I think that's mainly because it's not required reading in many (if any) high school classes. A teacher would not only have to be pretty ballsy, but also have a very gifted class, to even think of assigning Lolita.

So Madonna's Sex, and Bret Easton Ellis', American Psycho is required reading in High School?

I want to go to that High School.



Looking over the list I am surprised by a number of entries like How to Eat Fried Worms and Where's Waldo... but did notice that many of the books, like Harry Potter and Goosebumps are likely on the list because they have Sorcery and Witchcraft in them.

Hmm, glanced quickly over the list and didn't see those. And IIRC, there wasn't much to read in Madonna's book.

I guess I have no real reason that Lolita isn't there. I guess score one for literature.

Beyond that, Lolita is a well-respected piece of literature. Yes, its themes are adventurous, but there is no doubt that Nabakov is a brilliant writer who executes his ideas well and with a lyrical style that goes unmatched.

One of my lit profs has an anecdote he likes to tell about the "Top 50 Books of the 20th Century in American Literature." A distinguished panel of scholars, authors, and editors were asked to list their choices by a major publishing house. Their number one choice? Lolita. That, of course, would not fly. So they were sent back to the drawing board, and came up with The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck (let's think about that one for a second). Lolita dropped about six places down on the list.

I think that is perhaps what sets Lolita apart from other works on this list: not only is it something you wouldn't read in a high school classroom, it is well-respected, and also isn't exactly pop literature (despite its thematic content) like some of the others that made the list.

And boy, let me tell you...as an English major I've read more than my fair share of these banned books...

Time to find a new one to read.

As another English major, I'm disappointed that I haven't read more of these books by my own choice, but I aim to remedy that.

Growing up, my mother was an educator, and never censored me from reading whatever I wanted to read. She figured all reading was beneficial, at least as a work-out for the mind, and she trusted me not to read "Mein Kampf" and actually buy in to it.

And I aim to raise my kids the same way. It angers me that people do this, mostly out of ignorance. The best defense any parents can have against offensive material is to be well-read themselves, and to know precisely what it is they want to shield their child from, but nobody should have to suffer because of your ignorance.

On a lighter note, the funny/cool thing about Shel Silverstein being on that list is that he actually has written some stuff people might find really objectionable, although it's not that title, he wrote a series of short plays titled An Adult Evening of Shel Silverstein. One of the plays consists of a man and a woman listing off euphemisms for the penis and the breasts. It's hilarious, (not, I believe ban-worthy, although I don't believe anything is) but not exactly something the average child reader should look in to, nor should a high school student (within the confines of the class, at least) seeing as it's all shock-factor and really lacks much poetic value.

Yah, I guess you're right.

But Snowy dearest, I don't buy the "respected literature" thing. It's not as if Maya Angelou isn't respected literature. :) Also, it's not as if the people who come up with reasons to ban these books have a taste for "respected literature" beyond religious texts and perhaps Shakespeare.

In the original version of the book, in the beach scene, one of the sunbathing women on the beach is topless. She's, oh, about a half centimeter long, and you can't see anything explicit, but she surely was there. It was corrected in the reprint. Because of this, the original Where's Waldo in excellent condition has become a collector's item.

More details about where and why the books have been challenged and banned here.

Gilda

My wife is in her 2nd year as a middle school librarian, and so far there has been 2 challenges to either a book or a video that she has in her library. I forgot the book but it she had to take it off the shelf until it could be removed, but its back now. The video is still under review "A Place at the Table" about civil rights, the reason it got pulled and is under review is the mentioning of homosexuals as "normal behavior".

The parent that lodged a complaint was *shock* a Baptist preacher, whose son watched the video last spring. There are times I hate living in the Bible belt..

As a side note.

Public Libraries are owned 'by the people' so to speak, which means you have to listen 'to the people'. If there are enough people that don't want such and such a book on the shelf, its a part of this wacky thing we call a republic. If you don't like that some books are banned, change the people who review them.

Wake me when they start to ban books from private libraries. To me this is just about hype, in part to sell books, in part to 'shock' people.

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl. Anne Frank. Modern Library. Challenged in Wise County, Va. (1982) due to "sexually offensive" passages. Four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) called for the rejection of this book because it is a "real downer."

It's a downer? Half the books I read in English were downers. What a silly reason to ban a book. I've read the book several times, and while WW2 and the Holocaust were certainly "downers", Anne's words are uplifting IMO. She maintained hope and a good heart towards men during a horrible time in history and during deprivations in her life. Oh well.

Its hard always being right...
 

I was looking for a new book to read today and wandering around the bookstore I see a display.

It has a pre-printed sign (aka they were ready for this well in advance) that reads 'Banned Books' and on the table are the books from the above list.

Go, go corporate sponsored indignation!

Challenges come from the outside, from patrons, or even frequently from people who are not patrons, private citizens, etc. not from the people who review and purchase books for the libraries, usually a lone voice or very vocal minority who are attempting to force their view of morality on everyone by preventing others from getting access to things they deem inappropriate.

If you don't like a book, don't check it out and don't read it. Nobody is forcing anyone to read anything they don't want to.

The ALA doesn't sell books, they promote libraries.

They planned a promotion ahead of time to coincide with an ALA sponsored event. I'll bet you'll find displays of Christmas themed books around Christmas, Thanksgiving books around Thanksgiving, summer reading displays, in late spring, and so forth. Bookstores take advantage of banned books week to promote certain books, true. This doesn't make it a corporate sponsored event meant to sell books.

You're reversing cause and effect. Christmas doesn't exist because of stores having Christmas promotions. Easter doesn't exist to promote the sale of eggs, candy, and baskets. Independance Day doesn't exist to promote Baseball and barbeques. That bookstores use this, perhaps with the permission of the ALA, to promote their own interests doesn't mean that they're the driving force behind it.

Gilda

I've seen the banned books sign in stores as well. I always took it as a "look what they are banning from schools" sign, not a way to sell a book. Hell, some of the books they had there were ones I read in school.

Yes because we know that book stores are there for public welfare, not to sell books.

I agree with Gilda on this.

They wouldn't be very good business people if they didn't take advantage of a marketing opportunity.

I have an important question.

Have any of the books in the top100 been banned?

Of course they do, I never thought the Libraries challenged their own books, but just because someone issues a challenge doesn't mean you have to listen to it. Most changes in local government happens because of vocal minorities, most of us have to much going on to care, if you want this to stop, elect people who don't listen to vocal minorities.

Yes thats fine, but you know people do not work that way when somebody thinks of the children.

But...from your OP

Mmmmm looks like they were 'sponsored' by more than just people who like Libraries.


Since no books were really banned, my cynical nature begs to differ. This is a win/win, they can pretend to be defending the public from ignorance while at the same time cashing in.

What if you had a banned book week and no body cared? Would you say that Christmas is the same now that it has become a consumer orgy, or has it been twisted into something else? Thanksgiving may well be the same, being it’s a modern holiday.

Unlike Christmas, Independence Day, and the like, there is a difference. You can't sell Christmas Spirit, or Independence (at least not on paper), you can only sell things to help celebrate it, or promote around it like a sale. On the other hand you CAN sell books, books few would recall or buy but for the ALA bravely standing up and saying 'People don't like this book in our Libraries, go read it to spite them!'.

And like good consumers many people now will, all the while thinking they are independent thinkers showing their superiority to those narrow minded book banners, while in reality they just succumbed to a marketing ploy.

Edit: After looking at the the American Society of Journalists and Authors website I'd add them to the list of 'people making money' off this, though in a less direct way. That leaves only the ALA with 'clean' hands, and I'll even wonder about that, anyone have their corporate sponsor list? :D

Wow Ustwo... you are starting to sound like an anti-corporatist. There might be hope for you yet. :lol:

Having a book banned by multiple school systems could mean the loss of sales of hundreds or thousands of copies. So if they try to sell a few copies under the banned book sign at Barnes & Nobles, that's hardly a trade off.

On the flip side if a parent approves and a kid wants to read a "banned book", is it really that bad? Rather have kids reading than playing video games or watching TV all the time...

As a Young Person (23) I find this lis absolutly ridiculous. Well all of the lists actually. I remember reading most of these artists when i learned to read at age 10 and most of them got me interested in reading. The content was entertaining and by actually being entertained I enjoyed read ing and without realizing it improved my vocabulary and gained an interest in reading books that most might find boring or dry. I got excited about reading. What more could parents want out of their children. I think JK rowling would be on that list now. Her books are great and get so many kids who wouldnt normally read; reading. Reading or the ability to read it is such an underrated privelage and honor. WHen you can and do read your world is so expanded it becomes endless. When you think about it you are ablet o use your imagination and see in your minds eye, what is happening in the book, however Television leaves nothing to the imagination. Next they wil have a tv list and Simpsons ( a Classic) or some other fairly innocent show will be hacked away at. Censorship seems to be inconsistant at best. Books are something that do not deserve censorship. you have to buy them censorship enough. DOn't want your kid reading it don't buy it. Simple enough. Gary Paulson and judy Blume are great authors for young people. nothing worng with them. These people aho think they are bad then they need to share the dope they are smoking becuase its good stuff

And just who would be providing these books? :hmm:

The publishers, but someone has to provide them to schools, all I'm saying is having a pile of banned books at B&N doesn't make up for lost sales. So publishers do not want them on that list, having them on the list isnt like the "Parental Advisory" sticker on music, it actually hurts book sales..

Have sales really BEEN lost? I read a lot of those books in school, so perhaps 'ban' is not the proper word?

Of course if someone wanted to retroactively ban "Pride and Prejudice" so I didn't have to read it in 7th grade I would be a happy man. I don't think I've ever fully recovered from the sheer boredom those 500+ pages of bad soap opera inflicted on my brain.

I have what my friends call my Badass pin. It says, "I read banned books!"
The banning of books enrages me.

Here are the ones I really object to...
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling - I'll grant that there is violence and death in the later books that might scare children under 8, but other than that, these are harmless.
14. The Giver by Lois Lowry- This book was created as a simple way to show middle schoolers a creepy hypothetical "utopia" and scare them into never becoming socialists.
20. Earth’s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel- WHAT!?!?!?! So the religious types don't agree with the evolutionary view Auel uses (egads, neaderthals!). I'm sure they hate the Mother Goddess worship, and the idea that women could be equal to men or (gasp!) dominant. There are very beautiful and descriptive sex scenes, and one rape scene, but that is used to show just how wretched and horrible rape is. The books are not evil. They do not encourage rape or violence. While I wouldn't recommend them for under middleschool, I think it would be very beneficial for young girls to read the perspectives about sex and virginity and female roles that are presented here.
27. The Witches by Roald Dahl- this book has a fantastic plot! It might be a little scary, but kids have to experience fear, it's part of existence!
28. The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein- Sigh. Religious objections to sex and homosexuality.
37. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood- Once again, let's ban something that shows how a hypothetical version of this world with the intention of warning society against becoming that way.
38. Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George- I read this in the second grade. I have yet to steal anything, become a prostitute, or commit murder. I think it's probably alright for children to read this. As I recall, it promotes better understanding of nature.
40. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras- That's right. Let's not tell our children about their bodies. Let them worry incessantly about being "abnormal" because of puberty. Let them feel ugly because of armpit hair and growing hips. Let our girls think that menstration is dirty. Let them be ignorant of birthcontrol and yeast infections and STDs. Let them be ignorant and torture themselves because we want them to stay "innocent."
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee- Again. Let's ban it because it mentions a bad thing, even if the whole theme of the book is the denounciation of said bad thing.
54. Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole-see 40
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl- what???????
58. Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy- yep. Let's ban this book and let our boys learn about sex from whatever degrading porn they can get for free.
61. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras- ignorance is the way!
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding- this is a pathetically mild book.
72. Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Fantasies by Nancy Friday- Teen age girls should probably read this. I never felt like I should be reading these sorts of books because I was supposed to be a proper young girl and not think about sex or desire. Only later did I find out how many useful things were in these. If I had only known sooner...
73. Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
75. Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya - honestly now. This isn't that bad. Every child knows what a whore is and what murder is. The book doesn't condone these things in any case, so why shouldn't it be read?
76. Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle- Have children know lost the right to know where they came from? I think the the title is too politically correct anyway. It should read "My Parents Had Wonderful Sex and I Am The Product of Such Joy"
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
88. Where’s Waldo? by Martin Hanford
93. Sex Education by Jenny Davis- grates teeth
95. Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy-grates teeth more

I suppose I have to respect the right of others to with hold books from their children, but it still iritates. Why should we keep children and teens in ignorance?

Just a side note, so far no one can say if any books were banned. A challange does not equal a ban.

I don't know what they hope to accomplish by this in the long run, it seems pretty perfunctory and useless to me. Honestly... today's controversy is tomorrow's curiosity.

18 of the top 100, and 5 of the top 10, were required reading or on the summer reading choices list in my school. I've read about a third of the top 100 and an proud to live in a school district where the reading of banned books (from other areas) is encouraged or required* because our schools want to teach us about the ignorance that still afects so many people.



* - After the Columbine shootings, I was asked to leave my copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook at home

It does, however, indicate the desire to ban, the attitude that this is something that "they" don't want other people to read. This event helps to raise awareness that such attempts are still taking place, and that awareness may contribute to resistance to such attempts when they do occur.

Also, having corporate co-sponsors doesn't mean that they are the driving force behind the event, nor does it mean that drawing attention to attempts to remove books isn't a worthy cause.

This is exactly why this event is beneficial. It keeps the idea that there are would be censors out there who would like to decide for you what you and your children should be allowed to read fresh in people's minds.

Gilda

I think this is misleading. I don't think that a ban wants to eliminate the book altogether, just make sure it isn't mandatory reading. Many people would probably prefer that certain books weren't read, but at the same time they are not trying to get the book banned from publication, just from mandatory exposure in a school setting. And I agree that some choices are best left away from schools-I find that in the hands of someone who is unprepared or lacks the ability to comprehend complex issues, an idea can be just as dangerous as a gun (but for different reasons). And I think that many people in the K-12 system (and some above as well) don't have the proper ability to understand certain ideas, and being exposed to some books would not do any good, and be actively bad. I think before worrying about if a certain book can be assigned or read it would be best to work on ensuring that the most students possible are able to accurately analyze issues and make informed opinions; and hopefully these students will seek out some books with challenging themes because they desire to, and not because it was forced on them by a school.

So in other words, some people complained for whatever reason, no books were banned, and this is something to get worked up about?

What you are saying is that school boards/libraries etc know whats best for peoples children. I find that such people are no better informed than anyone else and as such challanges are good, there NEEDS to be a way for objections to be raised. Since I plan on taking an active role in the education of my child this is a non-issue for me as it is.

I was under the impression that the Narnia books were pretty much one big Christian allegory...

EDIT:
Haha, I was right! The (possibly) most famous anti-racism book was challenged for being racist! :lol: