Top Banned Books of 2003 1033
michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003.
Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
2003? Recent? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:5, Funny)
That's a big survey !
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, If books were are harmless as the ALA seems to think, nobody would bother to read or write them.
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challe
Why Harry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would it be banned? Depicts socialism and controled death?
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
More than half of them were on our reading lists, either in that class, or in previous english classes.
I think anything worth reading has probably been banned by someone, somewhere, since almost by definition it has interesting ideas which must offend/annoy/worry someone.
Doug
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, reaching the library of the country, Kino looks for an interesting book. The library of the country, which prides itself in books, however has only two rooms of books, and not a single interesting one.
They only have books in the library, which are officially aproved because they don't unsettle someone.
I've learned English as a foreign language, and in my last year at school, we read "Catcher in the Rye", "Brave New World", "Lord of the Flies".
Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Informative)
It would be disturbing if that were what this list is, but it isn't. It's actually a list of books that people are trying to ban, not a list of the ones they've succeeded in banning, and part of the way that a book gets onto the list is by being so widely used that there are many opportunities to challenge it. It's also important to remember that the list is based on fewer than 7000 challenges over a 10 year span, so a book can make the top 100 if it was challenged fewer than 10 times per year in the whole country.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is in the number of copies published. J.K. Rowling has achieved a phenomenom that C.S. Lewis could not even dream of. With fame comes greater scrutiny. I'm sure there's hundreds of books depicting magic and paganism and ways more objectionable to religious fundamentalists, but none of them achieved the level of book sales that Harry Potter did.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I got older, I read that it was basically the End of Days/Second coming of Christ, for kids. The two evil and foolish characters the Monkey and the Donkey represented scientists (evolution, get it?) and disbelievers. This didn't make me like the book any better.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Interesting)
We play games about monsters and magic. You think it's all real. Now which one of us has the problems with reality, again?
She didn't have much to say after that.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Magic is never used by good mortals in C.S. Lewis's books, except in the case of Merlin in That Hideous Strength -- and even there, Merlin's use of magic is depicted as something that placed his soul in jeopardy, only to be saved when he turns himself over to angelic beings as a vessel for their power.
Certainly, specific items of power are used by good mortals, when given to them as a gift, while Aslan sometimes uses poer directly. The analogy is miraculous gifts and Divine intervention.
Now, let's look at Harry Potter and his friends. Is their approach more like the Holy Spirit descending on the Apostles and granting them the power to heal, or Simon the Magician asking to be taught how to perform those miracles? Like being handed a healing cordial by Santa Claus, or by studying to learn the Deplorable Word? Like being given an apple of life by Aslan, or like carefully separating and purifying magic dust to create rings to travel by? Like letting an angel posess you and work through you, or learning the secrets of making things obey your will?
It wasn't so much the "magic"... (Score:4, Insightful)
...as the completely consequences-free environment known as Hogwart's.
I live in a fairly conservative area. Many, many families I know are strict Christians (Protestant, Catholic, across the board), and the ones that have read Harry Potter nearly all love it.
Once you actually read the books, it becomes fairly clear that the magic is just there as a gimmick. The author needed a British public school setting, but that's been done to death, so she made one with a slightly different curriculum.
The "nearly" part above... a number of people were bothered, not by the "witchcraft" but by the fact that in the first couple of books, Harry can do no wrong. Rules are bent or overlooked, everything is forgiven or ignored once it's all over, he makes bad decisions and doesn't discover -- via consequences, like the rest of us did -- that they were bad.
The later books definitely change that (people get injured, killed, etc, as a result of Harry's screwups).
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Informative)
Or was it something you heard....
Maybe like http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm
That sort of stuff eh?
The simple fact that the Potter books are *counter* to some pretty fundamental Wicca principles is the other give away.
Still... what about them Swift Boat Vets eh? And are you interested in this bridge I have for sale?
Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you base this charge on? The article in The Onion that was pulled because stupid people believed it was real!?
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the opinion of "some Christian organizations" is impacting what's in a public school? (Maybe it's nothing new, but it still shouldn't be happening.)
How about the Qur'an? Do stories about an Islamic child get banned? It's clearly against their teachings, whether it's witchcraft, Buddhism, or Judaism.
