Banned books

[Shem the Penman]

This came up on a listserv I subscribe to, and I thought folks might think it of interest.

--

ALA is co-sponsoring Banned Books Week Sept. 21-28 (more info at www.ala.org/bbooks/), and I thought you'd be interested in the top list of 2001. It reads like a who's who of YA books.

The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2001:

1. Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling, for its focus on wizardry and magic.

2. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language and being unsuited to age group.

3. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier (the "Most Challenged" fiction book of 1998), for using offensive language and being unsuited to age group.

4. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, for sexual content, racism, offensive language, violence and being unsuited to age group.

5. Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene for racism, offensive language and being sexually explicit.

6. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger for offensive language and being unsuited to age group.

7. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, for being sexually explicit, using offensive language and being unsuited to age group.

8. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous for being sexually explicit, for offensive language and drug use.

9. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers, for offensive language and being unsuited to age group.

10. Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause for being sexually explicit and unsuited to age group.

 

[He-Man]

This came up on a listserv I subscribe to, and I thought folks might think it of interest.

--

ALA is co-sponsoring Banned Books Week Sept. 21-28 (more info at www.ala.org/bbooks/), and I thought you'd be interested in the top list of 2001. It reads like a who's who of YA books.

The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2001:

1. Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling, for its focus on wizardry and magic.

And yet, those same parents will take their kids to see a Disney movie, which usually has *GASP!* ....magic and wizardry!

 

[Sunriseticklee]

You have GOT to be kidding! LOL
Most of those book are either at my house or on my bookshelf at school.

Now I personally see NO literary value for Harry Potter (besides the fact that it magically got kids interested in reading... and HEY that's the point. Better than that stupid Goosebumps Drivel... Ooops I hope R.L. Stein isn't a ticklephile LOL). But I don't see any reason to band the silly little book... There is wizard and such in The High King and in The Black Cauldron.. and countless others... and YET they aren't banned.

Summer or my German Soldier is hardly sexually explict
Blood and Chocolate is a bit risque... But it is good read for more mature middle schoolers


I haven't read Fallen Angels or Go Ask Alice... But I think I do have Go Ask Alice here at home.

And I remember in 7th grade, my mother wrote a letter to the school saying that I wasn't allowed to read of Mice and Men due to content and language. I didn't read it with the class, but checked it out later on that year and DID read it.

LOL Very interesting

Live, Laugh and tickle
Sunriseticklee

 

[venray]

What is it about the written word that strikes so much fear into the ignorant? Sigh...the ones doing the most complaining probably haven't read a single one of them.


Ven

 

[tklr5150]

Did anyone else just get a mental audio flashback of Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade" telling that Nazi, "It tells me that goose-stepping swine like yourself would learn more by reading books instead of burning them!" in that inimitable Sean Connery voice?

 

[Strelnikov]

Shem, more details please...

Who wants these books banned, and for what audience? Is this for school reading lists? If so, it's not a simple First Amendment matter.

My right to raise my child as I see fit trumps the First Amendment. If my 4th grader was given some of these books as a reading assignment, I would raise hell. Some of them are unsuitable for the 8th grade. Kids grow up too fast these days. Some of us would like to allow our kids to be kids - not forced into premature adulthood.

Strelnikov

 

[Sunriseticklee]

Did anyone else just get a mental audio flashback of Sean Connery in "Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade" telling that Nazi, "It tells me that goose-stepping swine like yourself would learn more by reading books instead of burning them!" in that inimitable Sean Connery voice?

Damn damn damn... Now I HAVE to watch the video.... He is soooooo soooo sooo fine. I love Sean Connery


*Can't wait to get to school so I can see that giant poster of him hanging up right over my desk!*

Sunrise

 

[Shem the Penman]

The ALA defines "challenge" as a formal attempt to remove the book in question from library shelves or school curriculum, or to otherwise make it unavailable. (One popular tactic with book-banners, if their request for removal is refused by the library, is to simply check out the book and never return it.)

