Banned Books

[sewingmama]

It seems stupid and only something bored Americans would come up with because we have nothing better to do with our time.

 

:lol:

 

I was just thinking - "what banned books" most of those mentioned are still on every library self in Australia. I remember reading To Kill A Mockingbird for Year 11 English.

 

The only book I can remember being banned here was 'Little Black Sambo" which I read at school and loved. I noticed they still have it in libraries now -it's just titled something different .

[Thea]

From the American Library Association (ALA) website:

"Banned Books Week (BBW) is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States."

We totally support banned/challenged books week & celebrate our freedom to read. Yes, both my dc & I have read various books that have appeard on banned/challenged lists. We discuss the importance of the First Amendment & talk about the impact of banning books/censorship.

 

Here is an interesting map that shows locations of book bans & challenges from 2007 to 2010.

 

 

Interesting map! Thanks for posting that.

[mamachanse]

We love banned books. And we named our first Atticus. :D

[twoxcell]

Yes the ;) emoticon generally means I'm being slightly sarcastic.

[mamachanse]

This. In fact there are a few subject matter items I prefer not to have dd read about. Incest, infanticide, genocide and torture of innocents. Any guess what book I have decided is not appropriate?

 

Yes! :iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

When I think of banned books, I think of books like Alms for Jihad, which was first peer reviewed and published, then recalled by the publisher after they were sued (the publisher settled rather than continue the case). They pulled all unsold copies of the book and destroyed them AND also tried to get libraries to pull their copies.

 

I frequently am disappointed in things the ALA does, but I was pleased to see that they did support libraries in the US keeping this book on the shelf. Here's a pretty good article on what happened with Alms for Jihad (it also gives some other good examples of what I'd consider real attempts at censorship).

 

 

The challenges to books in school and public libraries is something that I see differently. In most cases, the books were not in the end removed from the library or from the course. Though in some cases I would agree that a particular book, while a good read, was more appropriate at a different maturity level.

 

But removing a book from the library is hardly banning it, as long as it is still available for purchase. Anymore than a member of this board protesting that Harry Potter is too occult or that Henty is too racist consists of banning it.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

From 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.

 

So, no, we're not talking about a parent telling his or her child not to read a book. We're talking about books that parents and others have tried to have removed from libraries so that no one can read them.

 

It's not the same thing.

 

And, yes, my kids have absolutely read a number of the books on the lists for recent years. In fact, I've assigned a good handful of them.

 

To Kill a Mockingbird? Really?

 

But books don't just appear on the shelves of libraries. They aren't the result of donations by publishers. They are paid for, through taxpayer funding or the efforts of Friends of the Library groups. And shelf space is always finite, so choices have to be made.

 

A library's not having a copy of a books isn't the same as being denied access to it. If it were, then I would have been denied access to any number of books over the years, just because they weren't in my library system. If it was a book I really wanted or needed, then I found a way to get it.

 

Some friends of ours lived for several years in a country where there was no free religious press. She told me once that their underground church had purchased a really slick copy machine, so that if anyone made it into the country with hymnals or devotionals or study materials, it could be copied for the use of others in the church. That is what I think of with banning or restricted access.

[twoforjoy]

I've been so annoyed lately with the things that people embrace as a personal interest when it has absolutely nothing to do with them, really. If a community finds something inappropriate for itself, then it's the communities decision. If no is getting hurt and one does not live there, then it shouldn't be such a big, personal ordeal.

 

I'm kind of struggling to see how what my library does or doesn't carry has nothing to do with me?

 

The problem is that most of the time it's not "the community" deciding that these books are inappropriate; it's a small group of very loud complainers making such a ruckus that books are removed to shut them up. Plus, why should "the community" get to decide what books are available to ALL local taxpayers? If you lived in a predominantly Muslim town, would you like it if your local library, which you supported with your tax dollars just as much as they did, decided it wouldn't carry any Christian-oriented books?

 

I also think it's a sign of class privilege to assume that just because a book is for sale, everybody has access to it. That's simply not the case. Many people rely on libraries for their reading material.

 

"Banned books" are generally books that other people in the community WANT to access that some people feel should not be available. Nobody's talking about libraries having to carry everything. If you local library doesn't carry some obscure or unpopular book, it might just be because there's no interest in it in the community, and you could probably get it via interlibrary loan if you needed it. But, if your local public or school library doesn't carry Harry Potter because a few people think it's demonic, then that's an entirely different issue. It's taking something that they would otherwise carry and that there is a demand for and removing it to keep a vocal minority happy.

Edited May 31, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Lady Florida.]

I'm kind of struggling to see how what my library does or doesn't carry has nothing to do with me?

 

The problem is that most of the time it's not "the community" deciding that these books are inappropriate; it's a small group of very loud complainers making such a ruckus that books are removed to shut them up. Plus, why should "the community" get to decide what books are available to ALL local taxpayers? If you lived in a predominantly Muslim town, would you like it if your local library, which you supported with your tax dollars just as much as they did, decided it wouldn't carry any Christian-oriented books?

 

I also think it's a sign of class privilege to assume that just because a book is for sale, everybody has access to it. That's simply not the case. Many people rely on libraries for their reading material.

 

"Banned books" are generally books that other people in the community WANT to access that some people feel should not be available. Nobody's talking about libraries having to carry everything. If you local library doesn't carry some obscure or unpopular book, it might just be because there's no interest in it in the community, and you could probably get it via interlibrary loan if you needed it. But, if your local public or school library doesn't carry Harry Potter because a few people think it's demonic, then that's an entirely different issue. It's taking something that they would otherwise carry and that there is a demand for and removing it to keep a vocal minority happy.

 

:iagree: with all of this. And we completely support Banned Books Week.

[Mrs Mungo]

But removing a book from the library is hardly banning it, as long as it is still available for purchase. Anymore than a member of this board protesting that Harry Potter is too occult or that Henty is too racist consists of banning it.

 

I disagree. But, this poster said most of what I would have:

 

I'm kind of struggling to see how what my library does or doesn't carry has nothing to do with me?

 

The problem is that most of the time it's not "the community" deciding that these books are inappropriate; it's a small group of very loud complainers making such a ruckus that books are removed to shut them up. Plus, why should "the community" get to decide what books are available to ALL local taxpayers? If you lived in a predominantly Muslim town, would you like it if your local library, which you supported with your tax dollars just as much as they did, decided it wouldn't carry any Christian-oriented books?

 

I also think it's a sign of class privilege to assume that just because a book is for sale, everybody has access to it. That's simply not the case. Many people rely on libraries for their reading material.

 

"Banned books" are generally books that other people in the community WANT to access that some people feel should not be available. Nobody's talking about libraries having to carry everything. If you local library doesn't carry some obscure or unpopular book, it might just be because there's no interest in it in the community, and you could probably get it via interlibrary loan if you needed it. But, if your local public or school library doesn't carry Harry Potter because a few people think it's demonic, then that's an entirely different issue. It's taking something that they would otherwise carry and that there is a demand for and removing it to keep a vocal minority happy.

 

:iagree: Demanding the library remove a book that you don't like *will be* restricting access to that book for some people.

[In The Great White North]

Plus, why should "the community" get to decide what books are available to ALL local taxpayers?

 

Just out of curiosity, who do you think should get to decide what books go in the community library? The ALA?

 

If no one ever lets the librarians know what books they appreciate and what they don't, the librarians will continue aimlessly spending our tax dollars on books no one will read.

 

I'd be a lot happier if they spent less money on their Banned Books Week and more money (any at all, actually) on something I could actually use educating my children. AFAIC, the books they have banned, and the books they consider banned, are not the same books at all.

 

They haven't bought a fiction book I wanted to read in about 50 years.

 

They have no textbooks at all.

 

They only have 3 or 4 Teaching Company sets (audio cassettes.)

 

The dump is a better source of classics than the library.

 

It seems to me that those of us paying the piper should get to call the tunes.

[Tohru]

...

The problem is that most of the time it's not "the community" deciding that these books are inappropriate; it's a small group of very loud complainers making such a ruckus that books are removed to shut them up....

 

...It's taking something that they would otherwise carry and that there is a demand for and removing it to keep a vocal minority happy.

 

First on the library issue: I'm pretty sure most libraries participate in Inter-Library loan, since it's tax payer dollars.

 

Secondly: Does ANY ONE remember the pedophilia book being sold on Amazon that some people were in an uproar about until Amazon removed it? Isn't that censorship? From what I remember, it was only the "very loud complainers making such a ruckus that the book was removed to shut them up". Granted he only sold 2 copies before the FBI arrested him for something unrelated he did in Florida, but still...

[Sebastian (a lady)]

First on the library issue: I'm pretty sure most libraries participate in Inter-Library loan, since it's tax payer dollars.

 

Secondly: Does ANY ONE remember the pedophilia book being sold on Amazon that some people were in an uproar about until Amazon removed it? Isn't that censorship? From what I remember, it was only the "very loud complainers making such a ruckus that the book was removed to shut them up". Granted he only sold 2 copies before the FBI arrested him for something unrelated he did in Florida, but still...

