It's banned book week

And to mark the occasion the American Library Association has published the annual list of most challenged authors and books to let us know what tickles the neuroses of reactionaries.

The winners for 2007 are:

Most challenged books

1) “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group

2) The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence

3) “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language

4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint

5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism

6) “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language,

7) "TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

8) "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit

9) “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit

10) "The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

Most challenged authors

1) Robert Cormier
2) Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
3) Mark Twain
4) Toni Morrison
5) Philip Pullman
6) Kevin Henkes
7) Lois Lowry
8) Chris Crutcher
9) Lauren Myracle
10) Joann Sfar

ALA (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/frequentlychallengedbooks.cfm#tmfcbo2007)

As Neil Gaiman (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/) said: "I'm deeply, happily proud of Mark Twain, who is still raising hackles and tweaking noses 99 years after his death."

You've got to be kidding. I mean, I know you aren't, but geez Louise. If the books bother some people that much, don't buy them! Don't check them out of a library!

Gone With the Wind is racist, right? It's also one of my all-time favorite books. The same is true of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The Color Purple and Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings are on the required reading list for Upper School students at the prep school my grandchildren attend. I loved both.

I don't like this book banning business, and consider it part and parcel of the dumbing-down of American students.

I think I'll read a "banned" book this week...

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was my favourite book as a child. I was 6 and I was able to sense the difference between promoting racism and challenging racism (which is what I believe Huck Finn does). It was written at a time when the world was that way. Should we ban Jane Austen too, for portraying women as aspiring only to marriage and having no civil rights?

Doing away with books portraying the world like it was before the newly emerged priorities of the second half of the 20th century is practically promoting ignorance. In order to understand how our world came to be this way and why tolerance, equality and the rest of the values we place so high today are of such vital importance to our society and the world in general, we need to know their history and how they came into such prominence; and what the world can look like without them (all put in very simple terms). Banning books which portray a world or a society, or human relationships which are less than what we envision today as a perfect situation is very short-sighted and narrow-minded in my opinion, a view which fails to take in the bigger picture, neither in retrospect, nor reagarding the future, or the current situation.

I find it very hard to believe this can be serious...

You've got to be kidding. I mean, I know you aren't, but geez Louise. If the books bother some people that much, don't buy them! Don't check them out of a library

:agree: Constant moaning by shallow skinned people really annoys me, the sort of people who take everything personally and decide to take a personal and up front interest in other people's affairs. For example by trying to dictate which books they can and can't read.

I've read five out of ten of those books, and the majority of that five I read before I turned thirteen. Banned books, I mean, really... Whatever happened to free speech... Silliness, I think, that classics like some of those are being banned still.

"I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" was probably one of the most powerful nooks I ever read. It proves that regardless of situation, you can do anything if you put your mind to it, and Maya Angelou is a hero for writing it as far as I'm concerned.

And yet, despite the explicitness of American Psycho, it's never challenged because it's a "valid social commentary"... And yet Maya Angelou's story of what goes on behind closed doors, is not classified as such. Shame. :no:

I haven't read any of those books, except for Huckleberry Finn, but it is rather rediculous to ban them. Most of those books shouldn't even be banned -- and the one about sex ed... that just cracked me up :lol:.

Hello, how is anyone supposed to learn about that kind of thing, if they aren't allowed to read about it? It just doesn't make that much sense to me :huh: :hmm:...

The kind of books that get banned are made into movies that people are allowed to watch, in other words, no one's upset that people watch those types of movies. What's the difference?

Oh, people get upset and picket. It's just that it is harder to pressure cinemas because they aren't controlled by local authorities the way that libraries are.

In cases where that is true it happens. The UK town of Torquay had just this week lifted a 28 year ban on The Life of Brian Tol (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4821208.ece). (Although the good folk of Torquay have another bone to pick with John Cleese.)

Oh, people get upset and picket. It's just that it is harder to pressure cinemas because they aren't controlled by local authorities the way that libraries are.

In cases where that is true it happens. The UK town of Torquay had just this week lifted a 28 year ban on The Life of Brian Tol (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4821208.ece). (Although the good folk of Torquay have another bone to pick with John Cleese.)

"I asked for a room with a view"
"That is the view, Madam. That is Torquay..."

