What do you think?
Rate this book
Censors at Work: How States Shaped Literature
"Splendid…[Darnton gives] us vivid, hard-won detail, illuminating narrative, and subtle, original insight." —Timothy Garton Ash, New York Review of Books
With his uncanny ability to spark life in the past, Robert Darnton re-creates three historical worlds in which censorship shaped literary expression in distinctive ways.
In eighteenth-century France, censors, authors, and booksellers collaborated in making literature by navigating the intricate culture of royal privilege. Even as the king's censors outlawed works by Voltaire, Rousseau, and other celebrated Enlightenment writers, the head censor himself incubated Diderot’s great Encyclopedie by hiding the banned project’s papers in his Paris townhouse. Relationships at court trumped principle in the Old Regime.
Shaken by the Sepoy uprising in 1857, the British Raj undertook a vast surveillance of every aspect of Indian life, including its literary output. Years later the outrage stirred by the British partition of Bengal led the Raj to put this knowledge to use. Seeking to suppress Indian publications that it deemed seditious, the British held hearings in which literary criticism led to prison sentences. Their efforts to meld imperial power and liberal principle fed a growing Indian opposition.
In Communist East Germany, censorship was a component of the party program to engineer society. Behind the unmarked office doors of Ninety Clara-Zetkin Street in East Berlin, censors developed annual plans for literature in negotiation with high party officials and prominent writers. A system so pervasive that it lodged inside the authors’ heads as self-censorship, it left visible scars in the nation’s literature.
By rooting censorship in the particulars of history, Darnton's revealing study enables us to think more clearly about efforts to control expression past and present.
With his uncanny ability to spark life in the past, Robert Darnton re-creates three historical worlds in which censorship shaped literary expression in distinctive ways.
In eighteenth-century France, censors, authors, and booksellers collaborated in making literature by navigating the intricate culture of royal privilege. Even as the king's censors outlawed works by Voltaire, Rousseau, and other celebrated Enlightenment writers, the head censor himself incubated Diderot’s great Encyclopedie by hiding the banned project’s papers in his Paris townhouse. Relationships at court trumped principle in the Old Regime.
Shaken by the Sepoy uprising in 1857, the British Raj undertook a vast surveillance of every aspect of Indian life, including its literary output. Years later the outrage stirred by the British partition of Bengal led the Raj to put this knowledge to use. Seeking to suppress Indian publications that it deemed seditious, the British held hearings in which literary criticism led to prison sentences. Their efforts to meld imperial power and liberal principle fed a growing Indian opposition.
In Communist East Germany, censorship was a component of the party program to engineer society. Behind the unmarked office doors of Ninety Clara-Zetkin Street in East Berlin, censors developed annual plans for literature in negotiation with high party officials and prominent writers. A system so pervasive that it lodged inside the authors’ heads as self-censorship, it left visible scars in the nation’s literature.
By rooting censorship in the particulars of history, Darnton's revealing study enables us to think more clearly about efforts to control expression past and present.
321 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 22, 2014
About the author
Robert Darnton
57 books152 followersCarl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
December 7, 2014
With insights from being an archivist and library director, as well as a lifetime of studying print culture, Darnton offers case studies of three repressive regimes and their surprisingly complex and sensitive bureaucracies tasked with controlling the quality, content and distribution of printed matter. In 18th century France, the 19th century British Raj and East Germany, the censors were at the center of a network of authors, publishers, booksellers and politicians, some of them underground outlaws (and some of them both!) who often had agendas of their own and the ability to further or subvert the system to achieve them. This is vivid, beautifully written and fascinating for someone like me who is interested in systems and organization.
February 15, 2022
El libro, como todo lo que escribe Darnton, es genial, muy interesante la propuesta de estudiar la censura de los libros desde un enfoque etnográfico. Las tres partes son buenas, el lenguaje es entendible, en algunos momentos de los capítulos la narración se extiende de más, de hay en fuera, un libro altamente recomendado para el estudio de la historia cultural.
La primera parte, tienen como objeto de estudio la Francia del antiguo régimen, más específicamente antes de la revolución Francesa. Aquí los censores provienen por lo general de las universidades, estos tenían este trabajo como algo secundario, la actividad muchas veces no era paga, se hacía más para tener algo de prestigio o buscar una pensión del Estado, estos estaban muy relacionados con la corona, por ello, la aprobación de un libro demostraba que era digno de la misma, para el visto bueno, era necesario llenar mucho papeleo, una de las primeras formas de burocracia. Las cosas en las que se prestaba mucha atención era la escritura y el estilo, es decir en cosas literarias, muchos censores felicitaban esos aspectos.
Las cosas que censuraba estos censores era cuando eran atacada personas influyentes, la iglesia o la corona Francesa, aunque habían otros textos, que pese a lo superficial, recibía una aprobación especial, ya que no hacía mucho daño. Cosas pornográficas eran muy censuradas, y textos filosóficos muchas veces eran aprobados, puesto que en esta época es donde se dio el gran auge de los ilustrados; no obstante, algunos autores y libros fueron perseguidos, siendo los censores los que ayudaron a preservar la misma obra.
