Banning Mentality Strikes Again

[bloodyrosemccoy]

So there’s a debate going on right now in the NY Times forum about Laurie Halse Anderson’s Wintergirls, which is a novel told from the point of view of an anorexic teenager. The question is whether a book describing anorexia will make girls anorexic.

I was rather sorry to see how many people think this is the case, and that the book is bad. The banninators, once again, figure that if you don’t mention the problem, it will go away.

Bullshit.

I’m not arguing that it won’t trigger anorexic behavior in people with an eating disorder. But to say the book is what will make them anorexic is like saying that a movie that triggers a panic attack is creating panic disorders. The problem with mental illness is that everything becomes a minefield. In that state, my panic attacks could be triggered by photos of kittens. The sad truth is that it’s impossible to tiptoe around the possible trigger factors of everyone; if there’s a problem in your head that isn't everyone’s, you will have to watch out for yourself. If your friends know to warn you off from something, that's great, but hiding it from the entirety of society is ridiculous. It’s not the content itself that’s the problem; it’s the filter. We can be sensitive to each person’s possible filter to some extent, but because of the enormous array of things we don’t know about each other, we can only hope to have a fraction of sensitivity.

Furthermore, taking away an intelligent book on the problem is not going to stop people from having the problem.

The book sheds light on a subject, which is always good for society at large. Especially here, since anorexia nervosa isn’t just a mental illness, but a mental illness channeled through a certain society ideal. There’s a lot of interaction here between our culture’s views of women and the brain problems. So for those of us without anorexia, those of us who read the book and, when the main character insists she’s “strong,” wonder, “strong enough to fall down dead?”, Wintergirls tells us that it’s not glamorous and gives us insight into their heads so we can at least understand. We can’t fix it—as is the case with so much mental illness, the sick person has to realize they’re sick before they can get better.* This book may do that for some, and for the rest of us, it will help us understand. And for those who may be triggered, well—sadly, that’s the risk we take with any form of information.

Wintergirls was excellent, painful, smart, and immensely frustrating as you watch the main character try harder and harder to self-destruct. If you think it may trigger you, by all means stay away, but it’s a very good book to have out there to illustrate a problem that won’t just go away if we all pretend it’s not there.


*This can be difficult because of the nature of brain disorders, but it’s not impossible. I know this firsthand.

Comments

[archmage.livejournal.com]

I love this argument. "We can't let people see this, it'll make them _____!" Because, you know, no one was _____ before the thing (or similar things). And, after all, we see murders and violence on TV every night, and obviously, everyone is a violent murderer.

Personal responsibility is truly dead, it seems...as a societal concept, anyway.

[baby-rissa-chan.livejournal.com]

Very well said.

[gryphart.livejournal.com]

Sad but sort of funny: my studiomate, pre-happy pills, did indeed end up sobbing over kittens.

[evilcresyluna.livejournal.com]

Agreed! I mean, if it were a book about how super cool anorexia was and was a blue print guide to "getting to your thinnest! FOREVER!"* then yeah, I can see objections. However, just because a book isn't a "Oh how horrible it all was!" it shouldn't be banned, just taken considered with your own perspective. I don't consider, I dunno, Mariyln Manson's autobiography to need bannination because he doesn't disdain drug use enough (not that I'm saying it is great literature or anything, just popped into my head). I think audience level needs to be taken into consideration, too. A younger person who doesn't get that much abstract might not be able to understand that because the main character considers herself strong doesn't make her strong, whereas I would expect an adult to be to infer that. I haven't read the book, so my opinion is moreso on the subject rather than that book in particular.

*which is why I'm not fond of pro-ana communities.

[placetohide.livejournal.com]

Funny, I read I Never Promised You a Rose Garden and it didn't make me crazy....er, and that's about Crazy Kids too. I guess it's only eating disorder books that are contagious!

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

No, but there are some things like this that are dangerous to the already-vulnerable. Mind you, I agree with the OP, but I also understand the need for concern.

Having been anorexic myself, I can tell you that it is very peer-driven, so the condition can be made worse by reading more about it. And cluster suicide is also a real phenomenon-- sometimes, bad ideas do get put into the heads of teens who are open to bad ideas. Still, no excuse for banning books.

[dark-phoenix54.livejournal.com]

The question is whether a book describing anorexia will make girls anorexic.

Oh, good lord. By that logic, I should be a Victorian serial killer, a brain surgeon, a gay male, a wizard, autistic, bipolar, even more OCD than I already am (I mean, why just wash my hands excessively when I can actually scrub the skin off?), a prince of Amber and quite a few other things.

In reality, a book like that could cause someone to recognize themself and their problem and get help just as easily as trigger someone.

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

Indeed, not talking about things worked remarkably well for Bristol Palin, enough so that she's encouraging others to not talk about things.

Not talking about things is a growth industry I tell you, screw plastics!

[viizou.livejournal.com]

Very well put.

I've always found it strange how the media and masses react whenever a sensitive subject is explored in a public manner (via TV or print). There's often this kind of "protect the children" reaction, as if the mere mention of the subject will pervert the youth. To me, this strategy always seems akin to saying: "Don't put ideas in people's heads, keep them as stupid and uninformed as possible."

And yet... This is veering off topic somewhat, but I just remembered an incident that happened when I was teaching French last term. I had chosen an extract from a book for my students to read and discuss in class (most of them were around 18-20 years old). The book itself was generally bright and whimsical, but the extract in question happened to center around a 12-year-old girl's disgust with her upper-class life, and her decision, after careful consideration, to kill herself in dramatic fashion on her birthday.

I hesitated for a long time on whether I should give my students this text, which essentially glorified suicide (even though she ends up not going through with it). And in the end, I decided not to. Because I was teaching French, not literature, which meant that it wasn't the ideal place to start a debate on teen suicide; I was also afraid that the language barrier (this was an intermediate-level class) would complicate things even further, and skew any discussion we might have.

But, despite the above reasons, what really happened was that I chickened out at the prospect of raising controversy in my classroom. I didn't want to take the risk. And even though I would probably make the same decision if I had to do it again, I still feel like I sold out a little.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_wastrel/]

In context, you could have gotten in trouble, and as long as you don't get a book banned, kids can still go on to read it on their own in a context in which you wouldn't. I understand why you might have felt you sold out, but really, that's quite distinct from wanting to make sure the book doesn't exist so no one can find it even by accident, wouldn't you say?

And yeah, "A little knowledge is dangerous" is a saying that applies well enough to itself - most people seem to complete it with "so to avoid danger don't know anything" rather than with "What's less dangerous is lots of knowledge".

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

Brilliantly put, thank you. Now I have to go read the book, huh?