Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugene 2025

Comparative Analysis of Literary Censorship in Different Societies
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

I’m sitting here, staring at a dog-eared copy of Fahrenheit 451, and I can’t help but feel a weird mix of awe and irritation. Like, Ray Bradbury was out here in 1953, spinning this dystopian nightmare about burning books, and it’s still so on the nose it hurts. Censorship’s this ugly, shape-shifting thing that’s been strangling stories forever, across borders, across centuries. But it’s not just some abstract villain—it’s personal. It’s the reason I couldn’t get my hands on The Satanic Verses in high school without sneaking it from a friend’s older brother, who swore it was “dangerous.” Dangerous! I mean, who even talks like that anymore? And yet, here we are, still fighting over what words get to live and what words get locked away.

Let’s start with the West, because it’s where people love to pretend censorship’s a relic. America’s got this whole “land of the free” shtick, but don’t kid yourself. The U.S. bans books like it’s a competitive sport. Think of To Kill a Mockingbird, yanked from school shelves because it makes people uncomfortable about race. Or The Catcher in the Rye, which got the boot for decades because Holden Caulfield’s angsty swearing was apparently too much for delicate souls. It’s not always torches and pitchforks—it’s school boards, parent petitions, quiet library purges. The hypocrisy burns me up: we’ll champion free speech until someone’s feelings get bruised, then it’s game over. I read 1984 in tenth grade and thought, “Wow, Orwell’s talking about Russia or something, not us.” But nah, he was talking about us too. The urge to control stories, to sanitize them, it’s baked into the system. It’s not just about protecting kids—it’s about protecting power.

Now, pivot to somewhere like China, and the game changes. Censorship there isn’t subtle; it’s a sledgehammer. The state decides what’s “harmonious” (ugh, that word makes my skin crawl), and anything that doesn’t fit gets erased. Writers like Mo Yan, who won the Nobel Prize, still have to dance this bizarre tango with the government, self-censoring just enough to get published but not so much they lose their soul. I remember reading Red Sorghum and feeling this raw, bloody pulse in it, like Mo Yan was screaming through the gaps in what he couldn’t say. Compare that to, say, Salman Rushdie, who had a fatwa slapped on him for The Satanic Verses. In Iran, it wasn’t just about banning a book—it was about banning an entire way of thinking. Rushdie’s still out here, writing, dodging death threats, while in China, dissident writers like Liu Xiaobo got locked up until they died. It’s brutal, but there’s something almost… honest about it? Like, at least the state’s upfront about its control, unlike the West’s sneaky, moralizing bans.

But here’s where it gets messy: censorship isn’t just governments. It’s people, too. It’s mobs. It’s culture. In the West, we’ve got this new wave of self-appointed gatekeepers—call it cancel culture, call it whatever—who’ll shred a book not because it’s illegal but because it’s “problematic.” I’m not saying there aren’t books that deserve scrutiny. Some old classics are steeped in ugly biases, and yeah, it’s worth talking about. But there’s this puritan streak now, this rush to bury anything that doesn’t fit the current moral script. I read Lolita last year, and I was floored—not just by Nabokov’s prose, which is like swallowing glass it’s so sharp, but by how people still clutch their pearls over it. It’s not an endorsement of Humbert’s creepiness; it’s a dissection of it. Yet folks want it gone because it makes them squirm. That’s censorship, too, just dressed up in progressive clothes.

Jump to Saudi Arabia or parts of the Middle East, and you see a different flavor of this. Religious orthodoxy plays hardball. Books like The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy get flak not just for their politics but for their sensuality, their defiance of rigid norms. I remember stumbling across a blog by a Saudi woman who said she read Roy’s book in secret, under her covers, like it was contraband. That image stuck with me—this young woman, risking who-knows-what just to feel the weight of those words. It’s not just about banning books; it’s about banning entire worlds. And yet, even in those tightly controlled societies, people find ways to smuggle stories. Pirated PDFs, whispered recommendations, hidden libraries. It’s like water slipping through cracks in concrete.

What’s wild is how censorship, no matter where it happens, always feels like it’s about control but ends up exposing fear. Governments, communities, even individuals—they’re scared of what stories do. A good book doesn’t just sit there; it moves. It makes you question, makes you angry, makes you fall in love with ideas you didn’t know you could hold. I think of Toni Morrison’s Beloved, banned in some U.S. schools because it’s “too disturbing.” Too disturbing! Like, what’s the point of literature if it doesn’t shake you? Morrison was digging into the raw, ugly truth of slavery, and people wanted to look away. That’s what censorship does—it’s a refusal to see.

But let’s not romanticize this too much. There’s a flip side. Sometimes censorship’s defenders have a point—not a good one, but a point. In places like India, where communal tensions can spark riots, books that seem to “offend” one group or another get banned to keep the peace. I get it: words can ignite. I read about the ban on The Hindus by Wendy Doniger, which got pulled because it ruffled feathers with its take on Hindu mythology. Was it censorship? Sure. Was it also a clumsy attempt to avoid violence in a country where religious sensitivities are a powder keg? Yeah, probably. It’s not black-and-white, and pretending it is feels like cheating. I’m torn, because I hate the idea of silencing a scholar like Doniger, but I also can’t ignore the messy reality of a place where words can literally get people killed.

Still, the more I think about it, the more I see censorship as a kind of cowardice. It’s not just about controlling narratives; it’s about dodging the hard work of grappling with them. In Russia, where books like Doctor Zhivago were once smuggled in samizdat copies, censorship was about keeping the Soviet machine humming. Pasternak’s novel wasn’t just a love story—it was a middle finger to the state’s version of history. Reading it now, I’m struck by how quiet its rebellion is, how it’s just a man and a woman trying to live in a world that won’t let them. That’s what scares censors: not the loud stuff, but the quiet truths that creep under your skin.

And here’s where I get stuck. Part of me wants to scream that we should burn all the banned book lists, let every story run wild. But then I think about the internet, this chaotic mess we’re all drowning in, where every take is a hot take, and I wonder if total freedom just leads to noise. In societies like North Korea, where censorship is absolute, a single book can be a revolution. In the West, we’re so flooded with content that nothing feels revolutionary anymore. Is that better? I don’t know. I read Animal Farm and felt like Orwell was whispering in my ear, warning me about both the censors and the chaos. Maybe the problem isn’t just banned books—it’s that we’ve stopped listening to the ones we have.

So, yeah, censorship’s a global disease, but it’s got different symptoms everywhere. In the U.S., it’s a culture war dressed up as morality. In China, it’s a state machine grinding down anything that doesn’t fit. In the Middle East, it’s faith turned into a gatekeeper. And yet, every time a book gets banned, someone’s out there passing it under the table, reading it in the dark. That’s what keeps me going—the stubbornness of stories. They don’t die easy. They’re like weeds, popping up where you least expect them, cracking the pavement. And I’m here for it, dog-earing pages, getting mad, getting hopeful, because as long as there are books, there’s a fight worth having.