Self-Sanitizing Books in the Digital Era

Français: Pape Clément IV (Fresque de la Tour Ferrande à Pernesles Fontaine, Vaucluse, France) Photo credit: Wikipedia.
Français: Pape Clément IV (Fresque de la Tour Ferrande à Pernesles Fontaine, Vaucluse, France) Photo credit: Wikipedia.

Thomas Bowdler is alive and well, residing comfortably in tablets and e-readers across the globe.

For as long as people have been writing, there have been groups dedicated to keeping words and phrases away from the public. English physician Thomas Bowdler began his crusade to expurgate objectionable verses from both Shakespeare and Gibbon in the 1800s, but he wasn’t the first to impose his views of good taste on others–church censorship goes back centuries, such as when Pope Clement IV ordered the Jews of Aragon to submit all written work to Dominican censors prior to dissemination in the thirteenth century.

Today, the internet is full of filters and other mechanisms to block content. It’s not news that China employs such filters on its ISPs–insiders call it “The Great Firewall”–it’s more startling when expurgation happens on home turf, where freedom of speech supposedly reigns. In 2011, English professor Alan Gribben sanitized a new edition of Huckleberry Finn, replacing the pejorative term for a black man–which appears over 200 times in the book–with “slave,” rationalizing tampering with Twain’s classic in his introduction as as way to “spare the reader from a racial slur that never seems to lose its vitriol.”

Even at college campuses across the country, professors are prefacing literature with so-called “trigger warnings” (often at the request of students, no less) when reading course material containing explicitly violent, sexual, or otherwise upsetting verbiage. In one example, an internal memo from Oberlin College in Ohio suggested professors flag any material containing elements of “classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism (bias against the transgendered), ableism (bias against the handicapped), and other issues of privilege and oppression.” There was much backlash, and the college eventually backed away from the proposal. Still, there are plenty other schools accommodating student requests by including warnings on syllabi, and shielding students from material that might make them uncomfortable.

As of January, readers needn’t rely on academics or clerics to clean up their literature–there’s an app for that. For free, consumers can download “Clean Reader” through the Apple Store or Google Play. Once installed, the app promises a sanitized version of any e-book available for purchase. Clean Reader’s press release explains the process: “Clean Reader delivers the opportunity of reading any book without being exposed to profanity. By selecting how clean they want their books to appear, readers are presented the content of a book without offensive words and phrases. To preserve the context of the book, an alternative word with the same general meaning is available for each instance where a word is blocked from display.”

Readers can even select just how devoid of profanity they want their book; levels are categorized as Clean, Cleaner, and Squeaky Clean. I spoke with Kirsten Maughan, co-developer of the application, who said that the product has already been downloaded about 1,000 times, in every state in America and eighty countries. “People seem to like it, but we’ve heard from both sides,” she said. After our brief chat, Maughan called back, wishing to make clear that the Clean Reader app does not violate copyright laws – it doesn’t actually change the text, it merely allows readers to self-sanitize as they wish. “We had a lot of lawyers look at it. They say we aren’t violating author copyrights, and we are not censoring books. Users can even turn off the Clean Reader if they want. It’s just a filter.”

Is Clean Reader any different than the act of excising text in a physical book? Perhaps not. Clean Reader doesn’t permanently change a text, but it does point to a larger trend at work, where readers of e-books stand on shifting sands of permanence in an ever-increasingly pixelated literary landscape. Should we be more troubled that readers are volunteering to avoid potentially squeamish material in the name of comfort? How much pleasure, inspiration, or cause for discussion (and education) is lost when a reader selects a Squeaky-Clean version of a text because of the potential to offend? I’m reminded of that oft-repeated phrase from Thomas Gray’s poem “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1742): “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.”

Browse related collectible books:

The Bowdler “Family Shakespeare”

View our ever-growing Pinterest board of Banned Books

Reprinted with permission from Fine Books & Collections, Barbara Basbanes Richter author

Get a discounted subscription to Fine Books & Collections on Biblio!

Sign up for the Fine Books & Collections free email newsletter.

Rare Finds are a special feature from Biblio and the wonderful writers at Fine Books & Collections. Visit their site to see more about the rare book trade.



This entry was written by and posted on April 6, 2015 at 7:33 pm, filed under Rare Finds and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink

2 Responses to “Self-Sanitizing Books in the Digital Era”

  1. toddes

    Self-sanitizing is neither equivalent to nor analogous to censorship (or bowdlerizing).

    In the first, I make a personal choice of what I will or will not read or view. In the second, the government or an authority legislates or mandates what I will or will not read or view.

    If I choose to not wallow in vulgarities and profanities then I welcome that option.

    I have yet to find a literary work that benefited me with the inclusion of a f-bomb (I wonder if this comment box permits the use of vulgarity and profanity).

    What goes into my mind is as important to me as what goes into my body. If I choose to wash the feces from my food before eating it, why should I be prevented from scrubbing the literary excrement from what I read?

    How willing would you be to eat another pint of Ben & Jerry’s if every third bite was not a chocolate chunk but a rat dropping?

    Reply
  2. Howard Ritter

    Am I the only one (I fervently hope not) to feel that these self-pampering pseudo-intellectual college students are the very ones who SHOULD be discomfited by ideas and opinions that are different from their own? If not at college, then where are they going to encounter an environment where such can be discussed and dissected? If not new and challenging things, just what is the university experience intended to comprise? My suggestion to students who find college material too unsettling for their pampered intellects and coddled personalities is to drop out, go to trade school, and look for employment in a field where you can blithely drift along, with all your career decisions being made by the economic realities of the world and by your employers—people who learned to confront the world as it is and summoned the emotional resiliency and strength of character to flourish in it. You surely will not.

    Reply

Leave a Reply