Chicago Sun-Times: "There’s an interesting backstory behind the creation of Adam Rapp’s “The Metal Children,” a disturbing drama about book banning and the moral obligation an artist has for the work he produces.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Adam Rapp finds ‘Metal Children’ by taking book ban personally
Chicago Sun-Times: "There’s an interesting backstory behind the creation of Adam Rapp’s “The Metal Children,” a disturbing drama about book banning and the moral obligation an artist has for the work he produces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like dark. And I like banned books (let's be honest, Catch-22 and Fahrenheit 451 are effing fantastic books...) and getting people to READ banned books. But I also can concede that there are two sides to every issue and I found myself struck that Rapp chose not to pick sides in his play. I don't think anyone would have necessarily blamed him had he chosen to take the, "Banned books are Art, too man!" stance in his work but I think it takes a bigger person (and a more open-minded artist) to concede at least another viewpoint's validity. It might help that Rapp admits to having lost his connection with his own work that became the banned book in question. Still, I think any idea (be it presented in a play, novel, movie, etc) that has two equal sides is more engaging than another preaching-to-the-choir piece, no matter how right (or wrong) I may think it is.
I agree with Jacob. I find it interesting that Rapp didn't really choose a side. If I were in his position I have to say I would probably be on the "Banned Books are Art!" side of the fence and fight to have my book read.
I really don't understand this banning of books lately. It just confuses me. Back at my old high school there were a ton of classic books that are banned. Really amazing classics too! For example "To Kill A Mockingbird" is banned at my old high school. Isn't that ridiculous?!? It's a classic book that has an amazing message and everyone in America knows about it already anyway. But it is banned because it has the "n" word in it. I don't understand school boards I really don't. It's not like we (teenagers) aren't going to see these things in real life. So what's wrong about reading them in a book?
Rapp's decision not to take sides is a pretty great one, and a lot more than I can say for me.
While I understand why books are banned I do not agree with it. In banning books we can aim to protect ourselves--but from what exactly? If we protect ourselves from the real world how will we ever be able to understand it?
I think it's an individual decision to choose what we are exposed to. My parents did not want my brother and I watching certain things until we were older, and I agree with that, but had we secretly watched what we weren't supposed to (and we might have...) we were not scarred for life, we just simply did not need to be exposed to certain things at a young age. But to ban something permanently makes no sense. At a high school level we do not understand everything about life, but shielding us from the negative things helps no one.
I am stunned that people still ban books. I don't mean to sound so black and white on the matter, but if the parents don't want their kids reading something then that's a personal matter in that family unit that is up to the parents to control. I've never read the book, but I wish the article went in to more detail about what the opposing party found so disturbing and morally wrong that they felt the need to go all the way to banning it from the county. Rapp may be ruthless in the images he presents but hiding the book from the kids won't exactly protect them from the some of the truths it probably contained. If you can learn about the horrors of the concentration camp in Europe or even the Japanese camps in the US, you can learn about the harshness of a juvenile detainment camp. Just because your history teacher glosses over some of the dirty details doesn't make them any less real or convey how and why these times and places were horrible. If Rapp's story is able to connect with them and not just inform them of facts, then there's something bigger happening there that's more than any classroom's fact test can teach you.
It is really sad that censorship still happens, but there can be some solace taken in reactance (the more you force something not to happen, the more likely people are to do the activity). Students in counties where books are banned will get their hands on those books and will read them. I'm interested to see how the play fairs against censors - the article says that there's a rather objective eye to how the book banning is handled, but there may be a knee-jerk reaction to protest the play, since it's bringing light to the issue of book banning in the first place.
Post a Comment