Inclusive había una policía para los libros que estaban prohibidos, como uno que hablaba de la sexualidad del rey de Francia, las personas que los destribuian eran encarceladas con largas penas, en el mercado ilegal de estos libros, era mucha la información que se movía, siendo que muchas veces los censores participaban en estos.
En la segunda parte, Darnton toma como caso, el Raj británico en India, en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX. Presenciamos aquí, que durante mucho tiempo la corona no tuvo muy encuenta la producción literaria de los indios, pero luego de un levantamiento de varios campesinos, los ingleses vieron la necesidad de saber más de aquellos, con ello se generó un tipo de empresa etnografíca con el fin de saber y vigilar lo que escribían los nativos, para ello había toda una burocracia para saber el contenido del libro.
En los contenidos de estos libros, habían obras de teatro que critican las injusticias de los terratenientes, en un primer momento, no hay muchos textos independentistas, sería con los años que ciertos poemas y libros serían interpretados, según algunos censores como cesionistas, pese a su prohibición, algunos juglares cantarán canciones, que nuevamente son interpretadas como un crítica a la corona. Aquí lo importante, es que todo queda sujeto a un ejercicio de la interpretación de los jueces. Muchas veces los textos locales, serán criticados desde la visión occidental. En últimas, asistimos a una contradicción entre una libertad de prensa y expresión que tiene sus límites según las leyes británicas.
En la última parte, nos encontramos a la Alemania Oriental comunista, aquí el autor usa fuentes orales para su estudio, para estos censores, ellos no se veían como personas que censuraba libros, sino como personas que planifican el conocimiento para que tenga unos altos estándares culturales según las ideas del socialismo, evitando así que cayeran en las lógica del mercado y en temas capitalistas, consumistas y burgueses. A los autores se le controlaba con premios o castigos, como el salir o no del país, además, estos censores prestaban mucha atención al lenguaje.
Los editores y editoriales estaban diálogando mucho con los autores, negociando así, que cosas iban o no en ellos libros a publicar, igualmente, había un grupo de lectores expertos que también daban de cierta manera, el visto bueno o no, de los libros. Que se ocasionaran cambios en los textos llevo a que los autores los publicasen en occidente o de plano se los guardarán para si mismos. La censura de los libros, pese a la glasnot de Gorbachov, no cesó, solo fue hasta la caída del muro que por fin se dio más libertad en la publicación de libros.
En las conclusiones, Darnton nos expone que la censura es un acto político llevado a cabo por el Estado, los censores, eran personas muy inteligentes al saber interpretar muy bien los textos, estos también estaban interesados en la forma literaria en que se escribía, la censura así queda abierta a interpretación humana, sirviendo de justificación y legitimidad de una poder.
En pocas palabras, un excelente libro.
La primera parte, tienen como objeto de estudio la Francia del antiguo régimen, más específicamente antes de la revolución Francesa. Aquí los censores provienen por lo general de las universidades, estos tenían este trabajo como algo secundario, la actividad muchas veces no era paga, se hacía más para tener algo de prestigio o buscar una pensión del Estado, estos estaban muy relacionados con la corona, por ello, la aprobación de un libro demostraba que era digno de la misma, para el visto bueno, era necesario llenar mucho papeleo, una de las primeras formas de burocracia. Las cosas en las que se prestaba mucha atención era la escritura y el estilo, es decir en cosas literarias, muchos censores felicitaban esos aspectos.
Las cosas que censuraba estos censores era cuando eran atacada personas influyentes, la iglesia o la corona Francesa, aunque habían otros textos, que pese a lo superficial, recibía una aprobación especial, ya que no hacía mucho daño. Cosas pornográficas eran muy censuradas, y textos filosóficos muchas veces eran aprobados, puesto que en esta época es donde se dio el gran auge de los ilustrados; no obstante, algunos autores y libros fueron perseguidos, siendo los censores los que ayudaron a preservar la misma obra.
Inclusive había una policía para los libros que estaban prohibidos, como uno que hablaba de la sexualidad del rey de Francia, las personas que los destribuian eran encarceladas con largas penas, en el mercado ilegal de estos libros, era mucha la información que se movía, siendo que muchas veces los censores participaban en estos.
En la segunda parte, Darnton toma como caso, el Raj británico en India, en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX. Presenciamos aquí, que durante mucho tiempo la corona no tuvo muy encuenta la producción literaria de los indios, pero luego de un levantamiento de varios campesinos, los ingleses vieron la necesidad de saber más de aquellos, con ello se generó un tipo de empresa etnografíca con el fin de saber y vigilar lo que escribían los nativos, para ello había toda una burocracia para saber el contenido del libro.
