Farrell v. Sim

In a long, liverish, open letter to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, Chicago's James T. Farrell, one of the most earnest authors and worst writers in the U.S., took issue with Canadian censorship. The reason: Ottawa had placed a ban on importation of his new novel, Bernard Clare, a lacklustre portrait of the artist as a young man.

Said Farrell: "I have [never] written one line which a fair-minded human being can term 'pornographic'. . . . For some years now, the prejudiced forces of censorship have been straining at the leash in the United States in order to begin a new witch hunt against serious and honest writing. These forces [may] begin a reactionary campaign of legal book lynching in this country. Your Government . . . can well provide the necessary example."

It was highly unlikely that Mr. King, who is fond of reading the Bible, had read Bernard Clare; and he has nothing to do with censorship. The book had been banned by David Sim, an able official of the Customs and Excise department who detests the censorship phase of his job.

Of Farrell's new novel, he said: "I discovered at least two chapters which I consider indecent. There was nothing else I could do about it but slap on the ban. . . . We're not on a witch hunt. The fewer such decisions we have to make the better we like it."

Actually, Canadians like to think that they are as broadminded about artistic freedom as the next country. They usually are. What often gives Canadian censorship a bad name is on-the-spot censorship by local customs officials who sometimes feel that riding their own prejudices is interpreting the law.

Oddly enough, there is nothing to prevent a Canadian firm from taking over and publishing a banned book like Bernard Clare. The responsibility for its approval or rejection then rests with the attorneys general of the different provinces.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.