Not that I'm a fan of Harry Potter (I saw that movie with family, and got up several times to just pace through the hallways, as it was more interesting). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm a practicing Catholic). I just don't think the Christian church has any right to control what's in a public school.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome to the unintended concequences of true 'democracy'. Communities which are populated mostly by people who find some material objectionable can try and often succeed in 'banning' such materials from public schools/libraries.
Such bannings are on a 'micro' level. You don't see such things occur at the 'macro' level as you see much more diverse 'valu
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the librarians were stocking the shelves with Mein Kampf and Unfit for Command and The Bell Curve, to the exclusion of Heather Has Two Mommies, you can be sure that all the pious liberals now deploring censorship would be bitching front and center at the next school board meeting.
Funny, the public library where I live has all of those. I don't see a bunch of agnostics and Democrats picketing!
Perhaps librarians as a group just tend to be intellectually honest and believe in making books available, even the ones they don't necessarily agree with.
Perhaps (some) people on the right are much more likely to be frightened of the free exchange of ideas. To be fair, in some countries, the left IS doing the banning.
Purchacing decisions are not in themselves true censorship, as you say. However, not purchacing a book that has a greatb deal of demand BECAUSE some people object to it most definatly IS censorship.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)
i sure as hell didn't threaten that Salman rushdie guy with anything. In fact, not a single muslim I know did either...
Please stop thinking of "muslems" as some kind of hivemind. some ayatollahs wrote fatwas against the guy, that's all. and it just so happens that the vast, crushing majority of muslims don't pay any attention whatsoever to some obscure fatwa written by some unknown imam from god knows what country calling himself an "ayatollah". (ayatollah means "verse of god" and is basically a pretty looking title some dudes felt like having...god knows why)
Always remember, Islam is as decentralized a religion as it gets, there is no hierarchy of any sort, anyone can become an Imam if he wants to. he just reads or memorizes the coran, goes up early in the morning and starts shouting the call to prayer, if people show up, he can lead the prayer. that's about it.
heck, muslims don't even have to go the mosque if they don't want to. much less feel obligated to follow a fatwa (which is really just a statement of opinion that anybody can write with no other weight than what that particular Imam's congregation feel like giving it.
.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Informative)
Shows how closely you've read the books. While the White Witch might use "deep magic from the dawn of time" for evil, Aslan (the pathetically transparent allegorical version of Jesus) defeats her using what is referred to as "deeper magic from before the dawn of time". In fact, throughout the books, pretty much anything that's intended as allegory for divine miracle is referred to as "magic."
Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just in your mind. Wicca just doesn't feature Satan as a character.
And Satanism itself isn't really what people think it is, it's just a sophmoric power philosophy. It actuall seems to me to be more closely related to Objectism and "libertarian capitalistism" than to Wicca...
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, Satan exists only in relatively recent Christian mythology as well, largely due to certain, rather late, translations of the bible.
Judaism has nothing remotely resembling a devil character whatsoever (unless you count that thing (can't remember the name) who recounts to God all the wicked things you did when you are up for judgement).
Islam has a kind of satan like figure (Iblis or shaitan), but in essence this character is on the level of humans, not a fallen angel (its a Djinn; created by God from fire just as humans were created from clay).
Zoroastrianism has a devil like character, but its power and nature is exactly equal to that of the good god character.
The so-called 'pagan' religions of Europe had nothing like the Devil; for the most part they hac a trickster character (eg Loki). But that nothing like the Devil.
What I would like to know, mistranslations aside, is where did the modern Christian notion of the Devil come from? Did it arise out of the collective guilt complex of Christianity? Or was it deliberately concocted as a means of social control?
Because it (the devil) is a novel concept in the context of the mythologies of the regions which gave rise to Christianity.
I think that modern christianity needs a devil to keep its congregation under control.
banning (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.
What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.
AC
Re:banning (Score:4, Interesting)
It does mean everyone gets an equal footing, and the bad teachers don't slack off and just not teach anything but it does get increadably boring after reading the 40th poem of the NEAB Anthology.
Re:banning (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:banning (Score:4, Insightful)
People pick their battles: they cannot fight all negative things in the world all the time. Maybe she quit teaching Brave New World and substituted some kind of different dystopian future novel, or some other work critical of the society in which we live.
