Censorship and Brexit - Ciaran Murtagh

On Friday the BBC re-released a sketch from Horrible Histories that apparently 'trashed Britain'.  You can watch the offending sketch here:

It was from a 2009 episode called Vile Victorians and it upset a lot of people including Piers Morgan, Andrew Neill and the Daily Mail, so it must be doing something right.

Caution - this link will take you to The Daily Mail

It piqued my interest because as a kids TV writer, it seemed strange for so many grown men - and it usually is men - to get enraged by an 11 year old sketch, which many children have enjoyed and - crucially - understood for years.

Link to some frankly ridiculous Twitter comments.

The reason for the outrage was the fact that it was unpatriotic. Factually and historically accurate, but unpatriotic because it pointed to aspects of British history, that while true, displayed Britain in an unfavourable light.

No matter that this sketch has been broadcast many times to zero protest. No matter that it's from a show called Horrible Histories -  the clue's in the name.   No matter that Horrible Histories also trashes the 'Vicious Vikings' and the 'Rotten Romans'- maybe other countries have thicker skin, or aren't in the middle of an identity crisis.

We now live in a country so past irony that The Sun can create a poster celebrating Brexit in which the fictional character Alan Partridge is apparently a Great Britain,  while his very real creator Steve Coogan is a shattered Remainer.

Also on the poster and in the Great British camp are Mr Blobby, Basil Brush and Mr Bean. As a writer for at least two of those characters - Mr Blobby writes his own material -  I think I can confidently say Mr Bean is apolitical at best and if I had to pin Basil down I'd have him a little 'Countryside Alliance-y', but then again - THEY'RE BOTH MADE UP, SO HOW WOULD I KNOW!?

Noted Great Briton and anti-EU advocate Mr Bean. Apparently.

Regardless it's obviously fine to give fictional kids TV characters British values and agendas to reinforce your political point, but don't you dare put actual facts in front of the kiddiwinks for fear of being labelled unpatriotic.  Or maybe The Sun poster is clearly a joke and I shouldn't take it so seriously, in which case... Horrible Histories! 

The only thing that's changed in the 11 years since this sketch was first broadcast is that we now live in age where we no longer have a need for experts and facts are apparently negotiable depending on your world view.  That and they got a British born Asian to introduce it. Can't have people with a darker skin tone telling us OUR - and their, but lets not worry about that -  history can we?

Another criticism levelled at the sketch is that is lacks perspective, it doesn't say anything about all the good things the Victorians and Britain did. Which is true, it doesn't, but then it's a comedy sketch for children, it makes one point and it makes it very well, it's how sketches work. You never hear of any of the perfectly healthy parrots the pet shop owner sold in the Dead Parrot sketch do you? Where's the perspective? Next you'll be telling me that 'Allo 'Allo isn't representative of life in German occupied France and not all Dublin matriarchs are men in drag.

Life in German occupied France not all bad. Apparently. 

In the scheme of things it's a silly thing to get annoyed about, but as a children's writer I find it very worrying. It points to an insidious trend. If the future of writing for children means passing some strange Daily Mail criteria for what is and isn't acceptable then we're all screwed.

Children are happy to be challenged, happy to be provoked, happy to question and happy to think for themselves. The evidence of the past few days seems to suggest that certain adults are not. We should always remind ourselves that we're writing for the children who are happy to explore different perspectives, not the grown ups who would rather we reinforce a particular world view.

On a wider note, for anybody who creates anything, if these angry, seemingly educated people feel so threatened by an 11 year old sketch about Queen Victoria on kids TV,  just imagine how they'll feel when faced with more grown up criticism on a news show. Or maybe they'll just select favourable journalists from now on.

Regardless, the shouting voices are getting louder. Post Brexit you're either with us or against us. In an age where a slightly peculiar decade old sketch in which Queen Victoria has sugar poured on her head can cause such indignant rage I worry for anybody who dares to create anything with a dissenting voice, no matter how light hearted it may be.

Ciaran Murtagh's work can currently be seen every Friday at 6pm on CBBC on Crackerjack.  Follow the link to see an unashamedly apolitical Basil Brush doing his thing. 

Oh, Deary Me - John Dougherty

By and large, children's authors are a friendly bunch. We tend to be nice, and helpful, and whilst we come in various levels of forthrightness there are very few I have ever met and not liked, even when we have been in disagreement.

So I hope it will be understood how much it pains me to say that Horrible Histories author Terry Deary has lately been behaving like a great steaming prat.

For those of you who may have missed the row, it begins with Sunderland Council, like so many others, considering sweeping cuts to the library service - including closures - in order to save money. According to the Sunderland Echo, "Sunderland-born Terry Deary welcomed the plans". The Echo goes on to quote Deary as saying that libraries "have had their day... The book is old technology and we have to move on, so good luck to the council.” The following day Deary told the BBC that the closures were "long overdue".

Not unsurprisingly, a lot of authors got a bit cross about this. Now let me make one thing clear: I fully believe that Deary has the right to express his opinion. But that being so, others have the right to express their opinions of his opinion, and many did.

One such has been Alan Gibbons, tireless campaigner for libraries and the importance of the book. You can read Alan's statement here. I think it's pretty measured, all told, and addresses Deary's points, such as they are.

Deary's response? He rudely refers to Alan as "that Gibbon bloke", responds to his offer of a public debate with the offensively dismissive "in his dreams", misrepresents his comments, and with enormous irony accuses him of making "offensive personal remarks".

Oddly for someone with such sensitivity to "offensive personal remarks", Deary also claimed to the Independent that the authors who were criticising him were "the ones with small minds to match their small talents". Riiiiiiiiight. That would be authors like the small-minded and untalented Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, Julia Donaldson, David Almond, Joanne Harris, Matt Haig...

I think that what distresses me most about all of this is that Deary seems to think he's being clever and radical, when in fact all he's doing is chucking about unsubstantiated and inflammatory assertions and then getting cross when people rise to the bait. But I get the feeling that this is his modus operandi.

Back in October 2011, I happened to hear Deary on Woman's Hour, debating with Susan Greenfield on the subject of traditional books and new technologies. Norwegian researcher Anna Mangan also contributed, citing empirical research that suggested that printed matter supports reading comprehension better than screen technology. Deary's response? He dismissed the research as "quite laughable" and "deeply flawed" and the researcher as "just another Luddite". The clip is worth a listen simply to hear Greenfield challenging Deary on his inconsistencies.

And inconsistent he is. The Independent article I linked to above has him saying both :

"It is for me to challenge the established, failing, unfair, irrelevant established order. It needs to be opened up for public debate,"

and:

"I haven’t the time to expend hot air on a meaningless discussion that would change nothing; nor have I the inclination to discuss a topic that no one really cares about."

He also, having made the remarks quoted above, says in another interview "I never attacked libraries," despite, in an interview with The Guardian, claiming "libraries are cutting [authors'] throats and slashing their purses".

And this seems to be the nub of the matter. Deary - one of the UK's most-borrowed authors - appears to believe that if libraries didn't exist then every borrowing would translate into a sale, and instead of £6,000 per year PLR, he'd be making an extra £180,000. Well, I can tell you, Terry - speaking as a not enormously high-earning author whose ten-year old reads even more than I do - that that's just not true. If libraries didn't exist, I'd have to read less. And so would my children. And so would all the other children who depend on libraries. Deary is attacking libraries, despite his protestations; and in doing so, whether or not he realises it, he's attacking literacy. And attacking them with arguments which are flimsy at best, and at worst simply unfounded.

Deary is already a fierce critic of schools - in one interview suggesting that children "should leave school at 11 and go to work" - and has previously called for schools to be banned from using his books, and there is for me a huge irony in his now adding libraries to his hit-list. Because I very strongly suspect that were it not for all the teachers and librarians who have championed his books, few of us would ever have heard of Terry Deary.

Two comments to finish with: firstly, I trust that Mr Deary - should he ever deign to read this post, written as it is by someone he would doubtless dismiss as having a small mind and a small talent - will not accuse me of having called him a great steaming prat. I haven't. I have accused him of lately behaving like one, which is quite different.

And secondly: petty of me, perhaps, but I can't help but be amused by this.
_________________________________________________

John's website is at www.visitingauthor.com.
He's on twitter as @JohnDougherty8

His most recent books include:

Finn MacCool and the Giant's Causeway - a retelling for the Oxford Reading Tree
Bansi O'Hara and the Edges of Hallowe'en
Zeus Sorts It Out - "A sizzling comedy... a blast for 7+" , and one of The Times' Children's Books of 2011, as chosen by Amanda Craig