 

My experience with ILL is that more public libraries (ie, city or county libraries, not associated with a college or university) are limiting or ending ILL because it costs so much for them. It's been a while since I checked, but the libraries were being charged for each World Cat search, had to pay postage for the books and were charged at the end of the year if they were a net borrower vs being a net loaner in the ILL system. (NB: The fees for ILL may be different now than they were a few years ago.)

 

Inter library loan is different than getting a book that is at another branch in the same library system or getting a book from a nearby library that is part of a regional library consortium.

[Stacia]

The problem is that most of the time it's not "the community" deciding that these books are inappropriate; it's a small group of very loud complainers making such a ruckus that books are removed to shut them up. Plus, why should "the community" get to decide what books are available to ALL local taxpayers? If you lived in a predominantly Muslim town, would you like it if your local library, which you supported with your tax dollars just as much as they did, decided it wouldn't carry any Christian-oriented books?

 

I also think it's a sign of class privilege to assume that just because a book is for sale, everybody has access to it. That's simply not the case. Many people rely on libraries for their reading material.

 

:iagree: Excellent post, twoforjoy.

 

I think often the small, incremental chipping away of our rights to read/have access to these books (such as challenging/banning books from school or local libraries, even if they're still available for purchase from stores) can, unfortunately, sensitize us into thinking that it's ok to challenge or ban some books. When it progresses to the next level of challenging/banning, it won't seem so bad either. Gradual erosion can destroy many rights w/out a huge public outcry; in fact, most people probably won't notice that their rights have been eroded.

 

That's part of the reason I strongly support the 'banned books week' activities to publicize the problems that challenging/banning cause. Yes, here in the US, we still have many freedoms not afforded to many others. Yet, I feel we must support & protect these freedoms before they're eroded by apathy or a loud subsection that doesn't actually speak for everyone. Challening/banning books is an early step on the road toward censorship. I don't want to think that we'll get there, but there are plenty of countries/communities/groups that have; I think the history books can support me in saying that (assuming you still have the freedom to access, read, & learn from those history books ;)).

[vonfirmath]

I dislike Banned Books Week. It strikes me as propaganda to promote the idea that reading is an end in itself, not a means to an end (in other words, the "as long as they are reading something" philosophy without regard to the quality or values of what they are reading.)

 

In the first place, most of them seem to end up on reading lists, so they are hardly banned.

 

In the second place, many of them have no other claim to fame and are of such little interest or merit they would never have been read widely in the first place.

 

A book really has to have something more for me to read or assign it than just having been banned somewhere.

 

This. The "banned" title for Banned Books seems to mean a book was challenged somewhere. Not that it literally can not be sold.

 

I find it my job as a parent to challenge the content of the books I choose. and my job as a citizen of a community to try to keep community standards in place. Even here we bemeoan the Hannah Anderson (or whatever) books that are in the library. is it really such a stretch to wish the library would spend its money on different books than the pop culture?

[Dmmetler]

Looking at the top 100, most of them are books I wouldn't want my daughter reading yet. I absolutely censored "Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry" off of the Sonlight 3/4 book list. It's not a bad book-but it's not one I want to read aloud to a child who will have just turned 7 when it comes up in the core next Spring. Most of the classics are that way. Reading them in high school literature? Sure. Reading them in elementary school? No.

 

Junie B and Captain Underpants...well, they don't meet my standards for what I want DD reading. Same with the stinky baby one.

 

Many of the other series-Alice, Anastasia, and the like are good books that I remember reading, but again not now. My DD is capable of reading them, but doesn't need to read them yet. I know that I ran into trouble when I was about her age because a librarian recommended "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing"-not thinking about the fact that after I'd read about Peter and Fudge and Shelia, I'd end up going on to Blubber, Deenie, and Forever, which, while they might have been good books for kids the age of the protagonists, they weren't a good choice for a precocious 1st grader!

 

And somehow, when you censor a book about developing sexuality because it talks about developing sexuality, you're kind of missing the point.

[Mommy22alyns]

My experience with ILL is that more public libraries (ie, city or county libraries, not associated with a college or university) are limiting or ending ILL because it costs so much for them.

 

 

Our small, small town library charges something outrageous for ILL. So I never get to use it.

[KristinaBreece]

This. The "banned" title for Banned Books seems to mean a book was challenged somewhere. Not that it literally can not be sold.

 

I find it my job as a parent to challenge the content of the books I choose. and my job as a citizen of a community to try to keep community standards in place. Even here we bemeoan the Hannah Anderson (or whatever) books that are in the library. is it really such a stretch to wish the library would spend its money on different books than the pop culture?

 

Isn't Hanna Anderson a clothing line?

 

Looking at the top 100, most of them are books I wouldn't want my daughter reading yet. I absolutely censored "Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry" off of the Sonlight 3/4 book list. It's not a bad book-but it's not one I want to read aloud to a child who will have just turned 7 when it comes up in the core next Spring. Most of the classics are that way. Reading them in high school literature? Sure. Reading them in elementary school? No.

 

Junie B and Captain Underpants...well, they don't meet my standards for what I want DD reading. Same with the stinky baby one.

 

Many of the other series-Alice, Anastasia, and the like are good books that I remember reading, but again not now. My DD is capable of reading them, but doesn't need to read them yet. I know that I ran into trouble when I was about her age because a librarian recommended "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing"-not thinking about the fact that after I'd read about Peter and Fudge and Shelia, I'd end up going on to Blubber, Deenie, and Forever, which, while they might have been good books for kids the age of the protagonists, they weren't a good choice for a precocious 1st grader!

 

And somehow, when you censor a book about developing sexuality because it talks about developing sexuality, you're kind of missing the point.

 

I got Forever our of a public elementary school library. My mother confiscated it as soon as she saw the cover. I think I was 7 or 8. When she did let me read it (7th or 8th grade), I fully got why she wouldn't let me read it in 2nd or 3rd grade. :lol:

[twoforjoy]

Secondly: Does ANY ONE remember the pedophilia book being sold on Amazon that some people were in an uproar about until Amazon removed it? Isn't that censorship? From what I remember, it was only the "very loud complainers making such a ruckus that the book was removed to shut them up". Granted he only sold 2 copies before the FBI arrested him for something unrelated he did in Florida, but still...

 

Amazon is a private business; they can carry whatever they want or not. That's very different, in my mind, than a library or other public institution deciding to make a book that some (or many) patrons want unavailable to them because of what are often sectarian complaints from a small group of objectors.

[twoforjoy]

I know that I ran into trouble when I was about her age because a librarian recommended "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing"-not thinking about the fact that after I'd read about Peter and Fudge and Shelia, I'd end up going on to Blubber, Deenie, and Forever, which, while they might have been good books for kids the age of the protagonists, they weren't a good choice for a precocious 1st grader!

 

I think most kids are pretty good at self-censoring, honestly. At least my kid is. He really wanted to start reading Harry Potter. I feel like the first few books are okay (he's 7), but the later books are too mature. But, I figured he'd probably get bored by the third or fourth book anyway, because while the adventures of an 11- and 12-year-old are fun for a little kid to read about, they really aren't particularly interested in what teenagers are doing, and that's what happened. He zipped through the first two books, loving them, slogged through the third, and gave up about two chapters into the fourth, saying it was boring. When he's older, maybe he'll go back and find the later books more interesting.

 

I don't think that a librarian has to think about an author's oeuvre before recommending a book to a child. If Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing is age-appropriate on its own merits, I don't think it should be either unavailable or not recommended to those its appropriate for because some of Judy Blume's other books aren't. If she was recommending Forever to first graders, that would be an entirely different issue.

[Dmmetler]

I think most kids are pretty good at self-censoring, honestly. At least my kid is. He really wanted to start reading Harry Potter. I feel like the first few books are okay (he's 7), but the later books are too mature. But, I figured he'd probably get bored by the third or fourth book anyway, because while the adventures of an 11- and 12-year-old are fun for a little kid to read about, they really aren't particularly interested in what teenagers are doing, and that's what happened. He zipped through the first two books, loving them, slogged through the third, and gave up about two chapters into the fourth, saying it was boring. When he's older, maybe he'll go back and find the later books more interesting.

 

I don't think that a librarian has to think about an author's oeuvre before recommending a book to a child. If Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing is age-appropriate on its own merits, I don't think it should be either unavailable or not recommended to those its appropriate for because some of Judy Blume's other books aren't. If she was recommending Forever to first graders, that would be an entirely different issue.

 

No, but it would have been nice if she'd at least noticed what I was checking out. Honestly, I loved Judy Blume as a child-and didn't find the books boring in the slightest. I think I tended to just kind of gloss over the less appropriate sections and not have them register-until later when I wondered, "I read THAT???".

 

I had a similar situation with "Clan of the Cave Bear"-a social studies teacher recommended it as a "great book about prehistory". To this day, I have to wonder what he was thinking recommending that one to a 13 yr old???

[katilac]

No, but it would have been nice if she'd at least noticed what I was checking out.

 

Eh, I don't particularly want the librarian to be noticing or commenting on the books my kids are checking out. I think it's the parents' job to be aware of what their young children are checking out. And honestly, I'd be very surprised if they are even looking at the titles. If a 7-yr-old walked up to the desk with a book that had a very risque cover, I could see them noticing, but other than that? Not really.

[LizzyBee]

That said, I disagree that censorship is ever the right answer for an entire community. I think all books should be available in public libraries and all age-appropriate material should be available in public school libraries & that individuals and families should determine for themselves what they/their children can/should read.

 

This is not a realistic goal due to lack of space. Even large urban libraries don't have all books. Personally, I wish libraries would get rid of most modern fiction and replace it with classics, but that's never going to happen. When my kids were younger, I didn't even take them to the library because at least 75% of the books are crap (imo), and I didn't want to argue about what they could or couldn't take home. So I requested books online and picked them by myself.

 

I am not a fan of Banned Books week, but I'm a fan of many books that have been challenged. To Kill a Mockingbird is very high on my list of favorite books.

Edited June 1, 2011 by LizzyBee

[TravelingChris]

I looked at that challenged book list and saw the book that is on the summer reading list for 9th graders where we are moving. After reading the objection, I have decided I will be substituting another sometimes banned book- To Kill a Mockingbird. It has a similar theme in a similar situation and I do know that it has nothing I consider objectionable. Would I disallow my youngest to read the other book? Probably not but it isn't the kind of book she wants to read (and neither is To Kill a Mockingbird) so I doubt she would.

 

Now what I really, really don't understand is the objection to Animal Farm because of communism- huh???? It is an anti-communist book. Somehow I think that either the people protesting the book either never read it and knew nothing about it or else they are very stupid.

[KristinaBreece]

This is not a realistic goal due to lack of space. Even large urban libraries don't have all books. Personally, I wish libraries would get rid of most modern fiction and replace it with classics, but that's never going to happen. When my kids were younger, I didn't even take them to the library because at least 75% of the books are crap (imo), and I didn't want to argue about what they could or couldn't take home. So I requested books online and picked them by myself.

 

I am not a fan of Banned Books week, but I'm a fan of many books that have been challenged. To Kill a Mockingbird is very high on my list of favorite books.

 

Obviously a library can't stock every book ever printed. That wasn't what I meant. My intent was to say that it is not okay, IMO, for a group to lobby for a library to stock or not stock a certain book that holds value in the eyes of others because they object to something in it themselves. Library systems have processes in place to choose what they will stock. If you'd like to see your library stock something, I'm certain there's a way to get that view point out there. There is also a reasonable way to tell a librarian that you found something objectionable about a particular book for yourself or your children, and then you have the right to never look at that book again. That is not the same as forming a frenzied mob who push the library to remove that material for all people because you didn't like it.

 

The books on the list are books that have (often successfully) been lobbied for banning completely from libraries & public schools in communities across the country for various reasons.

[In The Great White North]

Library systems have processes in place to choose what they will stock.

 

What is it?

 

I've often thought they could keep track of searches, now that the card catalogs are all computerized, but I don't think they do. And they get books no one has ever heard of, so it can't just be requests.

[twoforjoy]

This is not a realistic goal due to lack of space. Even large urban libraries don't have all books. Personally, I wish libraries would get rid of most modern fiction and replace it with classics, but that's never going to happen.

 

And thank goodness for that! Most people want to read modern fiction more than they want to read classics; public libraries should be about providing the community with what it wants, not the government deciding what it thinks people should be reading and stocking that.

 

I've yet to find a library that didn't stock the classics, though. I guess I've just been fortunate to live in areas where libraries were valued at least a little bit and there was a good selection of books (and easy, free ILL access).

[KristinaBreece]

What is it?

 

I've often thought they could keep track of searches, now that the card catalogs are all computerized, but I don't think they do. And they get books no one has ever heard of, so it can't just be requests.

 

Our library has a board that votes on the material the library buys. They have a suggestion box for the community and take those requests into consideration when deciding these things.

[kiana]

I had a similar situation with "Clan of the Cave Bear"-a social studies teacher recommended it as a "great book about prehistory". To this day, I have to wonder what he was thinking recommending that one to a 13 yr old???

 

Heh.

 

I read that, all of Anne McCaffrey's stuff and most of Heinlein's later stuff, and never even noticed the sex. I went back to reread some of these far later and was astonished, both at the amount of adult content and at the nonconsensuality involved in the dragonrider books.