Or to quote the ALA website: "Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others."

Most challenges were made to schools and school libraries, but the ALA doesn't distinguish between those books that were on a required reading list and those that were simply available in the school library. Nor, should I note, does it specify which grade levels were involved for the "inappropriate for age group" claims.

You may have the right to raise your kids as you see fit, but you do not have the right to dictate other peoples' kids' reading habits, which is what is under discussion here.

 

[BigJim]

What is it about the written word that strikes so much fear into the ignorant? Sigh...the ones doing the most complaining probably haven't read a single one of them.


Ven

Agreed Ray.

Most people who take this line of thinking seem to be right-wing, puritanical, christians. (Or any right wing religious person, but Christianity is predominant in America.) This sort of people seem to think that strangling their own children's reading and education is not enough and seek to do it to EVERY child in the country.

Guys, this message is for you.........

YOUR THINKING BELONGS IN THE DARK AGE!!!!! We don't want any nazi arseholes dictating to us what we can and can't read. If God diapproves, He's got all the time in the world to punish us. Stop being so damn arrogant and leave that sort of thing to Him!

 

[shark]

My view of this topic is somewhat less pointed than others,since I have no kids.If there are books that are inappropriate for age groups,objectionable for sexual content,or being used in discriminatory ways,the parents of the involved children have every right to challenge them if they are a part of the curriculum.If there are not enough complaints,the books will stay anyhow.If there are,the books in question will be in libraries,either school or public for those still interested in reading them.
After looking up the site Shem posted,I could find no specifics on the age groups involved in the challenges.Strelnikov is right in questioning the circumstances.
Hey Jim,are you confused as to where you actually live?The schools in the US have nothing to do with what you read, and any similar problems in the UK are your problem.
Aside from that,why bring God into this discussion,as you never posted any worries about it before,and it is people of your way of thinking that got God removed from curriculum years ago anyway?

 

[BigJim]

.
Hey Jim,are you confused as to where you actually live?The schools in the US have nothing to do with what you read, and any similar problems in the UK are your problem.
Aside from that,why bring God into this discussion,as you never posted any worries about it before,and it is people of your way of thinking that got God removed from curriculum years ago anyway?

I know exactly where I live, but we do have the Eva Braun types here too.(The name Mary Whitehouse springs to mind!)As to being "my problem" here in the UK, I'd like to think that our societies are similar enough to be able discuss this on a more or less equal footing.

People like me got God removed from the curriculum? Shark, you misjudge me badly. I actually believe in God. I think that R.E. is a vital part of a childs schooling.Believeing that people who don't want to swear alleigance to "one nation, under God" should'nt have to, has nothing to do with it. That's about indoctrination, not education. What I dislike are organised religions that slaughter spirituality in the name of keeping the masses under control. Don't lump me in with the atheists, because you could'nt be further from the truth.

As to whether certain books should be removed from a curriculum, well possibly they should. I don't think I'd like a 13 year old of mine to be reading Lady Chatterly's Lover. I never said that schools should'nt be selective. I said that people within "our" society should be free to choose. The original thread may have been about schools or not, but I was refering to book-burning in general. If you don't get what I mean, then watch "Field of Dreams" with Kevin Costner. Typical case of puritanistic censorship, because it didn't accord to traditional christian values.

 

[shark]

Jim,I wasn't the one who said that his higher self would be his judging self.That is a humanistic approach,and secular humanism is the force behind removing references to God from the public school classroom.
Also,while you object to "One nation under God" as indoctrination, many parents regard books promoting homosexuality and gay parenting as indoctrination.This is especially true when opposing views are silenced by use of "hate speech",discrimination, and political correctness laws and policies.This is compounded by,at least in PA, the objection of school districts and public school supporters to school vouchers.
I would think that there would be more concern that so many of school kids can't read properly,or even make change.It doesn't make alot of sense to worry about what books are challenged when the potential readers can't fathom simple reading and/or math skills.