;)

4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint

5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: RacismThese are the only two books on the list which I have read (and I read Huck Finn a really long time ago). Generally I am against banning books, as I think this goes against the idea of free speech. In many ways, banning books will make people read them even more, because by banning them, attention is drawn to the book when perhaps otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy. It seems to me that people should take these books with a grain of salt, as many times they are works of fiction. Also, people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what to think of these works rather than censoring them.

Hello, how is anyone supposed to learn about that kind of thing, if they aren't allowed to read about it?

Because the kind of people who want to ban books (or even enquire about the possibility) don't want people to learn. Because if they (kids in particular) start finding out thing for themselves they might start to think which leads to opinions and a desire to change things.

"What I tell kids is don't get mad, get even [when they hear that a book is going to be banned]. Run, don't walk, to the first library you can find and read what they're trying to keep out of your eyes. Read what they're trying to keep out of your brains. Because that's exactly what you need to know." -- Stephen King

The kind of books that get banned are made into movies that people are allowed to watch, in other words, no one's upset that people watch those types of movies. What's the difference?
Often the movies have most of the controversial elements removed. For example, "The color purple" is controversial because the main characters are lesbians, but I don't remember any obvious lesbianism in the movie version of "The color purple"- although I could be wrong as I watched the movie a long time ago.

The main problem I have with book banning is that it's an attempt to judge on behalf of everyone. Many books are challenged by parents who don't feel that the book is appropriate for their children. I can respect this. If they don't believe it's appropriate, then they shouldn't allow their children to read the book. I also don't have much problem with parents asking that their children be excused from reading an offensive book in school. What they don't have a right to do is ask for the rules to be bent around their beliefs. The books should be available for people who want to read them.

I also have major problems with government censorship, though thankfully the U.S. seems pretty good these days. As long as writing doesn't otherwise break the law (such as with libel), then I think people should be allowed to make their own judgments.

And I thought banning books and defining what the public should and shouldn't read was a totalitarian practice, one which would be despised in free democratic countries. As someone who comes from a country which was of the former kind for 45 years (half the 20th century), I've come to find the "free world" disappointing in many ways.

The main problem I have with book banning is that it's an attempt to judge on behalf of everyone. Many books are challenged by parents who don't feel that the book is appropriate for their children. I can respect this. If they don't believe it's appropriate, then they shouldn't allow their children to read the book. I also don't have much problem with parents asking that their children be excused from reading an offensive book in school. What they don't have a right to do is ask for the rules to be bent around their beliefs. The books should be available for people who want to read them.



I agree if you don't want your kid to read something stop them reading it, not everyone. If you're worried they'll read it anyway explain why it's 'wrong'

The main problem I have with book banning is that it's an attempt to judge on behalf of everyone. Many books are challenged by parents who don't feel that the book is appropriate for their children. I can respect this. If they don't believe it's appropriate, then they shouldn't allow their children to read the book. I also don't have much problem with parents asking that their children be excused from reading an offensive book in school. What they don't have a right to do is ask for the rules to be bent around their beliefs. The books should be available for people who want to read them.

I also stronly oppose banning of books, but had a recent experience at our local public school which challenged my opposition (to an extent). My oldest son is in 2nd grade (7 years old). He reads at a 4th grade level and is allowed to check out books from the forth grade shelf. One of the books he checked out was about a Vietnam veteran who was suffering from flashbacks and the book contained graphic descriptions of this man beheading people and shooting children in cold blood. The only reason I found out about the book is because he's been having nightmares and when I asked him why he mentioned this book.

I strongly oppose banning books, and while I found the book detestable and have no idea what it is doing in an elementary school library, I also strongly agree that it shouldn't be banned. However, as a parent of very young children I'd hope that some books - like those that contain scenes of graphic violence or sexually explicit material - would require parental consent or notificaiton before small children can check them out.

That's too much a nanny state approach, parent should make themselves aware of what their kids are reading. School librarians have no way of knowing what a child can emotionally cope with and what kids can deal with swings wildly. (From a young age I could watch news reports from Vietnam and Cambodia without flinching but was terrified of Witchie Poo from H.R. Puf 'n' Stuff. I ran screaming from the cinema if local legend is to be believed. She still freaks me out.)