It's also possible the curriculum changed, or that some other event occured of which you are not aware. To say that you lost all respect for ceasing to teach a particular novel seems unfair.
Perhaps you have not shared the whole story, and if that is the case then I apoligize for the above.
Re:banning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:banning (Score:4, Interesting)
I was trying to support a wife and three children on a teacher's salary, and had the sword of student debt suspended over my head. Some weeks after accepting the job, and moving to a new town, the principal called me in, and told me I would be teaching evolution and sex education. I was told that I was required to follow the district curriculum in these areas, and any deviatiation from the party line would be considered grounds for immediate dismissal. With a sinking feeling, I asked what the official curriculum would be. As expected it was a watered-down, "don't offend anyone, for any reason" curriculum with completely ignored all scientific evidence in favor of feel-good pablum and politically-correct platitudes.
I told the principal that this curriculum was laughable, I might as well teach Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Not an eyelash blinked. Dead serious "Mr. Briggs, you are apparently under the impression that the science curriculum is as important as the socalization of our students. Your job is to assist the school is producing good citizens, subject area mastery is a secondary and far lesser consideration".
That was Pasco, WA 1994. I desperately needed the job. I swallowed my principles, and taught what I was told, knowing that the principal was using the classroom speaker system to monitor the content of my teaching. I left the teaching field that year, and have never gone back - there is no honor to be gained on that battlefield.
The teacher's can't fight, and have no hope of winning -- those who would fight are dismissed, those who remain offer up their intellecutal integrity upon the alter of polical correctness, in order to avoid legal entanglements for the administration.
Re:banning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:banning (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you about immoral activities. However, a school board telling a teacher not to teach certain material does not fall into that category. It may be unfortunate or anti-intellectual, but not immoral.
Re:banning (Score:4, Informative)
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.
Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Godwin's Law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post
You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's Law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.
Finding the meme of Nazi comparisons on Usenet illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a counter-meme. The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.
Many people have extended Godwin's Law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because these events were so horrible that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.
Various additions and addenda to Godwin's Law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. Addenda to the law include:
Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
Morgan's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.
Sircar's Corollary:
If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
Case's Corollary:
If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
Van der Leun's Corollary:
As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.
Miller's Paradox:
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.
Enki's Corollary:
As an online discussion involving law grows, the probability of someone making a comparison involving the McDonald's coffee lawsuit approaches one.
NialScorva's Law:
Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke the DMCA.
Freiler's Maxim:
Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat.
Re:banning (Score:4, Informative)
It is impossible to violate Godwin's law, except with an infintely long thread that does not mention Nazis.
Re:banning (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship is bad. But if someone gives into the school board's request, rather than putting up a fight and getting herself fired, I fail to see the parallels to the Holocaust.
Okay, so the Nazis banned some stuff. I think the similarities end there.
Re:banning (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nazis came to power because the Germans were forced into blind obedience by the own fear and insecurity. Many people like to think that it was some violent coup d'etat or something that made Hitler chancellor then fuhrer. No, Hitler was democratically elected by good decent Germans (I say that with no intended irony) because they just didn't care what he was doing because at the time they thought they had bigger problems. They let themselves be bullied by the browncoats in the street, they let themselves be frightened by the Communists. They had the power to stop Hitler's tyranny but they didn't stand up for their rights because they were obedient.
Look, I am not usually a fan of disregarding Goodwin's law, at least so early in a discussion but this is an important thing to consider in this topic. Fascism is the product of total obedience as concretely as anarchy is the product of total disobedience. Do what you are told when it is wrong and you are no better than the guards at Auschwitz operating the death chamber. Sure, what an average person is asked to do in a compromising situation is not nearly as heinous as genocide, but I am sure the average SS officer didn't go straight to genocide from helping old ladies across the road either.
It is ignorance of an unforgivable magnitude to compare 1944 Germany to your own country and then immediately assume that your country is immune to fascism simply because there are no deathcamps around. Nazism started as a simple mix of national pride and workers rights, both intrinsically good things, but pretty much the complete basis of the worst tyranny in recorded history. Nazism was truely a good thing for Germany for a while and the Germans loved it, just as we love benign things in our own societies today. The Germans could not see what Nazism really was, because by the time it unveiled itself it was too late and Germany was already dependant on it. Can you confidently say that there is nothing evil like that lurking in our society with any more cirtainty than the Germans had? But we are far more fortunate than the Germans of the nineteen thirties because we now KNOW what can happen and we CAN do something about it. However Nazism happened to good, well meaning people before and it can happen to us too, you just have to let it. Will you?
Re:banning (Score:3, Insightful)
Good U Penn Article (Score:5, Informative)
Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.
Re:Good U Penn Article (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, when it was published the article cauesd a riot.
Maybe for good reason (Score:5, Funny)
Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking
and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty
People are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.
Re:People are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, Huckleberry Finn uses a specific cultural setting to deliver an anti-racist messsage.
Is this the most important information? (Score:5, Interesting)
Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
And another similar instance [guardian.co.uk] wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.
Re:Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
It was rather meant to point out an example of the ultimate extreme in modern day censorship.
I'm certainly not trying to indicate that the Holocaust never happened, but the fact that these books were burned truly speaks for itself.
Re:Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship is not about right and wrong, it's about censorship, because "right" and "wrong" are highly divergent people. Also, the banning of such publications actually adds fuel to the anti-semetic fire in that they are actively suppressed. It makes the kooks feel more important because their efforts actually required intervention. The only way to disprove flawed ideas, bad science, etc. is to publish it and expose it to p
Re:Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
On the second point yes, the talk about "cencentration camps" was stupid, but that is not the point, If they first had reviewed it on a scientific basis and decided to publish it, they should not back off just because some of their readers dislike the wording in the paper. The paper was significant and important in the field and the "concentration camp talk" allthough stupid, was just a detail unrelated to the data, methods or conclusion. People have written far more controversial stuff than erroneously calling a refuge camp a concentartion camp without publishers pulling out.
And the "common with earlier studies" was the Observers remark, not the writer(s) or the publisher.
After the controversy Villena resubmitted the paper without the "concentration remarks", you can read in the Observer article how he agreed that they where irrellevant to the conclusion in the paper, and the publisher agreed to consider it for publication. But they never published it.
You can search their archives here [ashi-hla.org] and here [sciencedirect.com] but you won't find anything.
Even without the "concentration camp" remark they would not publish it. How do you explain that?
So much for "providing an exchange of information and ideas on structural polymorphism of HLA genes" .
A Wrinkle in Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Ban Slashdot ! (Score:3, Funny)
Ban teh Slashdot now !
What books get banned over seas? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What books get banned over seas? (Score:5, Informative)
Nevertheless, even if it is no ban, you are not allowed to make works available to children that are rated as unsuitable for them. This is true for all kind of media, from books to movies, music or computer games. Except when it comes to violence in computer games, this ratings usually make sense (you don't want your kids to see a porn movie, do you?), but it can be quite a hassle nevertheless, because you can't just deliver them with standard mail, you are not allowed to do any advertisement that kids could see and so on.
Bottom line is: If someone here would call for a ban on works like Huck Finn, Harry Potter or "The Catcher in the Rye" he woud get laughed at from 95% of the society, but 50-70% would agree to a ban on Doom3....
Guttenberg links (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone see any more on that list that are public domain?
-jim
Huck Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Books that deal with issues of race are often banned by people who object to racism. I sometimes think it's because they haven't actually read the books, but have merely done the kind of sanctimonious counting of "offensive" terms or situations (e.g., like the CAP Alerts [capalert.com]. Or anybody remember that lady who talked to the Meese commission, and enumerated the number of times the word "horny" was used in Catcher in the Rye?). You could argue this for several of the books:
Huck Finn was clearly written with an anti-racist agenda, but was written ironically, from the perspective of an ignorant kid. It contains the word "nigger" many, many times. As a result of these two factors, it's considered by some as inappropriate for children.
To Kill A Mockingbird deals with a rape trial, and therefore could be considered inappropriate for kids. It also contains a lot of racial slurs and violence.
I think what's underlying the attacks on these books, though, is less these characteristics (which are usually the nominal reasons for banning them), but the anti-authority themes running through the books. They question the conventional morality of the times they describe. People who don't like that kind of thinking may find that mroe offensive than all of the ostensible faults of the books. They don't wnat to encourage this kind of questioning (of course, they're way too late to try to stop it now.)