 

[Shem the Penman]

And exactly how does removing books from the shelves do anything to help kids and young adults learn to read?

 

[Strelnikov]

Shem, you're young and childless. Get married, start a family, then try raising a child in our society. Once you've done that, you'll be qualified to talk to me again about removing "unsuitable" material from school libraries.

Public libraries are another matter. But I think that parental permission should be required before children can check out books from the Adult section, which is where most of the books on your list belong.

Strelnikov

 

[areenactor]

i am in agreement with strel.

but thats not too suprising, he's a pretty smart guy.
i have 4 kids, and there are a couple of books on that list that i don't think they should read untill they are in high school. some of them are just for entertainment, and i see nothing wrong with that.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Jim,I wasn't the one who said that his higher self would be his judging self.That is a humanistic approach,and secular humanism is the force behind removing references to God from the public school classroom.
Also,while you object to "One nation under God" as indoctrination, many parents regard books promoting homosexuality and gay parenting as indoctrination.This is especially true when opposing views are silenced by use of "hate speech",discrimination, and political correctness laws and policies.This is compounded by,at least in PA, the objection of school districts and public school supporters to school vouchers.
I would think that there would be more concern that so many of school kids can't read properly,or even make change.It doesn't make alot of sense to worry about what books are challenged when the potential readers can't fathom simple reading and/or math skills.

All depends on how you interpret what I said. My "higher/judging self" is something that I consider to be a part of "God/the Oversoul/The Almighty/etc". As far as my beliefs go, every person's higher self is a gift to them from The Almighty. In that way, you could say that God is my judge. I reject ancient teachings because they were meant for largely un-educated and spiritually- knowledgeless people. Nowadays millions of people the world over are hearin the ticking of the spiritual alarm clock and are waking up to the true strength in their souls. I guess you could say that I believe that now is the time when people can move closer to "God" than ever before. Perhaps these are the End Days and that's the reason why people can be so much more aware now. Perhaps something in everyone's sub-sonscious is stirring for the first time since the Golden Times.

As to books promoting alternative sexualities, I don't regard them as indoctrination because they aren't jammed into every bodily orifice and in front of the eyes of every child in the land. A few new age hippies who sneaked into the teaching profession might try that, but I wouldn't. In an ideal world (something I'm very aware that we don't have yet) this stuff would just be made available for studying when a child is of an old enough age to understand the concept of sexuality. I would'nt have young kids forced to read it any more than I would have them forced to swear alleigance.

I'm very glad you dislike that "hate speech" crap. In a way it's like political correctness in reverse. Simply because you might want to be circumspect as to what degree kids are educated at a young age, people shout, "homophobic/rascist/jew hater/etc". This is a dirty and underhand practice and was until recently used most prolifically by the evil communist bastards who turned newly independant African countries into third world pariahs. (Zimbabwe for example.) After independance, the USSR conveniently placed a lot of communists into these places and played the race card with wild abandon. Let's say that umbaloonga-land had recently won independance from whatever colonial power,(believe it or not, Britain wasn't the only one ) and their new "home-grown" government was in fact a bunch of thieving communists who were being covertly controlled by the soviets. They were planning on using millions of pounds/dollars of foreign aid to fuel a civil war in their or a neighbouring country's territory. As a front to this, they'd say that they were planning to use it for a grain production program. Someone in Britain's government would get wind of this and tell someone higher. An announcement would go out saying that the aid was being witheld. The new communists leading the newly independant nation would immiediatley brand it as "blatant rascism" and the world's shrieking, liberal press ( largely American it has to be said, in this instance ) would raise the most incredible hue and cry about it. Sanctions would be threatened, threats would be made and the offending country would cave-in under a storm of international pressure. The communists would get their money and the civil war would be cheerfully funded for the next 5 or 10 years.

I also agree with you about the basic reading and maths skills. That is more important than anything else and it's vital that it's worked on. I can't think of anything more important in children's education these days. However, just because that would be the first priority, I don't see why other things should be worried about. This case in particular with the issue of "book burning" is all about what a lot of Americans consider to be the most important and fundemental amendment to the consitution; the first! Free speech is the most vital thing in the free world. But like a lot of powerful things, it can't be abused. The right to use it yourself, does not mean the right to indoctrinate others by abuse of it, when they are too young to have developed an adequate critical analysis faculty. This sort of thing doesn't even begin to develop until the age of six and can takes years on end to grow to full fruition.

 

[Shem the Penman]

Strel: I'm 32 and already married. Please try working as a librarian and dealing with wannabe censors -- maybe then you'll be qualified to lecture me on my professional ethics.

Again, since the point doesn't seem to be sinking in: you do have the right to keep your kids from reading/seeing anything you might consider unsuitable for them (up to and including Harry Potter, should that make you nervous). You do not have the right to tell other people how to raise their children.

Incidentally, I first read The Lord of the Rings in fifth grade. I got it out of our library's adult section. Didn't warp me for life. Neither did any of the advanced materials I read back when I was a kid.

 

[areenactor]

a question for shem

do you agree with the position of the library association, that kids should be allowed full and unrestricted access to the internet, including porn sites, on the library computers?
i am against it. there is enough disgusting material out there already! we don't need to encourage children to view porn.
since when is/was lord of the rings considered offensive?
steve

 

[Shem the Penman]

Nobody wants kids looking at porn sites, least of all librarians. Please read the ALA's fact sheet on the matter more carefully -- it states specifically that the ALA does not endorse the viewing of pornography by anyone. The ALA (and I) oppose use of filtering software because, frankly, it doesn't work. Every filtering program still lets some adult sites through, while blocking non-porn materials that users might want. There are many better strategies for keeping kids from viewing porn on the Internet, some of which the ALA discusses on the above-referenced page.

And if you're trying to make an analogy between those sites and the books under discussion, I think there's a hell of a difference between porn and classic, award-winning, and enduring books like The Chocolate War, Of Mice and Men, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, et al.

But thanks for bringing this up, because it leads to a bigger question, one that everyone advocating restrictions ought to answer: who makes the rules? Who decides what should be available to read and what shouldn't? And if it's you, who are you to make that decision for everyone else?

And here's a counter-question -- would you support parents who wanted Huckleberry Finn off the shelves because of its use of the word "nigger" and its portrayal of the character Jim? If not, why is this any more ridiculous than banishing Harry Potter because the books mention witchcraft and wizardry, or demanding that The Catcher in the Rye be removed for "offensive language"?

 

[venray]

Sorry all, but I am old and have 3 kids..aged 3 10 and 16......I want no books removed from the shelves....Instead, I teach my children to discuss the things they read with me and thereby make it a learning experience,,,sometimes for all of us..we do not protect our chidren by
sheltering them and hiding things from them..

On the contrary...THAT does more harm then good in the long run....

Ven

 

[BigJim]

Strel: I'm 32 and already married. Please try working as a librarian and dealing with wannabe censors -- maybe then you'll be qualified to lecture me on my professional ethics.

Again, since the point doesn't seem to be sinking in: you do have the right to keep your kids from reading/seeing anything you might consider unsuitable for them (up to and including Harry Potter, should that make you nervous). You do not have the right to tell other people how to raise their children.

Incidentally, I first read The Lord of the Rings in fifth grade. I got it out of our library's adult section. Didn't warp me for life. Neither did any of the advanced materials I read back when I was a kid.

Shem, now I know why you are monikered "The Penman"! You put all I ever wanted to say on the subject in a tenth of the space I managed. You ever thought of giving English classes?

(And this is from a limey who hates admitting inferiority in the use of English to Americans! Stunning eh?)

 

[BigJim]

Sorry all, but I am old and have 3 kids..aged 3 10 and 16......I want no books removed from the shelves....Instead, I teach my children to discuss the things they read with me and thereby make it a learning experience,,,sometimes for all of us..we do not protect our chidren by
sheltering them and hiding things from them..

On the contrary...THAT does more harm then good in the long run....

Ven

Three cheers for Venray folks! Mate, that is the best point made thuse far. Even if something is on the shelves that you disagree with, burning it and burying it's existence is the best way to make sure your kids read it. From that sort of attitude is born unparalelled ignorance. It's only sensible to judge what they're old enough to be able to understand, but bringing all the foibles of the literary world into the open is the only way to truly teach children.

I'd even recomend Mein Kampf to older readers. Yes, Hitler was the biggest villain in the world's history, but we have to be able to understand the arsehole's mind-set and thoughts to be able to prevent anything like him ever existing again.

 

[areenactor]

no books should be banned

or burned. i never said they should be shem. but i do believe some books should be held till kids are older before alowing them access.
i believe strongly that the internet access at libraries should be filtered. if there is anything that is blocked that the kid legitimately needs, then the parents can come in with the kid to obtain this material. though for the life of me, this is a rediculos arguement. i do believe that some teachers are whackos, and get a salacious kick out of presenting questionable material to little kids.
look there is nothing wrong with huck finn, or catcher in the rye, just so those books are read at an appropriate age.
steve

 

[JoBelle]

In as much as non-parents want to protect access to knowledge, parents want it more. Part of the education a parent gives a child is something more powerful than the classics. It's giving our children the ability to make choices of "right and wrong" that fall in line with our worldview. Until you are a parent yourself, you will only THINK you undertand the passion behind a parent's desire to protect a young person. Since this issue is primarily about keeping books out of the hands of children, that fact should be remembered.

It is the parents' desire to allow the innocence of childhood remain as long as possible. It's necessary to development through childhood, the learning teen years into a fully aware adult. What they want banned is not the content of the books. The word "nigger," or a woman's neck being cracked on a barn floor are not at tissue. It's simply that as much as we don't want a child watching a murder for entertainment on television, we want them reading about it and imagining it even less....until they are old enough to grasp the concepts behind the storyline.

These books were written by ADULTS, likely for adults to read. That's a simple fact. I want my son to read them all. Of Mice and Men, Portrait of the Artist, All's Quiet on the Western Front, Our Town, Das Kapital, Faust and the list carries on....BUT, I want him to be old enough to APPRECIATE the works. Giving early access to these does not enrich our children. They can read them all day long. BUT...until they are old enough to digest the material it does them no good other than to say, "I read a grown up book." I'll personally gift my son the story of the fella who liked to pet mice in his pocket...when he's old enough to dig that it's about more than "a couple of guys talking to a few other guys."

Banned books? No.
Books monitored by all adults to all children? SURE

Kids aren't small adults. They aren't emotionally or mentally prepared to digest adult material. It's our job to see that they get what they need...WHEN they need it. It's a thing called social responsibility.

Funny how the people who are screaming "don't take away our RIGHTS!" are often the last people in line to help carry the burden that comes with them. If you are a parent, or you ever work with children in a profession that by choice causes you to interact with them, then you've chosen a path that demands that you be concerned with the developement of their minds and character. IT's our job to let them be kids. I hear the words echoing off the walls of home, school and community...."Well, we can't monitor all the kids. We can't make sure they aren't reading adults material. We can't stop the libraries from letting our kids get the books. We can't make the choices for the parents. It's all too complicated and hard. It's too much work." I say until telepathy becomes commonplace...lol....that as long as kids are going to have access to adult literature, they should require a guradian's consent. It's too easy to hand a kid a book and think it's harmless.

Everyone wants the easy way out by tossing lofty words around. In the end, if you allow a child to have material meant for an adult and you aren't there to help explain the things that only life experience will teach them....then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Joby

 

[BigJim]

Amen.