En los contenidos de estos libros, habían obras de teatro que critican las injusticias de los terratenientes, en un primer momento, no hay muchos textos independentistas, sería con los años que ciertos poemas y libros serían interpretados, según algunos censores como cesionistas, pese a su prohibición, algunos juglares cantarán canciones, que nuevamente son interpretadas como un crítica a la corona. Aquí lo importante, es que todo queda sujeto a un ejercicio de la interpretación de los jueces. Muchas veces los textos locales, serán criticados desde la visión occidental. En últimas, asistimos a una contradicción entre una libertad de prensa y expresión que tiene sus límites según las leyes británicas.
En la última parte, nos encontramos a la Alemania Oriental comunista, aquí el autor usa fuentes orales para su estudio, para estos censores, ellos no se veían como personas que censuraba libros, sino como personas que planifican el conocimiento para que tenga unos altos estándares culturales según las ideas del socialismo, evitando así que cayeran en las lógica del mercado y en temas capitalistas, consumistas y burgueses. A los autores se le controlaba con premios o castigos, como el salir o no del país, además, estos censores prestaban mucha atención al lenguaje.
Los editores y editoriales estaban diálogando mucho con los autores, negociando así, que cosas iban o no en ellos libros a publicar, igualmente, había un grupo de lectores expertos que también daban de cierta manera, el visto bueno o no, de los libros. Que se ocasionaran cambios en los textos llevo a que los autores los publicasen en occidente o de plano se los guardarán para si mismos. La censura de los libros, pese a la glasnot de Gorbachov, no cesó, solo fue hasta la caída del muro que por fin se dio más libertad en la publicación de libros.
En las conclusiones, Darnton nos expone que la censura es un acto político llevado a cabo por el Estado, los censores, eran personas muy inteligentes al saber interpretar muy bien los textos, estos también estaban interesados en la forma literaria en que se escribía, la censura así queda abierta a interpretación humana, sirviendo de justificación y legitimidad de una poder.
En pocas palabras, un excelente libro.
November 29, 2014
In this provocative study of censorship as it was practiced in three different places at three different times, the distinguished scholar Robert Darnton argues that it can be a considerably subtler and more nuanced undertaking than it is generally assumed to be. He has not written a defense of censorship — far from it — but he emphasizes that when the state sets itself up as arbiter of what goes into books and what does not, the results are not always predictable, but are sometimes surprising and even — occasionally — beneficial to authors and their publishers.
“To dismiss censorship as crude repression by ignorant bureaucrats is to get it wrong. Although it varied enormously, it usually was a complex process that required talent and training and that extended deep into the social order.”
Darnton urges us to see censorship as a deeply human process that can be terrible but can also be surprisingly benign. He is right, too, to worry that when governments are confronted by the reality of the Internet — even a government as ostensibly open and committed to freedom of speech as our own — they are more likely to operate in their own interests than in their citizens’. In the age of cyberspace, that is a scary prospect.
“To dismiss censorship as crude repression by ignorant bureaucrats is to get it wrong. Although it varied enormously, it usually was a complex process that required talent and training and that extended deep into the social order.”
Darnton urges us to see censorship as a deeply human process that can be terrible but can also be surprisingly benign. He is right, too, to worry that when governments are confronted by the reality of the Internet — even a government as ostensibly open and committed to freedom of speech as our own — they are more likely to operate in their own interests than in their citizens’. In the age of cyberspace, that is a scary prospect.
January 6, 2019
This is mayybe the most disappointed I've ever felt after reading a book :( My dissertation is literally *about* how states shaped literature, to a T, so when I saw this I was basically shaking with excitement. But it turns out... he's kind of just relaying a bunch of anecdotes that he discovered in the three sets of archives he looked at (Ancien Regime France, late 19th century British India, and post-1991 East Germany). Page after page of "interesting" "tidbits" he found in the archives. There actually are a few general inferences about the ideological underpinnings of the censorship patterns every now and then, and perhaps 1 or 2 actual statistics, but you have to wade through dozens and dozens of these tidbits to find them. I guess maybe I'm the dumb one in the end, since I was looking for something like a *study* of censorship patterns/ideologies/effects, and instead got like a collection of vapid short stories, seemingly made for retired historians to chuckle at and use like a... coffee table book or something? :/
October 9, 2014
Darnton suggests that censorship is not always a black and white affair of state versus author. He finds evidence in 18th century France, 19th century British India, and the German Democratic Republic of the 20th century, that censors often worked with the authors as knowledgeable and sympathetic editors. Darnton doesn't whitewash the anti-free speech aspect, but notes that the censors usually believed in the doctrines the state was espousing. I have to admit that the French and Indian sections of the book were a bit too dry to keep my concentration, but the DDR section was somewhat livelier. Darnton interviewed two former censors and had access to the archives of their department. Was hoping for a more accessible book, this was more scholarly than the average casual reader (me) would like.
November 13, 2014
Excellent work by Robert Darnton.
His work shows how censors were not stupid or ignorant fools, but in most cases (He examined 3 examples, Bourbon France, British Raj and the East German state) educated people who were literary critics, publishers and even accomplished writers. He also manages to demonstrate that the censorship process was not a one-way street where the state bulldozed its way. More often than not, it was a negotiation and in some cases, even a collaboration between the state, the censors and the writers.
More importantly, I think Darnton manages to remind or enlighten readers that censorship is about reading and interpretation.
This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in censorship, state power and literature.
His work shows how censors were not stupid or ignorant fools, but in most cases (He examined 3 examples, Bourbon France, British Raj and the East German state) educated people who were literary critics, publishers and even accomplished writers. He also manages to demonstrate that the censorship process was not a one-way street where the state bulldozed its way. More often than not, it was a negotiation and in some cases, even a collaboration between the state, the censors and the writers.
More importantly, I think Darnton manages to remind or enlighten readers that censorship is about reading and interpretation.
This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in censorship, state power and literature.
December 19, 2014
Interesting case studies (originally from a series of lectures) on censorship in pre-revolutionary France (Darnton's specialty), the British Raj, and East Germany. The section on France was entertaining, and the part on East Germany I found fascinating (especially for a bureaucrat like myself). I knocked it down a star because I did not find the section on India to be particularly illuminating -- I wasn't persuaded that there was true censorship in India, just repression when the independence movement began to take root.
June 24, 2015
Very happy I came across this book. A fascinating exploration of the *structure* of censorship.
What does it feel like to be the censor? Do you think of yourself as an oppressing force? How do human relationships color enforcement? What does self censorship feel like?
The original documents Darnton's found (particularly those from the British Raj and the GDR) are fascinating, especially when combined with his interviews with censors from East Germany after the fall of the Wall.
What does it feel like to be the censor? Do you think of yourself as an oppressing force? How do human relationships color enforcement? What does self censorship feel like?
The original documents Darnton's found (particularly those from the British Raj and the GDR) are fascinating, especially when combined with his interviews with censors from East Germany after the fall of the Wall.
March 18, 2015
[3 1/2 stars, actually.] Censorship, specifically the state-sanctioned suppression of literary works, is the subject matter of this book. Well, not exhaustively. Darnton doesn't do a full historical review, he cherry-picks three specific regimes from three different centuries to research and discuss: enlightenment-era France, Victorian-era British India, and Soviet-era East Germany. Too, he omits periodicals from his purview, which leaves off much of a good censorship program's daily grind. Oh, and he isn't proposing to be definitive with his approach. While he gleans some stats here and there from his eighteenth and nineteenth-century archival dives, he'll be the first to tell you his East German section was cobbled together from first-hand interviews and some spot-checking of newly-opened Communist Party files; you'll want to look up some of the professional papers he cites to gain a hard-core understanding.
This book still screams academia, but don't be put off as it's very consciously written in a lay voice (an effort that I, as a lay reader, very much appreciated). So disregard the organizational structure that reads like someone's dissertation book pitch,* published contingent on a willingness to pad it up with a few comparatively more recent examples. Darnton's concluding chapter goes some way to tying it all together by singing vive la difference, although it's hard to know whether that's a truism for censorship practices generally or just an outgrowth of a survey approach that doesn't remotely try to be anthropological or sociological. I write this, by the way, not as complaint but rather so readers might have their expectations set correctly when plucking this off a library shelf.
This is genuinely worth your time as a casual read, and not just for the informal tone (if I had a nickel for each time Darnton wrote, "What's going on here?" I'd be in the vanity publishing business). Functionally, the approbationistes of Malesherbes, cataloguers of the reading matter available to Bengali sepoys, and the apparatchiks of the GDR were as much critics as scissor-wielding hacks. Those in France even enjoyed (and occasionally, suffered) seeing their opinions published as frontmatter to the texts they covered, among the earliest blurbs in publishing. Darnton's work is well-seasoned with representative excerpts of this meta-discourse, and whether intended for one or more internal audiences or the public at large it's frequently entertaining in its display of equal parts erudition, snobbish conceit, and petty vindictiveness. Few acts appear as futile or as paradoxical as officialdom's attempts to staunch the flow of ideas by talking about how horrible they are.
The author presents a solid case that censorship practice and intent varied in different places and times. In France, they sought to avoid embarrassment arising from the endorsement inherent in state-controlled publishing rights as much as to corral the competitive instincts of courtiers that tended toward anonymous libels. In the British Raj, the drive for a better barometer of local discontent resulted in an annual Overstreet of yellowed jatras then in circulation within the Jewel in the Crown. The dual bureaucracies of East Germany's Leseland (state reporting to party) wrote up five year plans for works to be written not just to impose ideological conformity, but also to assure topical diversity and meter out a limited supply of available paper. In all cases, however, censorship was about control, prosecution and persecution each a matter of exegetical interpretation. Likewise, all viewed market competition as the universal challenge to state-sponsored thought-control, whether the threatening market was to be found in entrepreneurial European neighbors (as in the cases of France, who wished to keep out purveyors of grey market goods, and Germany, who flat-out needed the West's money) or sympathetic voices in Parliament (as with India). Throughout Darnton demonstrates that effective censorship marks the triumph of paranoia over stupidity.**
While I personally found the anecdotes from Stasi-prying Berlin to be the most engaging, India really came across as the standout case of the three. Censorship there ultimately took the role of post hoc criminal prosecution, and only arose in the face of a rising Indian independence movement around 1905 or so. Talk about an ineffective cat-out-of-the-bag approach: freedom of speech meant you could always more or less publish whatever you wanted but might be whisked away to jail for a spell in consequence. Copies of newly notorious works might continue in underground circulation until their authors could resume oversight of their distribution upon release from the chokey. Not that there weren't legitimate threats to maintenance of colonial control, but Britain's inconsistent application of authoritarianism more often than not come across as self-inflicted wounds. Her Majesty's Empire would appear to have lost its colonies around the globe mostly by the haughty refusal to integrate and share. Can you imagine the hegemonic power of a United Kingdom whose voting states included the Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, and the USA?
I'll end by quoting the author on the Wolf Biermann affair, which struck me as the most ridiculous and tragic case related here (page 198).
Darnton's whole book is the documentation of a feedback loop of tantrums in which A begins by saying, "I saw you stick your tongue out at me. I'll send you to your room!" B responds then with "Don't bother, I'm leaving!" and this escalates into, "And take your crummy books with you!" leading inevitably to "Fine, I will!" and ending with both in chorus, singing: "You never loved me! I'm burning down the house!" This is a game that Eric Berne called "Uproar," one to which I can only quote the Mills Brothers. And Sparklehorse.
* An imagined title: Bourbon France - Privilege and Repression: The extension and withholding of privilege to guild printers in Versailles and Paris under L'Ancien Regime, 1722-1789
** With due respect to those whose profession requires constant vigilance for the more violent practitioners of liberte, it takes some serious processing power to project ominous portents onto your average fairy tale or folk song. Satire's best reception always came from those willing to expend the effort in connecting all the illicit dots.
This book still screams academia, but don't be put off as it's very consciously written in a lay voice (an effort that I, as a lay reader, very much appreciated). So disregard the organizational structure that reads like someone's dissertation book pitch,* published contingent on a willingness to pad it up with a few comparatively more recent examples. Darnton's concluding chapter goes some way to tying it all together by singing vive la difference, although it's hard to know whether that's a truism for censorship practices generally or just an outgrowth of a survey approach that doesn't remotely try to be anthropological or sociological. I write this, by the way, not as complaint but rather so readers might have their expectations set correctly when plucking this off a library shelf.
This is genuinely worth your time as a casual read, and not just for the informal tone (if I had a nickel for each time Darnton wrote, "What's going on here?" I'd be in the vanity publishing business). Functionally, the approbationistes of Malesherbes, cataloguers of the reading matter available to Bengali sepoys, and the apparatchiks of the GDR were as much critics as scissor-wielding hacks. Those in France even enjoyed (and occasionally, suffered) seeing their opinions published as frontmatter to the texts they covered, among the earliest blurbs in publishing. Darnton's work is well-seasoned with representative excerpts of this meta-discourse, and whether intended for one or more internal audiences or the public at large it's frequently entertaining in its display of equal parts erudition, snobbish conceit, and petty vindictiveness. Few acts appear as futile or as paradoxical as officialdom's attempts to staunch the flow of ideas by talking about how horrible they are.
The author presents a solid case that censorship practice and intent varied in different places and times. In France, they sought to avoid embarrassment arising from the endorsement inherent in state-controlled publishing rights as much as to corral the competitive instincts of courtiers that tended toward anonymous libels. In the British Raj, the drive for a better barometer of local discontent resulted in an annual Overstreet of yellowed jatras then in circulation within the Jewel in the Crown. The dual bureaucracies of East Germany's Leseland (state reporting to party) wrote up five year plans for works to be written not just to impose ideological conformity, but also to assure topical diversity and meter out a limited supply of available paper. In all cases, however, censorship was about control, prosecution and persecution each a matter of exegetical interpretation. Likewise, all viewed market competition as the universal challenge to state-sponsored thought-control, whether the threatening market was to be found in entrepreneurial European neighbors (as in the cases of France, who wished to keep out purveyors of grey market goods, and Germany, who flat-out needed the West's money) or sympathetic voices in Parliament (as with India). Throughout Darnton demonstrates that effective censorship marks the triumph of paranoia over stupidity.**
While I personally found the anecdotes from Stasi-prying Berlin to be the most engaging, India really came across as the standout case of the three. Censorship there ultimately took the role of post hoc criminal prosecution, and only arose in the face of a rising Indian independence movement around 1905 or so. Talk about an ineffective cat-out-of-the-bag approach: freedom of speech meant you could always more or less publish whatever you wanted but might be whisked away to jail for a spell in consequence. Copies of newly notorious works might continue in underground circulation until their authors could resume oversight of their distribution upon release from the chokey. Not that there weren't legitimate threats to maintenance of colonial control, but Britain's inconsistent application of authoritarianism more often than not come across as self-inflicted wounds. Her Majesty's Empire would appear to have lost its colonies around the globe mostly by the haughty refusal to integrate and share. Can you imagine the hegemonic power of a United Kingdom whose voting states included the Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, and the USA?