You can see a similar effect, by the way, against some of the best anti-authoritarian books like Animal Farm ("it makes kids think animals can talk!"), Brave New World ("but it mentions sex!"), Slaugherhouse Five ("it's filthy!"), and so forth.
Judy Blume? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.
The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.
I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
understand
Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?
Re:Judy Blume? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Judy Blume? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.
Page Source (Score:3, Informative)
03. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
05. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
06. Of Mice and Men
13. The Catcher in the Rye
22. A Wrinkle in Time
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
69. Slaughterhouse-Five
70. Lord of the Flies
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
There is some dissent however, in the source code of the page the first 22 books are marked-up as <strong>, while the last 78 are just <b>.
Maybe their proofreading department is flawed.
I love lists like this (Score:3, Insightful)
This don't think it's odd that a list of banned books would have a lot of very good books one them. Good books tend to be more challenging to the reader and it's exactly those challenging parts that certain people object to. To those people, if it's not the same old pablum, then they don't want anything to do with it.
Still, there are some books on the list that are decidedly NOT great or even good books. "Sex", by Madonna. "The New Joy of Gay Sex". I'll have to admit that I can definitely see why somebody would try to get them banned from a public library. After all, you don't see Hustler magazine next to the New York Times at public libraries so why should you expect to find "Sex"? But on the flip side to that, they ARE books and as such, were I at a public library, I would fight any attempt to ban them.
And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info:
1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me.
2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place?
Many of the books I had to read in (Score:4, Insightful)
6. Of Mice and Men
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
47. Flowers for Algernon
70. Lord of the Flies
All required reading in my highschool english classes.
Book bannings are like book burnings (Score:4, Insightful)
Some books are banned because they showcase the shame of America, like Huckleberry Finn with the word nigger being used correctly in context as it was for the time the story was wrote in. Does banning this book for printing the word nigger as it was used make bigotry and racism go away, change history and the fact that it was used, miracle away American hypocrisy of liberty and justice for all except slaves? By not learning the truth and being exposed to facts we erradicate the lessons we should have learned. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you have such a serious problem with a book, close the cover and get rid of it. If you are such a failure as a parent you don't want little George reading a book because you don't have the time to invest in your child, don't get them the book. If they have book because they do not want to follow in your silhouette, take it from them or find somebody to be the parent you are not. Nobody is making you read them, why force others down to your level of illiteracy.
Putting a book on a banlist is a quick way to get my attention, and usually much more reliable for a good read than the bestseller listings. Celebrate the banned book list, check them off as you read each one.
No book should be banned, censorship spawns ignorance.
Wow. Interesting bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad that list isn't a click-through to Amazon to buy those books. I bet they could be raising a little bit of money from that website to combat censorship.
Newer list (2003) (Score:5, Informative)
The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:
1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.
Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).
Re:Waldo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Waldo (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a lot of folks realize how meaningful that is: shit was the very first engineering challenge, and how we get rid of it speaks volumes about where we are on the development timeline. And kids treat it very much like a Waldo book, examining all the details as they race to find the guy on the crapper.
rj
Re:topless sunbather (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's just that puritanism doesn't work.
Topless sunbathing is allowed in every beach in Portugal. Yet, it's a very conservative country, and quite religious (at least middle-age up). The thing is, it's a matter of personal choice and context. Respect for the other people and facing issues with information rather than attempting to hide'em, that plays a large role in the lack of sex-related crimes and a population with a healthier mind. Drinking is allowed to people above 16 that don't show signs of mental disorder, and although we have our share of people who exceed their account, most people are raised in the notion that there is a limit. It's a matter of teaching good-sense instead of forcing people to obey rules.
Another fine example - I've been to Marrocos, and that's a country where the majority follows the islamic religion. I felt ashamed at how easily they meet foreigners and accept the difference in cultures. They'll make jokes about Allah showing us the way while we're there and will usually meet you with curiosity as opposed to the arrogance you'd find for being a foreigner in a more developed country. In comparison, in the US and in other more developed places, pre-conceptions and the belief that "we know best"... well... you know where this is going, and I don't want to be moderated as a troll.
Cheers.
Re:topless sunbather (Score:4, Informative)
another funny thing is that if you take a map of holland, and mark tiny red dots for every teenage pregnancy, you'll find a couple of big red blobs right in the areas where we still have some really, REALLY religious folks hanging out. the kind that refuses to take polio shots...or teach their kids about safe sex, or even the subject "sex" at all. imo this mindset is fighting a losing battle. kids these days have all the information they could ever want right at their fingertips. tv, internet, you name it. either parents adapt to this, and steer their kids in the right direction instead of simply saying "you're not allowed", or they'll utterly fail.
Re:Waldo (Score:5, Interesting)
Or some such.
It's *still* loading, though.
Re:Waldo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a tad harsh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not shelved, fine. If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children. But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No.
Re:That's a tad harsh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've said the school has every right to choose what books they stock. Right, but the ALA will list a book as "banned" just because the school chooses not the shelve it.
"If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children." Such a book that would be removed would still be counted by the ALA as a banned book.
"But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No." So a single lone mother who objects to an elementary age child reading a book describing, lets say, a gratutiously descriptive account of a rape, would be wrong and inappropriate?
The children can still read these books, if the parents want them to. But the same as a school wouldn't allow an R rated movie to be shown to any child on school grounds (regardless of who owns it, and who's watching it, and what kind of parental permission they have) there are some books that are INAPPROPRIATE for the student at school.
But they can still read the books at home, because they're not actually BANNED. They're just this nebulous thing that the ALA calls "banned", because they have had action taken against them, and have been removed, or moved due to the objections of one or MORE parents.
Re:That's a tad harsh. (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no. The ALA doesn't call these books "banned." They use the word "challenged," as in somebody somewhere was challenged for shelving this book.
They use the word "banned" to describe books that were actually, you know, banned.
The fault here, as usual, likes with the idiot submitter for using the word "banned" to refer to books that the ALA calls "challenged," and even more so with the idiot editor who didn't bother to check and correct the submission.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.
If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
So did mine. And that was a sure fire way of getting me to obtain and read those books
Your point is valid, tho. I get to decide what my child reads or not but I have no business doing to same with your kid. The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
A desicion has to be made by the school custodian (or PTA or whatever) as to what books to have available at the library. It is unrealistic to think that the librarian will have a list of allowed books per student.
If I'm interested in making sure my opinion counts in deciding what books will or will not be available to my kids at school, I'll make sure my voice is heard at the committee that does the deciding.
That said, I believe children should be able to read what they please and form their own oppinions instead of being "censored" into thinking like we do. If my kid wants to read "Mein Kampf", I won't forbid it to him. I will, however, make sure he has access to counterpoint arguments and will sit down to discuss it with him.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it should be.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. the authors of the books
2. the choppers of the trees
3. the processors of the wood into paper
4. the drivers of the raw materials
5. the printers of the words onto the paper
6. the editors of the books
7. all the people who support all of the above
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Children's innocence is an adult fantasy.
My parents tried hard to keep me not only sheltered, but their "little baby girl" forever. Yet by the time I was 10, I knew all the facts (or at least myths) of life, courtesy of classmates. I knew things that would have curled my parents' hair. Children were far from "innocent" when I was 10 years old -- and I'll be 42 in September.
Unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has seen mommy and her boyfriend going at it on the couch, unless your isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has been molested by her uncle, unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who knows about something you want to pretend doesn't exist, there is no "innocence." There never was. There is only adult blindness, pretending that if we don't talk to children about things we don't like then those things will go away, or at least never affeact our children.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, you're mistaking average life expectancy for the age people actually lived to. Average life expectancy includes infant mortality -- so if you have a society where 50% of the people die before they're a year old, and the other 50% live to the biblical threescore and ten, your average life expectancy is 35. But nobody is actually dying at 35 -- it's either 0 or 70. Of course, reality isn't quite that binary, but it's the same basic math. Since modern western societies have such a low infant/child mortality rate, we're used to seeing the average life expectancy number having something to do with how long you can expect to live, but when you're dealing with societies that have very high infant mortality rates, it's not even close to the same thing.
Wander around a cemetery in New Engalnd some time and read the dates on old tombstones. If a man lived to grow up, he was fairly well assured of living to 60+. If a woman survived childbearing, she would probably live longer than that. But that is counterbalanced in the overall average by those rows of little tiny stones that say "Baby Smith, 8 days old."
The average of first menstruation in girls has actually gone down in the past hundred or so years. This may be because of better nutrition and overall health, nobody is quite sure. Though, interestingly enough, it seems to have been at roughly modern ages in ancient Rome and possibly during the medieval era. It's rather difficult to determine, because in societies where marriage is arranged or contracted for social reasons rather than individual choice, girls often are married before they are capable of bearing children, and the actual consummation of the marriage is postponed. Without medical records, it's hard to tell when young women were sexually mature; mostly it's a matter of guessing based on birth records.
Your whole point is a non sequitur anyway. When people were getting married and starting families at young ages (12 or otherwise), it was not because they had seen the pigs making piglets. It was because they were ready to take on the duties of adulthood, which were much simpler at the time. They had learned the basic skills of household management, food production, etc., as children -- kids worked from the day they could toddle. Many young couples lived with one or another set of parents (usually the husband's) for a number of years and got further on-the-job training before they established a separate household.
They didn't have educations to complete -- if they were lucky, they went to the one room schoolhouse for a few years. They didn't have careers to decide on -- they did what their parents did, which was usually farming. They didn't travel and see the world -- most people never went more than 100 miles from where they were born. The reasons that modern people put off marriage and family didn't exist for any but the wealthy classes. Since they had learned the skills they needed for adult life since early childhood, the only thing they had to wait for was their bodies to be ready to do the job.
Obviously, that is not the case today. People have educations to complete, careers to plan, a world to explore. Having children in today's complex world is a much more complicated isse than adding a few more kids to a big farm family, more than doing things the way your parents and grandparents and ten generations back had done them. It is that, rather than knowing where babies come from, that determines things like age of marriage. That is true whether wishful-thinking adults try to keep those children in ignorance in the hope of achieving some mythical "innocence" or whether they give them accurate and reliable information. They are going to get information from someone, somewhere, no matter what. They are going to ask questions and get answers. Far better that those be accurate answers.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I heard a story from a parent, whose child in the second grade (it was elementary school at the least), was reading a book that had a vivid description of a rape scene.
So, the parent complains, and the school complies, and the ALA lists it as a "banned" book.
The ALA has a decent idea here, fight censorship, but they have to be aware, we should but the same sort of standards on our literature that we put on our movies. There simply are some books that aren't appropriate for children.
And NEVER have these "banned" books been truly banned. If the parent, or the child really wanted the book, they could obtain it for their child to read. It was just felt by the school system, that it wasn't appropriate for them to supply it.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. Something like "The New Joy of Gay Sex" I could understand. But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal. (Conservatives will totally flip out over that?)
Go back 150 years, and imagine it was "Heather Has a Black Mommy." I'm not trying to defend gay marriage here or anything, but I think it's the same thing -- I strongly doubt the objection to this book was because of the homosexuality, as opposed to the homosexuality.
A homosexual couple has nothing to do with sex until, well, they have sex. It'd be like banning a book with a mother and father because they have a heterosexual relationship. The mere act of having a child proves they had sex!
I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't cover their bedroom activities, I don't see the problem. But maybe that's why I'm a liberal democrat.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Funny)
"I know why the caged bird is quiet and subservient."
"The new joy of...proper wifely housekeeping and cleaning"
"What's happening to my body? Shameful and filthy wicked things."
"Where's E.A. Poe?"
"Heather has an upper class mommy and an Irish daddy!"
"It's perfectly abnormal and wrong!"
"Saying no! to 'sex'!"
"The Whig's cookbook"
"A brave new world of corsets and revealed ankles!"
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of things considered "normal" today - women voting, blacks not being slaves, minorities having equal rights - were not in previous years. What makes you think that our idea of "normal" today is any better than it was a hundred years ago?
The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like being able to marry whoever they want to? To do whatever they want in their bedrooms with other consenting adults?
I guess you're a bigot unless you acknowledge there's only one set of acceptable thoughts and no others will be tolerated.
You mean like male-dominant, married, heterosexual relationships are the only permissable form, and all others are sinful and should be illegal as well?
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
You mean like those groups that want to amend the Constitution of the United States to take those decisions away from individuals, from states, from the federal government, not only for our generation but for every one to follow?
I guess "live and let live" is bigoted now, and "you will think what we tell you and do what we tell you" is the only way to avoid this evil bigotry.
"You have to live in accordance with my religion" is bigoted no matter how you look at it. Nobody is trying to force you, by either laws or violence, to be gay. Plenty of people are trying to force gay people, by both laws and violence, to be straight, or at least to pretend so.
I'm put in mind of a passage from a book
Re:So What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to prevent other people or other people's kids from reading them. If we could ban anything that people considered crap, Britney Spears and the all those "Spice Boy" bands would not be played on any radio stations if it was up to me.
* Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes.
I agree with you that material that deal with sexuality (homo or hetero) is not approprite to younger children. But the list is not definitive on what was banned and where. If these books were banned from a high school, I would have a problem with it.
Really, most of the books on that list suck. Some are great, but not many (Slaughter House for example). And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school. Others, though, make no sense at all. Really odd.
I think you answered our own question. People with strong opinions like yourself have probably taken on themselves to make sure that the libraries in their area do not carry books that are against their beliefs or tastes. I think one reason why the list is so huge is that some people don't distinguish between material they don't like with material that offends them. They think that they can speak for everyone and have that material banned.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, allow me to retort!
The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents, Terry Pratchett.
The Outsiders, S.E. Hinton
A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle
The Witches, Roald Dahl
And that's just what happens to be on my bookshelf. If I were to think harder I could think of many, many, many more titles that were award-winning and didn't suck.
But Bridge sucked ass.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).
Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.
When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.
Re:So What? (Score:4, Funny)
If you've ever had your kid bring home a Where's Waldo book and ask you to find Waldo with them, and if you've ever agreed, you'd understand why people want the book banned. It drives an adult absolutely crazy, because the child either gives up and just flips from page to page, or obsesses over every tiny detail and won't let you leave until everything has been found.
Complaints against Where's Waldo probably all take this form: a poor, harried parent calls up the school and says, "PLEASE don't let my kid bring home any more of those blasted Waldo books! I haven't slept in days; I'm seeing Waldo in the wallpaper; every time I see a guy with glasses and a striped toque I get the urge to yell out, 'I FOUND WALDO!' Please make it stop!!!"
or somethin' like dat.
Re:Section? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The ALA continues to strip meaning from words (Score:3, Insightful)
Banned books would be those books that it used to actually be illegal to import and sell in the United States, like Ulysses and Naked Lunch, as in "banned in Boston." Challenged books are books that parents and teachers ask libraries to discard or not order. There's a very important difference, because even in the most conservative town in the Unite
Re:What about "Unfit for Command" (Score:5, Insightful)
John Kerry's claiming the book is incorrect; he didn't use the word (that I see), but it's essentially saying it's a slander campaign. He's asking that they stop selling a book that's just out to slander him.
He's not legislating it away because it's damaging to him.
Granted, I'm a Kerry supporter, and you're clearly (by your signature) anti-Kerry. It's no secret that if you support someone, you'll make allowances for things, and if you oppose them, you'll blow things out of proportion. Which is why I hate arguing about politics.
Asking someone not to carry what you perceive as a slanderous book is totally different than him trying to legislate it away, which is what's suggested.
Re:Define "Banned" (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comparison to porn is disingenuous or ignorant--most of the books were banned, yes, banned in those school district or public libraries because they contained cultural or political views that offended a few squeaky wheels.
Lastly, while it's nice that you and I have plenty of money to buy whatever books may not be found in a library, I for one would like to see my tax-funded libraries not reacting for or against some would-be censor's political agenda.
Re:Conservative idea of freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) These are primarily books that have been banned (actually the numbers are based on complaints received not the number of successful complaints) from school libraries, or childrens books that have been banned from public libraries. From the ALA web-site:
In otherwords this is mostly a matter of what kids get to read, not a matter of what adults get to read.
(2) Schools and public libraries are mostly government institutions, and what conservatives object to is the government deciding how and what their children will learn about issues like sex, religion, drugs, and so on. In short they would like the freedom to raise their children without interference from the government.
The liberal response is that children should not be subject to the control of their parents in this way. If you think one side or the other is obviously right, or obviously more interested in freedom then you need to think about the issue more carefully. The fundamental problem is that children can not be free because they are naturally subject to the influence of others. Hence the dispute over who gets to do the influencing.