AI Chat Search Browse Media On This Day Map Quotations Timeline Research Free Datasets Remembered About Contact
☶ Go up a page

Indecent Publications Bill (Press, 17 July 1963)

This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.

Summary: Indecent Publications Bill (Press, 17 July 1963)

On 17 July 1963, a series of letters to the editor were published, addressing the state of literature and its impact on society. The correspondents expressed diverse opinions on the quality and values of contemporary literature, as well as the influence of cinema on moral standards. R. M. Thomson reacted to a preceding article titled "Higher Standards" by arguing that literary dissimulation ignored his points. He recalled his upbringing, marked by strong criticism of prominent authors like Hall Caine and Elinor Glyn, contrasting it with Stanley Hall's struggle to liberate himself from the sentimental expectations of New England, which aided him in leading Clark University. Another writer, identified as Ham, criticized what he perceived as an "intellectual vacuum" in society, exemplified by the affluent community where residents merely accumulated wealth and luxury without fostering a culture of reading. He lamented the lack of meaningful literary engagement and warned against the superficial distractions generated by modern publicity, suggesting that without fundamental changes, improvements in the cultural landscape were unlikely. A third letter, attributed to Clarion Call, questioned whether Mr Sadler supported or opposed the publication of indecent books, voicing concern over the moral implications for younger generations. The writer reflected on their own experiences with marriage literature, contrasting it with contemporary cinema that propagates unhealthy sexual messages from an early age. They advocated for literature that promotes clean, healthy ideals instead. The final respondent, referred to as Reader, defended Havelock Ellis against critiques by "Common Sense" and "Reviewer." They argued that simply dismissing Ellis without critical engagement showcased a lack of genuine understanding. Reader believed that both sides were trapped in a binary moral debate, failing to appreciate the nuanced beauty of everyday life or the teachings of figures like William Blake and St. Paul, who recognised the inherent purity of existence. Overall, the letters reflect a deep concern about literature’s role in shaping societal norms, highlighting tensions between moral values, artistic integrity, and the influences of popular culture during the 1960s.

Important Information

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

Creative Commons Licence The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand

Publish Date:17th July 1963
URL:https://www.pridenz.com/paperspast_chp19630717_2_35_4.html