I'll end by quoting the author on the Wolf Biermann affair, which struck me as the most ridiculous and tragic case related here (page 198).
[T]he nonconformist poet and singer with a razor-sharp wit… had been permitted to leave on a concert tour of the FRG [West Germany] in November 1976. Then, after he had given a performance in Cologne, the Party's Politburo dramatically stripped him of his citizenship and refused to let him return. Twelve prominent East German writers… signed a letter of protest, which was…. followed by a wave of repression. Students were arrested, writers blacklisted, dissidents silenced. Sarah Kirsch, Jurek Becker, Gunter Kunert, and other prominent authors went into exile. Jurgen Fuchs was imprisoned for nine months and then left for the FRG…. Erich Honecker had… declared at the Eighth Party Congress in December 1971 that there would be "no more taboos in art and literature." The Biermann affair exposed the hollowness of that statement.Darnton compiles a depressing laundry list of oppressed authors, intellectuals, and careerists. However, it's the absurdity of the whole thing that flattens me. Censorship seeks to impose conformity of thought and action by forcibly muting dissent. It instills in its victims the desire to escape and makes that desire practicable by creating a sympathetic neighboring market to works branded as forbidden fruit. Yet the parallel uses of exile as a state punishment and a means of protesting banishment have only adolescent logic.
Darnton's whole book is the documentation of a feedback loop of tantrums in which A begins by saying, "I saw you stick your tongue out at me. I'll send you to your room!" B responds then with "Don't bother, I'm leaving!" and this escalates into, "And take your crummy books with you!" leading inevitably to "Fine, I will!" and ending with both in chorus, singing: "You never loved me! I'm burning down the house!" This is a game that Eric Berne called "Uproar," one to which I can only quote the Mills Brothers. And Sparklehorse.
You always hurt the one you love,
The one you love the most,
And the more I try to hurt you,
The more it backfires.
* An imagined title: Bourbon France - Privilege and Repression: The extension and withholding of privilege to guild printers in Versailles and Paris under L'Ancien Regime, 1722-1789
** With due respect to those whose profession requires constant vigilance for the more violent practitioners of liberte, it takes some serious processing power to project ominous portents onto your average fairy tale or folk song. Satire's best reception always came from those willing to expend the effort in connecting all the illicit dots.
June 20, 2018
Casual readers beware - Darnton is thorough, even pedantic in his approach. He's an Ivy League professor, and his work is complex and well-researched.
Once you get past the literary density, (truly, Censors at Work is a collection of three meticulously researched essays about censorship, ensconced by a lengthy preface and conclusion which serve to underline the overall thesis) the book is engrossing. Like many subjects, I discovered that censorship throughout history was not quite what I expected before I read this book. I found myself empathizing with the censors as much as with authors and publishers, because like any industry, publishing throughout history highlights the motivations and actions of a curious cross-section of humanity: those employed by a regime who are still literary at heart and believe in the freedom of ideas and/or expression.
Censors at Work will remind you that any time and place in history proves to be multi-faceted and complex as soon as you delve beneath the surface. I loved learning about the struggle between faithfully representing socialism versus criticism of party double-standards in Communist East Germany, or censors in the Raj (British-ruled India) who sought to prove they upheld the ideals of liberalism while quashing local unrest as uncovered through their literature.
For those who enjoy the study of literature and/or publishing, I would highly recommend this book. As someone studying the Iron Curtain for future writing projects, Censors at Work provided invaluable insight. This is not a broad-strokes cross-section of censorship throughout history, however; it's very focused, but the themes and principles presented have implications which, ostensibly, matter today as much as ever.
Darnton reminds us that censorship is a "system of control, which pervades institutions". When you consider "fake news" or the state of the internet in North Korea, it's a subject worth our consideration.
Once you get past the literary density, (truly, Censors at Work is a collection of three meticulously researched essays about censorship, ensconced by a lengthy preface and conclusion which serve to underline the overall thesis) the book is engrossing. Like many subjects, I discovered that censorship throughout history was not quite what I expected before I read this book. I found myself empathizing with the censors as much as with authors and publishers, because like any industry, publishing throughout history highlights the motivations and actions of a curious cross-section of humanity: those employed by a regime who are still literary at heart and believe in the freedom of ideas and/or expression.
Censors at Work will remind you that any time and place in history proves to be multi-faceted and complex as soon as you delve beneath the surface. I loved learning about the struggle between faithfully representing socialism versus criticism of party double-standards in Communist East Germany, or censors in the Raj (British-ruled India) who sought to prove they upheld the ideals of liberalism while quashing local unrest as uncovered through their literature.
For those who enjoy the study of literature and/or publishing, I would highly recommend this book. As someone studying the Iron Curtain for future writing projects, Censors at Work provided invaluable insight. This is not a broad-strokes cross-section of censorship throughout history, however; it's very focused, but the themes and principles presented have implications which, ostensibly, matter today as much as ever.