I think sometimes (and I want to put the emphasis on sometimes) book supervision goes unnecessarily far into overprotectiveness (which I often see as a serious hindrabce in children's development). When I was very young, maybe 6 or so, I was reading fairly tales of brothers Grimm and Charles Perrault, and the versions I had were really gruesome - Cinderella's sisters cutting off their heels and descriptions of how their white socks were soaked and red from the blood, and the agony they were in; Bluebeard killing his wives and keeping them in that hall; Hensel and Gretel burning the witch alive in her furnace, the witch herself was asort of a cannibal and she was checking Hensel's finger to see if the child was fat enough to be slaughtered; other stories about giants eating children (by Andersen, I think); and so on ans so forth - pretty bleak and scary, but I could handle it and turned out ok. I don't think children need as much protection as sometimes adults impose on them.

When I was very young, maybe 6 or so, I was reading fairly tales of brothers Grimm and Charles Perrault, and the versions I had were really gruesome - Cinderella's sisters cutting off their heels and descriptions of how their white socks were soaked and red from the blood, and the agony they were in; Bluebeard killing his wives and keeping them in that hall; Hensel and Gretel burning the witch alive in her furnace, the witch herself was a sort of a cannibal and she was checking Hensel's finger to see if the child was fat enough to be slaughtered; other stories about giants eating children (by Andersen, I think); and so on ans so forth - pretty bleak and scary, but I could handle it and turned out ok. I don't think children need as much pretection as sometimes adults impose on them.
I think it was C S Lewis who said "Children don't read fairy tales to know that dragons exist. They know that dragons exist. They read fairy stories to know that dragons can be defeated."

Children are pretty gruesome little creatures and can cope with all sorts of things if good wins out in the end.

Depends a lot on the kid. I wasn't scared of many things when I was little, but my husband was scared of almost everything, from Cat in the Hat (scary because he was 'bad') to the wicked witch of the west in The Wizard of Oz, the latter causing him to cry hysterically.

I think you really can't protect all kids from scary stuff, because there's always going to be a kid who's ultra sensitive and also because adults' ideas about what is fun for kids is not necessarily fun in kids' eyes (clowns anyone?). However, I think there is such a thing as 'age-appropriate' and a librarian should know how well an average 4/6/10 year old would be able to cope with certain subject matter and restrict it appropriately (and bad luck for the ultra sensitive and the ones who can handle tougher stuff). If parents want their kid to have access to everything (or very little) then they can go to the library with their kid or give the kid a signed note. I don't think anything should be restricted beyond the age of 12.

Banning books is just ridiculous. I've read several of the books on the list and I found nothing offensive about any of them. The most annoying reasons for banning is how it's supposedly "unsuitable" for the targeted audience. There are more extreme things shown on television than in books. :rolleyes:

What I find amusing, however, is that Fahrenheit 451 has been banned by many. :errr: How ironic to ban a book that focuses on how censorship is unethical.

The sad thing is, if you pull up the list of the top 100 books that are banned (which you can do by checking out the ALA website (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/frequentlychallengedbooks.cfm)) you get an even worse idea of how far book banning can go - of course, Harry Potter's there, but so is Captain Underpants, Scary Stories, Bridge to Terabithia, the Junie B. Jones series, the Goosebumps series, and even more.
The whole thing is, in my opinion, rather sad. :no:

I love the message the people who want to ban these books are sending:

"Yeah, freedom of expression is good and everything, until it starts to conflict with what we deem appropriate!"

Honestly, wanting to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Wow.

... there are no words in existence to express how I feel about the idea of banning books.
I hate the idea of censorship... In fact, I despise it.. And banning books is all about censorship, right?
...

... If parents want to encourage their kids to read, they should stop challenging every book their kid picks up..
A kid who reads a book with homosexual characters isn't suddenly going to decide that he wants to be gay..
=p
...
Besides, the best books ever written usually make the list.. =-p

... Notice that highly christian books never get banned? (Narnia for instance?)
... I believe the author of "The Golden Compass" claimed that Narnia is so christian that it corrupts children... So it's not a surprise that The Golden Compass made the list.

I suppose the only books that should be banned are Pullman's Dark Materials, simply because of what a tragic example they are of awful writing.

Jeez, if you're going to ban books because they're badly written huge gaps would open in every library.

The great paradox is that if you are a true believer in free speech you must defend people's right to be censorious as it is a form of expression.

The great paradox is that if you are a true believer in free speech you must defend people's right to be censorious as it is a form of expression.

I don't agree. People and private groups have a right not to expose themselves to things they don't like, and a right to express that they're offended, but this doesn't extend to forcing other people to comply. Censorship occurs when someone is denied the right to express themselves, or people are denied the right to read particular things, because some people are offended. While I would respect someone's choice not to read a book that they found objectionable, for them to stop me from reading the book would not be a valid expression on their part anymore than it would be valid for me to force them to read the book.

People have been banning books (Or burning them) for centuries, millenia in fact. Mostly, the purpose seems righteous, while actually being subversive. Those who have control of any situation often feel threatened by written words if they are counter to the message of the leadership. It goes even further back than The Council of Nicea in 325CE when the bishops and spiritual leaders debated and discarded (burned or hid) various texts that they decided were not going to be included in the Bible. This was done to cement the bricks of The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Banning books is merely the establishment throwing its "thang" down to assert control. The Nazis did it, the Puritans did it, and, more recently, schools are trying to do it. They don't want our kids reading books like ANIMAL FARM or LORD OF THE FLIES because it might be damaging to our poor children's sensibilities. (TRANSLATED: We don't want kids to think like communists or totalitarians)

The great paradox is that if you are a true believer in free speech you must defend people's right to be censorious as it is a form of expression.

An individual's right, or a private group's right to be censorious, yes. But, not a public group's or a governmental group's right. They don't have the right to censor what I read or view. Just because I can't be protected by the 1st Amendment to shout the word "FIRE" in a crowded theater, doesn't mean that I can't read some material that is suggestive of that, or to think it in my own little head.

I don't agree. People and private groups have a right not to expose themselves to things they don't like, and a right to express that they're offended, but this doesn't extend to forcing other people to comply. Censorship occurs when someone is denied the right to express themselves,

And by saying that a person can't peacefully protest the publication of a book and peacefully campaign to have it withdrawn you are denying them the right you claim to support.

And by saying that a person can't peacefully protest the publication of a book and peacefully campaign to have it withdrawn you are denying them the right you claim to support.

.. One person who finds something offensive shouldn't really have the right to ban it for the thousands of people who do not find it offensive..
... They can choose to not read it, or even choose not to let their kids read it, but by having it banned all together, it kinda infringes on everyone else's rights too..

...
There are certain books I don't like, and books that I find offensive, so I just won't read them... I won't try to make it so that no one in the country can read them..

.. One person who finds something offensive shouldn't really have the right to ban it for the thousands of people who do not find it offensive..

One person who finds something offensive will not be able to enact a ban. But they are more than entitled to call for one.

I never read Catcher in the Rye. Have I missed anything ?

I never read Catcher in the Rye. Have I missed anything ?

Not really. I'm against banning any books (despite my little joke earlier), but I personally don't understand the necessity of teaching the book in schools. It's just about some 1950s punk who wants to misbehave. It doesn't even have that many literary or artistic motifs. It's one of those books that teachers seek too much artsy-fartsyness out of, despite how average it is.

I never read Catcher in the Rye. Have I missed anything ?

I recommend it passionatey. It's a very gentle story of a boy lost in a disintegrating world which he can make less and less sense of. The thread of the story unravels through crude or senseless or flashy or detached or downright cruel things, events, people, facts of the immediate environment, things Holden can't relate to and which have no regard for Holden's existence; it's sprinkled with flashbacks of things Holden has held precious and made sense out of, constrasting them with his present reality in a very subtle, non-instrusive way; and it culminates with a powerfully heartwarming encounter which brings out Holden's core into the open. It's a very, very humane book, one of the most perceptive, genteel and sophisticated takes on humanity, humility and charity that I've read. In my opinion, it's a gem.

And by saying that a person can't peacefully protest the publication of a book and peacefully campaign to have it withdrawn you are denying them the right you claim to support.

They can certainly peacefully protest, but I still don't see how trying to stop the publication or reading of a book is within their first amendment rights. How is that different than saying that because I have the right to write something, I have the right to force people to read it? I don't think I'm denying anyone any right by saying that people do not have a right stop free expression.

Freedom of speech and belief does not extend to forcing your beliefs on other people. For example, someone can believe that people need to belong to their religion to be saved, and they can tell people this and encourage people to join the faith, but they can't stop people from practicing their own beliefs.

One person who finds something offensive will not be able to enact a ban. But they are more than entitled to call for one.

... why should one person/group be allowed to decide that others don't have the right to read, or write a book though, just because they have a problem with it though? That would be taking rights and freedom away too. I should have the right to decide for myself what I I find offensive, and what I don't... I don't really think anyone else should be able to decide what's offensive for me.
.. There's a difference between peacefully protesting something, and trying to have it banned completely.

I suppose the only books that should be banned are Pullman's Dark Materials, simply because of what a tragic example they are of awful writing.

:rotfl:


I don't understand why you would want to ban books. I mean its really up to the reader what they deem appriopriate reading and what's not. Ive read quite a few of the books that were listed on the first post, and I hadn't any problem with them. I was in elementary, going into middle school when I started reading those, and they're my favorites. I think its ridiculous, :grumble:.


Don't even get me started on Potter being there......:grumble:

It is so shocking to me that Perks is on there. That is such an amazing book and it got me through such a horrendous time in my life. I wonder if the people who claim those things against it have even bothered reading it or considering that much of what happened in the books actually happens to high-school-aged youth.

It is so shocking to me that Perks is on there. That is such an amazing book and it got me through such a horrendous time in my life. I wonder if the people who claim those things against it have even bothered reading it or considering that much of what happened in the books actually happens to high-school-aged youth.

Probably not, I remember looking at an anti-hp site once and the woman had all her facts wrong, she had quotes and events that weren't even in the books and had the titles wrong. Although in some cases I expect people do read the book in question, or at least I hope so

... why should one person/group be allowed to decide that others don't have the right to read, or write a book though, just because they have a problem with it though? That would be taking rights and freedom away too. I should have the right to decide for myself what I I find offensive, and what I don't... I don't really think anyone else should be able to decide what's offensive for me.

You'd be surprised just how many publications (across all media) are banned for one reason or another.

It is so shocking to me that Perks is on there. That is such an amazing book and it got me through such a horrendous time in my life. I wonder if the people who claim those things against it have even bothered reading it or considering that much of what happened in the books actually happens to high-school-aged youth.

Me as well. During middle school I had entered a very deep depression, my sister had noticed what I was going through and she gave me the book. It helped so much, its great and to put in on the banned book list doesn't make sense at all. :no:

It's sad that people would demand for books to be banned: people have the right to read what they want. Just because you find a book offensive, uncomfortable or against your values doesn't mean that it you have the right to ask for it to be banned (nor, incidentally, to have book burnings.) However, in a sense, isn't the books being banned in some way beneficial because that means more people will read it. Remember in OotP, what Hermione was saying, when the The Quibbler was banned at Hogwarts after it had printed that interview with Harry?

"Oh don't you see?" Hermione breathed. "If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it!"

I think in lieu of banning books in RL, that quote is quite true. :) What do you think?

, in a sense, isn't the books being banned in some way beneficial because that means more people will read it. Remember in OotP, what Hermione was saying, when the The Quibbler was banned at Hogwarts after it had printed that interview with Harry?

"Oh don't you see?" Hermione breathed. "If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it!"

I think in lieu of banning books in RL, that quote is quite true. :) What do you think?

I think it could be, at least in some cases. But the Quibbler is slightly different, it being banned when is was in the quibbler suggested that Umbridge thought what Harry said might be true so people wanted to see what he was saying. With the books it might only work that way with the family of those who are banning the books

It's sad that people would demand for books to be banned: people have the right to read what they want. Just because you find a book offensive, uncomfortable or against your values doesn't mean that it you have the right to ask for it to be banned (nor, incidentally, to have book burnings.) However, in a sense, isn't the books being banned in some way beneficial because that means more people will read it. Remember in OotP, what Hermione was saying, when the The Quibbler was banned at Hogwarts after it had printed that interview with Harry?

"Oh don't you see?" Hermione breathed. "If she could have done one thing to make absolutely sure that every single person in this school will read your interview, it was banning it!"

I think in lieu of banning books in RL, that quote is quite true. :) What do you think?

I think that does help in some way....:lol: