Literature and Censorship
Snt,—The arrogance of Mr Martin Seymour-Smith's article 'Literature and Censorship' (January 20) almost diverts attention from the weaknesses in his argument Throughout the article Mr Seymour- Smith's attitude was that of a prophet who has been given by divine intervention a literary insight not given to ordinary mortals. He talks of 'non-literary moralists,' non-cultural and naive personalities,' and utters the crowning piece of spittle-spluttering gener- alisation . . . active advocates of censorship in all fields are sad, repressed, uncandid little people, dis- tinguished only by their drab self-ignorance.' He says Last Exit to Brooklyn (against which certain 'literary' personalities gave evidence) is 'an outstandingly good and unusual book.' The oracle has spoken!
After an article devoted to an irascible call for the end of all censorship, sprinkled with sweeping statements about how harmless pornography is, •Mr Seymour-Smith cuts the ground from under his own feet by stating '. . . some of the hard-core stuff is degrading in its way.'
To say that erotic books 'harm no one' is to take an odd look at the verb 'to harm.' Is it really beyond comprehension that a youth titillated by such a book might get his girl friend 'in trouble,' or might seek relief for his fever in indecent assault or rape? At a recent notorious murder trial, the presence in the accused's library of works by de Sade and others was regarded as highly significant by the prosecution.
What Mr Seymour-Smith really means is that in- telligent, sophisticated, mature, emancipated, and, if he likes, 'literary' people will come to no harm, which is an entirely different matter altogether. This is the mistake made by so many modern intellectual idealists.
I had a good laugh at Fanny Hill, and regard it as harmless. I found Lady Chatterley a bore, and Vicinczey's in Praise of Older Women a delight. Yet 1 find much modern literature (and drama, and film) unnecessarily and nastily pornographic and sadistic, and uphold a degree of objective censorship. Which means that 1, who had misguidedly presumed myself to be a happy, well-integrated family man, enjoying a healthy sex and social life, am really 'sad, repressed and uncandid, distinguished only by drab self-ignorance.' Or could Mr Seymour-Smith be just a teeny-weeny bit wrong?
Best wishes to a most readable journal.
Rylen. 201 Birchfield Road, Widnes, Lancs.
Previous page