Darnton reminds us that censorship is a "system of control, which pervades institutions". When you consider "fake news" or the state of the internet in North Korea, it's a subject worth our consideration.
August 26, 2015
Darnton approaches the subject of censorship using three examples--18th century France, the British Raj and communist East Germany. Using these examples he shows how differently censorship can act in different situations. There is no one thing which we call "censorship"--he demonstrates this showing the complexities of the subject of publishing and reviewing works pre- and post-publication. Authors could collaborate. Authors could publish overseas. Authors could gain powerful supporters to help them through the process. All of these things, and more, happened during what we would call "censorship." Similarly, the censors were sometimes lovers, as well as critics, of the works they were responsible to review. Many believed, uncynically, in the importance of what they were doing.
Overall, an interesting work.
Overall, an interesting work.
January 27, 2015
I was only interested in the final section on censorship in East Germany. His 1990 interview with two censors was fascinating. They saw themselves as advocates for literature. There's always someone else, some other "they" that must be opposed.
September 5, 2019
There is a moment in this book where the author states that many of the functioned served by censors in unfree socities (like those discussed in the book) are served by book reviewers in free societies where market concerns rather than strict political concerns govern the availability of books. Those who are familiar with problems with Amazon.com and other websites are no doubt aware of the way that book reviews can be very political, as I have found out over the course of my own reviewing. Be that as it may, the book is fascinating in the way that it views censors as having far more than a merely negative result in writing, and also examines some of the ways in which censors viewed themselves and served a complex set of roles in different regimes that used them in order to aid the goals both of the production of desirable literature as well as the desire to discourage and suppress bad literature. This is not an area I have read a lot about--although I have certainly been personally involved in affairs involving the censors of at least one country--but it was quite interesting to read this and to ponder the complex nature of criticism as it relates to writings.
This book is divided into three parts and takes up about 250 pages. After a list of illustrations and a short introduction that discusses the author's own studies of censors, the author begins by discussing the censorship of Bourbon France. In this section the author contrasts the approaches of Bourbon censors that were repressive towards some literature, benignly tolerant of other literature that they could not endorse, but provided some literature with a privilege that was highly sought after by some writers, even to the point of helping writers improve their writing to the point where it could receive a privilege and what amounted to a positive blurb for the book by the censors themselves. After that the author talks about censorship in British-ruled Bengal during the late 19th and early 20th centuries where again the desire to repress politically unacceptable literature was combined with an approach akin to writing book reviews of native literature as well as critiquing the sorts of plays and writings that were most popular among the local Bengali population. Finally, the author discusses the censorship of Communist East Germany and even talks with a couple of censors who discussed the way that they sought to encourage writers to work for the glory of East Germany even as authors struggled with the problem of self-censorship.
It was pleasant but also somewhat disorienting to think of censors beyond the general negative view of their work. Even if the author is hardly a fan of censorship, it is clear that in the interests of fairness that he also wishes the censors to show how they viewed themselves and their own work. Of great interest is the way that censors sometimes participated in the writing and vetting of literature, and were sometimes even literary figures in their own right. In one comical example an East German censor approved a work in which he had also served as an editor, which is nothing if not convenient. Having lived in an area where censorship for matters of lese majeste was very common, there is a lot in this book that resonated with my own experience, in the way that censorship tends to provide a voice of self-censorship that the writer has to struggle against in order to be honest and authentic as a writer and avoid being compromised in the desire to avoid trouble for speaking obvious truths or worthwhile opinions or judgments.
This book is divided into three parts and takes up about 250 pages. After a list of illustrations and a short introduction that discusses the author's own studies of censors, the author begins by discussing the censorship of Bourbon France. In this section the author contrasts the approaches of Bourbon censors that were repressive towards some literature, benignly tolerant of other literature that they could not endorse, but provided some literature with a privilege that was highly sought after by some writers, even to the point of helping writers improve their writing to the point where it could receive a privilege and what amounted to a positive blurb for the book by the censors themselves. After that the author talks about censorship in British-ruled Bengal during the late 19th and early 20th centuries where again the desire to repress politically unacceptable literature was combined with an approach akin to writing book reviews of native literature as well as critiquing the sorts of plays and writings that were most popular among the local Bengali population. Finally, the author discusses the censorship of Communist East Germany and even talks with a couple of censors who discussed the way that they sought to encourage writers to work for the glory of East Germany even as authors struggled with the problem of self-censorship.
It was pleasant but also somewhat disorienting to think of censors beyond the general negative view of their work. Even if the author is hardly a fan of censorship, it is clear that in the interests of fairness that he also wishes the censors to show how they viewed themselves and their own work. Of great interest is the way that censors sometimes participated in the writing and vetting of literature, and were sometimes even literary figures in their own right. In one comical example an East German censor approved a work in which he had also served as an editor, which is nothing if not convenient. Having lived in an area where censorship for matters of lese majeste was very common, there is a lot in this book that resonated with my own experience, in the way that censorship tends to provide a voice of self-censorship that the writer has to struggle against in order to be honest and authentic as a writer and avoid being compromised in the desire to avoid trouble for speaking obvious truths or worthwhile opinions or judgments.
January 9, 2019
The book evaluates censorship of literature in three authoritarian regimes: 18th-century Bourbon France, the British Raj, and East Germany during the Cold War, discussing what censorship looked like in each context, as well as the censor-author relationship. When I bought this book, I was hoping for a more specific and philosophical commentary on the nature of censorship, but I also take the book’s point that it’s almost meaningless to create a broad definition of censorship without historical and social context of how it’s operating. The context of every historical and social situation becomes a negotiation of what censorship means based on how it's functioning in each specific historical situation.
My favourite section was on censorship in the German Democratic Republic, and what I'm even more interested in a a broader discussion/speculation on what potentiality within literature was actually lost due to censorship? What books (or genres) never saw the light of day at all due to censorship?What specific books or subject matter did East Germans lose out on in the books they read (aside from obvious topics such as criticisms of Communism), and how might this have produced the world they live in? This book did some of that, but due to it being academically rooted, it refrained from speculation in favor of aiming for objectivity.
My most interesting takeaway, particularly as someone who has grown up in a capitalist world, is the author's effort to differentiate state-sanctioned censorship within an authoritarian regime from "marketplace" censorship (i.e. "censorship" that occurs when a publisher won't publish certain types of content because it won't sell). This book (especially with its insistence on situating censorship in the historical context where it operates) illustrated that the two are very different, which may seem like common sense, but the author did a great job of hammering it home for me.
My favourite quote: “The inner, self-appointed censor, [Communist Yugoslavian writer Danilo Kis] wrote, is the writer’s double, ‘a double who leans over his shoulder and interferes with the text in statu nascendi, keeping him from making an ideological misstep. It is impossible to win out against this censor-double; he is like God, he knows all and sees, all, because he comes out of your own brain, your own fears, your own nightmares.” (Original quote from Danilo Kis, Homo Poeticus)
My favourite section was on censorship in the German Democratic Republic, and what I'm even more interested in a a broader discussion/speculation on what potentiality within literature was actually lost due to censorship? What books (or genres) never saw the light of day at all due to censorship?What specific books or subject matter did East Germans lose out on in the books they read (aside from obvious topics such as criticisms of Communism), and how might this have produced the world they live in? This book did some of that, but due to it being academically rooted, it refrained from speculation in favor of aiming for objectivity.
My most interesting takeaway, particularly as someone who has grown up in a capitalist world, is the author's effort to differentiate state-sanctioned censorship within an authoritarian regime from "marketplace" censorship (i.e. "censorship" that occurs when a publisher won't publish certain types of content because it won't sell). This book (especially with its insistence on situating censorship in the historical context where it operates) illustrated that the two are very different, which may seem like common sense, but the author did a great job of hammering it home for me.
My favourite quote: “The inner, self-appointed censor, [Communist Yugoslavian writer Danilo Kis] wrote, is the writer’s double, ‘a double who leans over his shoulder and interferes with the text in statu nascendi, keeping him from making an ideological misstep. It is impossible to win out against this censor-double; he is like God, he knows all and sees, all, because he comes out of your own brain, your own fears, your own nightmares.” (Original quote from Danilo Kis, Homo Poeticus)
August 17, 2019
Contains some very thought-provoking and interesting ideas, but the sheer number of case studies included prevents the reader from understanding the author's overall message. The lack of a glossary for foreign terms or reference list for names makes it difficult to remember what means what or who is who.
December 10, 2023
A fascinating dive into how censorship has worked in specific regimes over the last three centuries. As an academic work, the prose can be a little abstruse and the book occasionally feels repetitive, but overall I found the book very informative and instructive to my thoughts on censorship questions today.
January 20, 2023
Molto molto interessante e ben scritto. L'autore utilizza una prosa scorrevole, addirittura quasi romanzesca in certi passaggi, pur mantenendosi fedele all'obiettivo e al tono saggistico dell'opera. Raccomando
June 1, 2018
3.5 stars!
An interesting read that I bought out of curiosity (and also because it was on sale). I found it very informative, and it did help me with one of my essays.
An interesting read that I bought out of curiosity (and also because it was on sale). I found it very informative, and it did help me with one of my essays.
February 27, 2019
I appreciate how he didn't simply take sides but show censorship from both perspectives.
April 16, 2019
A bit too verbose, but serves as a great primer on early censorship.
September 21, 2021
3.5. Historias interesantes y un trato incluso más interesante de los temas de la negociación e interpretación dentro de la censura.
August 29, 2022
The first two examples were great, the last one on East Germany...not so much.
May 21, 2023
Этнографическая история трёх цензурных аппаратов в трёх разных режимах трёх разных веков. Хорошо замыслено, изящно написано, отличные источники.
June 9, 2016
Three interesting case studies of state-imposed censorship as it was practiced in different places at different times. Darnton raises some provocative questions about common perceptions of assumptions about how censorship works in authoritarian societies.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews