Censorship In Ayn Rand's The Call Of The Wild
Everyone deserves to enjoy what they like, even if other people don't like it. Some may say censorship is beneficial because it keeps us away from harmful content. But I believe that books like The call of the Wild should not be banned or censored. Censorship takes away freedom from the creators, takes away freedom from the readers, and it’s a pointless thing to do.
I beieve that everyone deserves to express themselves.. Censoring or banning content takes away freedom from the authors. In the story the main character (a dog) watches his friend (also a dog) get killed. The author chose to write this and more gory stuff and no one should keep him from doing stuff he likes to do. Banning or censoring content will also take away the creativity of the writers. The …show more content…
main character of the book is a dog and a bunch of other characters are dogs too. The author chose to be creative instead of writing a random book about humans just to make everyone happy and if we keep censoring or banning content authors will be afraid of being creative and we wouldn’t get good stories. Some may say that violence, sexuality ,and other stuff like that is need to make a great story and that it shouldn’t be used. But I say that it all depends on the kind of story that you are trying to portray and how you want it to make your readers feel, also we shouldn’t keep trying to pretend like violent or “inappropriate” things don’t happen, because they do and we all know it.
Taking away freedom from the writers isn’t the only negative factor of banning or censoring content. It also takes away the freedom from the readers. In the informative text it states, “At the main county library here, where 23 people were on a waiting list to check out “Invisible Man,” the ban was a prime topic.” In here readers were deprived of what they liked just because someone else didn’t like it or didn’t approve of it and that’s not fair. If you still think it’s too violent then a simple solution that won’t negatively affect others is just not reading it and ignoring it. The text says, “ the board banned the book from all school libraries in the county after the mother of an 11th grader complained the novel was too much for teenagers.” Some may say that it wasn’t just one mother that disliked and more probably disked too. I think that the same thing still applies for the people that liked it and they should be able to read it if they want to.
Banning stuff doesn’t only take away the freedom from both the authors and the readers but it’s also a pointless thing to do.
In “The Call of The Wild” Buck gets kidnapped, watches his friend die, and kills a dog. I didn’t find this story to be entertaining. Censoring this wouldn't have changed anything about this story, except making it more boring for the people that did enjoy reading this. Plus it’s not like censoring the stuff will make us magically forget about violence or other stuff that I’m not sure I’m allowed to mention in this letter, and that also helps me prove my point that people act like if you ignore things that are natural and happen every day all over the world then it will all magically disappear. In “the Call of the Wild” the main character kills another dog. Censoring this wouldn’t change the fact that he killed a dog and that we know that there is violence in our world so it's pointless. Others may say that some younger audiences may not be able to handle more sensitive topics and that even older people might not like violence or certain topics. While that may be true, all those people can just stay away from content that they don’t like and let the ones who do like it enjoy
it.
Some people like to hide from stuff that happens every day around them by censoring or banning harmless content. But I believe that we need to accept that there are problems in our world in order to try to solve them and random books won’t affect anything. Censoring and banning harmless is not only pointless but it will only take away freedom from the writers and the readers. In conclusion I don’t think anyone should be deprived of stuff they like just like no one should be forced to do something they don’t like.
I beieve that everyone deserves to express themselves.. Censoring or banning content takes away freedom from the authors. In the story the main character (a dog) watches his friend (also a dog) get killed. The author chose to write this and more gory stuff and no one should keep him from doing stuff he likes to do. Banning or censoring content will also take away the creativity of the writers. The …show more content…
main character of the book is a dog and a bunch of other characters are dogs too. The author chose to be creative instead of writing a random book about humans just to make everyone happy and if we keep censoring or banning content authors will be afraid of being creative and we wouldn’t get good stories. Some may say that violence, sexuality ,and other stuff like that is need to make a great story and that it shouldn’t be used. But I say that it all depends on the kind of story that you are trying to portray and how you want it to make your readers feel, also we shouldn’t keep trying to pretend like violent or “inappropriate” things don’t happen, because they do and we all know it.
Taking away freedom from the writers isn’t the only negative factor of banning or censoring content. It also takes away the freedom from the readers. In the informative text it states, “At the main county library here, where 23 people were on a waiting list to check out “Invisible Man,” the ban was a prime topic.” In here readers were deprived of what they liked just because someone else didn’t like it or didn’t approve of it and that’s not fair. If you still think it’s too violent then a simple solution that won’t negatively affect others is just not reading it and ignoring it. The text says, “ the board banned the book from all school libraries in the county after the mother of an 11th grader complained the novel was too much for teenagers.” Some may say that it wasn’t just one mother that disliked and more probably disked too. I think that the same thing still applies for the people that liked it and they should be able to read it if they want to.
Banning stuff doesn’t only take away the freedom from both the authors and the readers but it’s also a pointless thing to do.
In “The Call of The Wild” Buck gets kidnapped, watches his friend die, and kills a dog. I didn’t find this story to be entertaining. Censoring this wouldn't have changed anything about this story, except making it more boring for the people that did enjoy reading this. Plus it’s not like censoring the stuff will make us magically forget about violence or other stuff that I’m not sure I’m allowed to mention in this letter, and that also helps me prove my point that people act like if you ignore things that are natural and happen every day all over the world then it will all magically disappear. In “the Call of the Wild” the main character kills another dog. Censoring this wouldn’t change the fact that he killed a dog and that we know that there is violence in our world so it's pointless. Others may say that some younger audiences may not be able to handle more sensitive topics and that even older people might not like violence or certain topics. While that may be true, all those people can just stay away from content that they don’t like and let the ones who do like it enjoy
it.
Some people like to hide from stuff that happens every day around them by censoring or banning harmless content. But I believe that we need to accept that there are problems in our world in order to try to solve them and random books won’t affect anything. Censoring and banning harmless is not only pointless but it will only take away freedom from the writers and the readers. In conclusion I don’t think anyone should be deprived of stuff they like just like no one should be forced to do something they don’t like.