Banned Books Week 2005
 

Sept. 24-Oct. 1 is banned books week for 2005.

First, a disclaimer. I'm not posting this because of the theme of this years announcement, but because intellectual freedom is important to me.

Banned Books Week raises awareness of attacks on gay, lesbian-themed books

The ten most challenged books in American Public Libraries and public school libraries, 2004:

The most challenged authors:

Why books are challenged:



The 100 most challenged books from 1990-2000:
When I have a parent object to the material in a book we're reading in class, such as The Chocolate War, number one on the list, I suggest to them that they take the opportunity to discuss exactly what it is that they object about the book with their child, and invite them to come discuss the book with the class. Most of the time, they haven't even read it.

Students are allowed, upon parental request, to opt out of a book. That's fine with me; parents should take an active role in their children's educations. They shouldn't be allowed, however, to decide for everyone else what they are or aren't allowed to read. That's why this is insidious.

You want to object to The Perks of Being a Wallflower? Don't object because it has sexual themes, homosexual characters, or drugs in it, object because it's poorly written tripe.

Read a banned book during banned book week and post what you thought of it here. Try to pick something new, something you haven't read before. Praise it, dissect it, attack it, tell us what's good or bad about it, but decide for yourself. Don't let someone else decide for you.

Gilda

Ahahahaha! I laughed out loud many, many times when I read the books that were on that list. Most of them were just absurd. I mean, In the Night Kitchen? I can just see the headlines now: Appalled Nation's Children Bathing in Milk and Eating Cookies Nude!

Actually, that sounds pretty good. I might go bake some cookies now.

I agree with you that most of those books are terrible. But the fact that people oppose them for content - content they don't even know firsthand - is just plain stupid. I'm sorry you have to deal with retarded parents. I'm glad, however, that you can help make their kids not quite so dumb.

Staying away from the censorship/homosexuality issue, I will say that the #1 book on the 1990-2000 (actually a series) is probably the scariest thing I have experienced in entertainment media (books, video games, movies, tv [but excluding internet, there's things on the internet far scarier, but for different reasons]). It's not the stories, which are pretty much all "classic" ghost/folklore stories (things like the hook, various death premonitions, etc.), but the illustrations. To this day, some of the illustrations can freak me out. They are very eerie, black and white, surrealist, and totally creepy.

Many of those books are required reading in the schools here.
To Kill a Mockingbird??? And my kids read Captain Underpants books when they were in 4th and 5th grade!!!
These lists boggle the mind....

I read Of Mice and Men when I was in grade 10 for my English class. Didn't think it was anything that a group of high schoolers couldn't handle.

I read many of the 100 books when I was younger, some while I was in elementary school. It makes me sad and irritated that students in school right now won't read some of these because a few parents object. I didn't realize that some are pulled from public libraries...that is an outrage. A lot of them have sensitive themes, but they are subjects that many, many children deal with on a daily basis (Blubber by Judy Blume comes to mind immediately); is not reading about them and thinking about them going to make them go away?

Gilda, I will take your advice and read a book on the list that I haven't read before. Thanks for the post.

Man, Captain Underpants, keep crusading! Don't let being kicked out of public schools everywhere stop you from using annoying alliteration!

On the other hand...

Was pretty much shown to be a political hack piece with false data used to create a politically motivated conclusion.

Of Mice and Men I read 2nd year in highschool, great book.

The rest (2004 top 10) I know nothing about beyond maybe having heard the title mentioned before.

The cynical side in me wonders if this is another form of advertizing for booksellers :hmm:

Some people just need to accept the fact that people used to say Nigger... jesus christ.

People still say nigger.

yeah, but theres a social stigma in most places now. I just mean that everyone back then said nigger.

I actually use this list to seek out authors whose work I've yet to read. Some may view this as a marketing tool for booksellers, but the list is very real and the books challenged have often been bestsellers before being challenged.

Like Gilda touched upon, it is often discovered during the course of events that those wishing to remove books from shelves have rarely ever read the books they wish to ban. Their motivations come from hearing from someone somewhere that there was something bad in the books. Some say knowledge is power, but all too often ignorance is even more powerful.

I also urge everyone who reads this thread to seek out these books and read them.

Thanks for reminding me to stop by a book store this weekend, Gilda.

Wow! Thanks for the post Gilda. I am really shocked actually. Are we sure this is America we're talking about? What happened? That's really scary.

