection on how harms weigh up against each other, on balancing imponderables, choosing between evils.
But not one person wrote in public that they agreed with it. He argues that a destructive dynamic of belligerence and escalation tends to overtake the rivals in any field ruled by censorship.
Nor do we inherently possess dignity. The Oedipal relation, which has its center in the father-center signifier of apartheid theories of race and ethnicity, begins to deconstruct at the very point when, dialectically, the periphery of authorial signifiers becomes exposed for all to see.
Apart from this I really enjoyed Giving Offense. From Osip Mandelstam commanded to compose an ode in praise of Stalin, to Breyten Breytenbach writing poems under and for the eyes of his prison guards, to Aleksander Solzhenitsyn engaging in a trial of wits with the organs of the Soviet state, Giving Offense focuses on the ways authors have historically responded to censorship.
If representations, mere shadows, are indeed so dangerous, one reflects, then surely the appropriate countermeasures are other representations, counterrepresentations. You are not currently authenticated. If the spirit of the game, the spirit of the child, is to reign, the censor must accept the clownship that goes with blind kingship.
If that was free speech, well, Soviet Russia was its most loyal supporter. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Coetzee leans a little too heavily on French critical theory for my liking. Although it received nice reviews, soon after its release, the editor of the influential magazine Bridge World wrote a hostile editorial about it.
He thought I should keep trying to get it published. Does free speech have any worth, does it really exist, without interaction? Innocence is a state in which we try to maintain our children; dignity is a state we claim for ourselves.
But the Aesopian ruses that censorship provokes are usually no more than ingenious; while the obstacles that writers are capable of visiting upon themselves are surely sufficient in number and variety for them not to invite more. Meanwhile it has gone into history, this false evidence used to accuse some truly great players of cheating.
It effectively highlighted an argument against censorship — that it causes moral harm — which is often neglected in purely political approaches. Nobody else wrote to Bridge World to support me after that.
But we should not forget that children experience control of their explorations—control which by its own premises cannot spell out exactly what it is that is forbidden—not as protection but as frustration.
A dignity worthy of respect is a dignity without dignity which is quite different from unconscious or unaffected dignity ; an innocence worthy of respect is an innocence without innocence. Say what you think.
We have here reached the entry-point into a debate about the rights of the individual as against the rights of the collectivity which is familiar enough not to need extended rehearsal and to which I have nothing to contribute except perhaps a caution against the kind of moral vigilance that defines vulnerable classes of people and sets about protecting them from harms whose nature they must be kept blind to because the argument goes merely to know the harm is to suffer it.
She fought on her own. Not by the protesters. Not what Manny thinks. Who could blame them when they saw what had happened to the first poor devil who made a stab at it in Bridge World?
If all those people who wrote privately to me to support me had done it in public, the editor would most certainly not have been able to use this as his excuse.
The show is, so to speak, the only show in town. There may even be cases where external censorship challenges the writer in interesting ways or spurs creativity. Then I self-published it. For there is nothing outside the theater, no alternative life one can join instead.Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship (review) Max Gulias Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Volume 26, Number 3,pp.
(Review). An excerpt from Giving Offense by J. M. Coetzee. Also available on web site: online catalogs, secure online ordering, excerpts from new books. Sign up for email notification of new releases in your field. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. J. M. Coetzee presents a coherent, unorthodox analysis of censorship from the perspective of one who has lived and worked under its shadow.
The essays collected here attempt to understand the passion that plays itself out in acts of silencing and censoring. He argues that a destructive dynamic of belligerence and escalation tends to overtake the.
Coetzee's essays in Giving Offense deal not with the politics of censorship but with its psychological and moral effects -- on both the censors and the censored. Coetzee's critical works include White Writing and Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship.
Coetzee is a two-time recipient of the Booker Prize and inhe won. Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee's collection of essays, Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship, is about writers who "give offense" and the readers who muffle, torture, and kill them as a result.
A collection that should be of great interest not only to Africanists but also to scholars of other.Download