I'm relieved that my bibles are safe: After reading part of the article and the list started, I thought, uh oh, my Bible will be banned for sure cause it has sex, violence, racism etc in it...a lot of it.

That really boggles the mind, banning a bunch of books one knows nothing about.

Wait, are you saying that's a bad thing?

How much do you want to bet that To Kill a Mockingbird is controversial because of "racist themes"? It really wouldn't surprise me.

I was going to put up a reminder Monday, Gilda, but you beat me to it and did a much better job than I probably would've. Thank you. :)

I find the idea of a 'challenged' book offensive. A book should challenge. Your beliefs, your ideology, your mind, et cetera, et cetera. The notion that a book should be culled from the compendium because a few narrow minds disagrees is distasteful. It seems an awful lot of trouble to go through in order to 'challenge' a book when just not reading it would've worked just as well...


P.S.- I've got a whole stack of 'banned books' I plan on reading this next week. :thumbsup:

Be that as it may, the answer to poor scholarship or politically biased work isn't censorship, it's countering the argument presented with a better one.

I'd really prefer not to debate the merits of the book here as that's not what's at issue.

Booksellers use it as an excuse for promoting certain classic books that end up on the list year after year, true, but that's a far cry from saying that the purpose has anything to do with book sales. The ALA has an agenda, of course, and that's to promote libraries, literacy, reading, and intellectual freedom, and they seem to welcome the publicity they get from booksellers.

--------------------

If anyone needs a specific recommendation from this years list, the first two, The Chocolate War and Fallen Angels are excellent YA books, and the last two, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Of Mice and Men are both very good for adults or high school aged kids. In the Night Kitchen is one of the great children's picture books.

This is the very reason why many of the books end up being challenged, and why so many are YA books.

A common scenario is that a teacher assigns a book to her class, usually for English or Social studies (our physical science teacher has his students read a novel each semester, but that's unusual). Sometimes it's the students who object, but far more often, it's the parents. In past decades, schools sometimes took an all or nothing approach, insistng that students be required to read the assigned material or fail that portion of the course. This foolishly forced parents to attack the assignment of the book for any student.

Most schools currently have an opt out system in which a student, with parental consent, can refuse to read a particular book on moral or ethical grounds, or because the find it offends or violates their religious beliefs, and so forth. A book of equivilent length and difficulty can be substituted. This seems an obvious solution, one that could make everyone happy, right? Not exactly. Parents and activist groups on both sides of the political spectrum will still attack the assignment of a book to any student. Opting out their own children isn't good enough for them; if they find the book objectionable, then nobody's children should be allowed to read it.

I remember a few years ago one celebrated case. A white woman challenged Huckleberry Finn based on the idea that it was racist. The school offered an alternative book for the girl to read. She'd be given an independent study packet and allowed to read and do the work in the library. A perfect compromise, isn't it? A few other parents thought so, opting their children out. The student doesn't have to read a book she objects to, parents who don't object have their children reading the book.

This wasn't good enough. The book had to be romoved from the curriculum altogether. Her reasoning? Her daughter was being deprived of the free public education required by law, because she wasn't getting the benefit of the teacher's expertise and class discussion. Fortunately the courts were of the very reasonable position that the school was providing the required instruction, but she was choosing not to take advantage of it. Interviews made it very clear that she was attempting to protect the black students from the book, which seems more than a bit condescending to me.

Sometimes such attacks succeed, and books are removed from the assigned reading lists, but kept in the library. Sometimes this isn't good enough. Parents and activist groups, or both together, have sought to have books removed from school libraries, again, playing censor for other people's children.

We've actually had parents attack a list of books distributed to students at the end of the year as recommended summer reading. These aren't assignments, nor are they books the kids are checking out of the school library. It's a list of books the school has put together that we (the school district) think would benefit the students as independent summer reading. They'd have to go buy or check the books out of the public library. The only way a student could be exposed to one of these books is if they chose it and made the effort to seek it out themselves.

It's mind-boggling.

Gilda

That's part of it, but more often it's foul language and violence. In the book, Scout's tomboyishness is further developed by her having a cursing problem. The attempted murder, accidental death, and finally imlpied murder near that end all lead to objections based on violence.

Gilda

As I recall from my high school days one sure way to get the kids to read a book was to try and ban it. When they tried to ban The Catcher in the Rye from our class reading almost every student went out of their way to read it, even kids in other classes and grade levels, ;) .

I recall a few years ago being in a Barnes and Noble book store in Seattle where they had a table set up exclusively with banned books. They had an information sheet posted saying that one of the most banned books in American schools was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. At the time I had no idea it was so controversial.

Every single time that I see that list my blood boils.
THAT is probably what pisses me off the most. If you want to be narrow minded and ignorant...fine. But, what gives you the right to drag the rest of us into your own little self-imposed hell?

I heard that some senator actually wanted to ban from all school and public libraries any book not only including a homosexual theme, but written by a homosexual.

I'd like to think he was some kind of crackpot and no one at all listened to him... but it's still a bit scary, isn't it?

No more Shakespeare for the kids.

Im sorry to say Ive only read 11 of the so called most dangerous books.

It's kind of frightening that people would challenge something like Brave New World... I suppose they must have objected to all those Soma addicts and the free sex. Surprised no objections to Lolita.

And I know its kind of a bad taste joke, but I cant not quote Bill Hicks on "Daddy's New Roomate" and "Heather's Two Mommies"

It was something like

"now, can you believe that they are actually giving these books to grade school children? Heather's Two Mommies and ... Daddy's New Roomate. Now, I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I have to say that this is absolutely disgusting, this is filth, this is wrong. I am of course talking about Daddy's New Roomate. Now Heather's Two Mommies... thats pretty cool...."

Well, they're not all worth reading just because they are on a list somewhere. You're not missing anything by not reading "sex" by Madonna (other than is being worth a bunch more than I paid for it years ago).

In High School in an English writing course, we read Catcher in the Rye. One of the lessons started with our teacher, Mr. Humphries, writing the word, "FUCK" in big block letters on the board.

What followed was one of the most memorable classes I'd ever had in High School. Debate, discussion, etc... I don't think I had anything similar until University.

Yes but I do think if a book is shown to be based on false data, that it should not be presented as a scholarly work. It at best belongs next to all the books by political pundits, and I have no problem with people complaining about it being in a library. You wouldn't allow math books that are factually incorrect and expect people to look for other books which 'present a better argument'.

political books shouldnt be in libraries?

there is a difference between a factually mathematical incorrect equation, and a political manipulation of statistics. All political or social studies seek to manipulate statistics in one way or another,

Perhaps not, but people who want to read it should still be allowed to do so, not have that decision made for them by others. I think The Man Who Would Be Queen is a hack job with falsified data deliberately manipulated to fit an existing agenda. The man who wrote it lost his position at a highly regarding learning institution and much standing in the academic community. Sounds similar, doesn't it? Yet I'd defend the right of this book to be in a public library, while at the same time pointing people interested in the subject to True Selves, a much, much better book on the same subject.

I view "creation science" as thinly veiled religious propaganda, but it has it's place in the library; it should be available to those who want to read about it.

Cool. I haven't read it, nor do I intend to, but that seems a reasonable solution to me. Put it with political opinion books.

This is where you lose me. Censorship is good if we censor the right books?

Math and history are hardly equivilent, but yeah, if there were a math book with errors in it, I wouldn't campaign to have it removed, I'd simply recommend a better book. We don't discard older science books merely because they've been proven incorrect by newer methods. I think the bible has been disproven by science, but that's not a good reason to remove it.

The best way to counter a bad argument is with the truth, not by removing the right to present that argument.

Gilda

Oh, yeah. I forgot about the end of the book.

(Although my point was that although TKAM has racist themes, it points out the fallacy of racism.)

yeah, its kind of like people wanting to ban "Brave New World" for the drugs and sex... even though the whole point is that the endless material pleasure was demeaning and dehumanizing.

Actually Barnes and Nobles has a table dedicated to banned books. I was surprised by some of them, but can understand why some people want them banned. Typically, the person who wants something banned doesn't agree with the topics in the book. This is very biased, but such is life.
I think that a majority of these books are some of the best literature. They make people think, which many people don't do these days unfortunately.
I just recently bought D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Love. However, jj and I have many of the books that were banned for one reason or another.
I also challenge people to choose books and read them.

I remember when we read John Wyndham's The Chrysalids, my friend's Mom went in to our teacher to complain that the book exhibited prejudice and didn't think this was something that should be read by those in grade 10.

While she was well meaning she was just out to lunch. The whole lesson revolved around prejudice as a negative force in our culture, amongst other things.

Like many of the books on the list, many contain some pretty awful scenes. So does life. The context in which these books are taught is where the difference is made.

I was surprised to see how many books on that list I had read while in high school and possibly even junior high! Did I find them offensive then? No I didn't. I found some hard to get through, but certainly not because of the message they were trying to convey.
What they did for me was to show how things were different in the times they were written, whether it be for the racial motives, or the violence or whatever. They didn't all have bright shiny "they all lived happily ever after" endings. Some were fitting, but others were quite moving to me. *Of Mice and Men particularly* That still blows me away the ending there and I dont' know why particularly. It just bothers me I guess.

These books were challenging, because if you read them for just the words alone, they didn't mean much. But if you read for detail, and you can see the messages in the words, then the books take on a whole other side.

I do not agree with banning books at all. They are there to be read and comprehended, even enjoyed, or, if they comprimise your morals, ethics, and beliefs then they are there to be enjoyed by those who do not find issue with them.

Read up! Go out and read the books on this list, or any list for that matter! you never know what you will find and enjoy.

Now available in Cold Mountain River scent...
 

Two things happen every time I see this list come back around:

1. I'm pissed that people are still actively taking their time to get books banned, in this the year 2005, and
2. That there's never any Shakespeare in the list, which makes me laugh. Maybe they don't count books of plays, but i'd think Bill should get an honorable mention... he's got suicide, murder, violence galore, sex, sexuality- for those who can read and fully understand the language, they know some of his material is down-right filthy. lol

Shhh...don't give them any ideas. :)

Using the criteria in #2 of your point, the same could be said of the bible.

I don't see why the bible wouldn't be banned under these criteria. Violence against gays/lesbians, whores, tribal warfare against other people because their god is different (Kill off all the males, enslave/rape the females[and ya know this really bugged me.. you'd think after being set free from egypt they would be the last people to take slaves.. but whatever]), endorsement of bigotry on every level, "religous viewpoint", nudity, "offensive language", "sexual content", "modeling bad behavior", "political viewpoint". Pretty much has the entire list of reasons for banning. It should be #1.

Hmm, I've read 25 of these books, and I only knew that a couple of them were/are challenged.

Really, who would ban Where's Waldo? I can't believe how nutty some people are! I suppose it makes sense that The Anarchist's Handbook was on this list, based upon what I've seen of it, but really...

To be honest, I'm quite suprised that Nabakov's Lolita isn't on the list.

(not to say I'm disappointed, it's a brilliant book, but based upon the subject matter I figured it would be)

Back when I was in 8th grade, i was editor on the school paper... one of the columns in the paper was a book review... The book I chose to review was Are You there go, it's me, Margaret, by Judy Blume.

I got sent to the principal's office for having dared to review such a scandalous book (Oh dear they talked about menstruation and cussed a few times) my mother was called to the office (my mother was, at the time, a professor of English Literator at Columbia University) to have me scolded. My mother (who was a tough old broad from NJ) basically told the principal (this was a nun) that I was reading, what exactly was the problem? The book review was gramatically correct and spell checked, why was there a problem with it?

Sister whatever the heck her name was thought it was absolutely scandalous... my dear sweet mother then suggested perhaps she wanted to get my father, the attorney, involved...

The paper ran as is...

In High school, the school board, none of the members whom had students in the school, decided that certain books were objectionable to our young minds... Catcher in the Rye (A bad book, but not scandalous) Lord of the Flies (slightly more entertaining) Animal Farm (Excellent book) of mice and men (I still love this book) were all on the banned list. Mrs R-T our sophmore year english teacher, had some serious tenure... and taught each of those books, over the objections and threats of the school board (but every single parent in that class basically said that any book was a good book, so why didn't they just chill...)

As an outsider, it appears to me that in 23 years 'Banned Books Week' has achieved the grand sum of.... fuck all.

Are they still protesting to get the same books forced into public and school libraries, or is the top 100 banned books list updated annually?

The protest is not to get books "forced into public and school libraries", it's to advocate for the freedom to choose books without outside censorship. The books are already in school and public libraries, and part of school curricula, which is why they are attacked.

It isn't about forcing them in where they aren't wanted, it's about not allowing a vocal minority to prevent everyone from having access to them.

The fact that the same books keep getting challenged seems to indicate some success to me. If the books weren't in the libraries, there would be no or little need for protest.

The top ten list is updated yearly. The top 100 list goes by decade, like the census.

Gilda

I see, I totally missed the point.

I don't know where I got the impression that the books had been banned.



I don't see how Banned Books Week is going to stop people complaining about said books. It may draw more complaints to by drawing attention to them but, I suppose, anything which encourages children to learn to read is a good thing. I wonder how many have read these books just because someone told them they shouldn't.

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: