Harry Potter News and Commentary
While we’ve already begun talking about everything frightening and Gothic for our Hog’s Head Halloween festivities, we should also remember that this week, September 27 – October 3, is Banned Books Week.
Anyone reading any banned books at present? Read any this year? What’s your favorite, and why?
Previous post: Dracula’s Guest
Next post: Chapter 10: Kreacher’s Tale
Tell Us a Story on March 20th is World Storytelling Day
Joivre on March 20th is World Storytelling Day
Red Rocker on Percy Jackson and Harry Potter
revgeorge on Percy Jackson and Harry PotterRed Rocker on March 20th is World Storytelling Day
Ally on March 20th is World Storytelling Day
PotterMom05 on March 20th is World Storytelling DayRed Rocker on Percy Jackson and Harry PotterJoivre on Chapter 20: Xenophilius Lovegoodrevgeorge on Chapter 20: Xenophilius Lovegood
Loading ...
{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }
I find it interesting that the ALA seems to be equating the banning of books from libraries with censorship. Not surprising, but interesting. There is a vast difference between saying “we don’t want your ideas available anywhere” and saying “we don’t want your ideas available in this specific location where, for instance, children can get at them.” The first is censorship. The second is merely people making choices about the things to which they expose themselves and their children. The 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, not the right to be heard.
Wow, see how I turned that into a debate? Sorry. I’m not a big fan of the ALA.
I’m not really reading any banned books at the moment. Just finished Ender in Exile, and I’m trying to decide what to read next.
I’ve been reading The Bible. It is my favourite banned book.
Like Warden Norton says – “Salvations lies within.”
That is probably the most banned, burned, and otherwise maligned book in the history of the world. You could do far worse.
Scott, I agree with you. These books aren’t censored, they are objected to over age and placement.
A few years ago I looked up the top “banned” books and decided to read some. I shall always be greatful, because I discovered Lois Lowry’s The Giver and the two sequels (the third reminds me of DH with it’s Christ metaphor). Her other YA books are great, too.
I’m not reading it now, but I did hear that To Kill a Mockingbird got removed from the curriculum at some high schools because of the use of the “n” word. Ironic, that. Doesn’t quite get full censorship points, however, because it’s still available in the libraries (perhaps in the Restricted Books section?)
Scott, when I’ve got a bit more time I’d be pleased to join you in debate about the merits of censorship and whether it’s about freedom of choice or limiting freedom of choice.
Scott, I’m reading the Ender books now. I’m up to Xenocide. I take it you enjoyed them? I also find your comment on the ALA very interesting.
Matthew, the Bible would certify qualify as a banned book with tales of incest, adultery, murder, rape, erotic poetry, and more in there.
Arabella, I think banned books week was the reason why I read The Giver for the first time like two years ago. I haven’t read the next two. Are they as good as the first?
Red Rocker, you should read Harper Lee’s classic novel. It’s great. Also, I like your Avatar.
Travis, I’ve been thinking of reading Lolita. Two of my friends recommended it to me so I got it from the library. I also got to finish The Great Gatsby.
Oh, I thought we were going to be banning a book to celebrate this week!! Guess I should read more closely.
After reading the linked article, I’m beginning to share Scott’s less than glowing view of the ALA. According to their own opinion, they’ve apparently single handedly saved civilization from the unwashed barbarians who would ban every book in sight if they could.
It’s not a banned book, but I just finished reading “The Sporran” – a book recommended to me by Amy H. Sturgis, so you KNOW it’s good. The protagonist is a 12-year-old boy – so it appeals to that age as well as anyone who enjoys a modern-day story along the lines of Indiana Jones meets the “Secret Society” plotline of National Treasure, with a dash of C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling influence to give it a wholesome flavor. If you enjoy Scotland, much of the story takes place there – with magic and castles and ghosts and dragons. Very original. The author’s name is G. L. Gregg.
Dumbledore banned the Horcrux books from the Hogwarts library.
I just found out looking at the list of banned books that I bought one on the list and gave “and Tango Makes Three” as a baby-shower gift to two (gay, married-for-one-year and together for 12 years) friends who just adopted a toddler. It’s an adorable book! Albus would have loved it.
Ooh, there’s a good discussion brewing here.
I think it’s interesting that in the same series, we have both the mocking of book-banning in Umbridge’s Quibbler ban and the seemingly favorable banning of Horcrux books, which seems to have been effective: very little is known about them, and very few even know there is such a thing as a Horcrux.
Which brings us to the question: Are there some books that should be banned, or removed from libraries? And if so, the most important question becomes: Who gets to decide, and based on what?
korg20000bc mentioned that he is reading the Bible, which, according to Scott “is probably the most banned, burned, and otherwise maligned book in the history of the world”.
This summer, I read How To Read The Bible , by James L. Kugel. The author is a retired professor of Hebrew at Harvard. I heartily recommend this book for anyone who is interested in biblical history.
Great question, Travis.
My first thought was that no book should be banned, but perhaps like Arabella Figg indicated, some books should be restricted because material is not appropriate for young people under certain ages. Even then, though, it’s tricky, because, as Travis put it, “Who gets to decide?”
After further thought, I do think some kinds of books should either be banned outright, or placed under severe restriction, with the person having to read it in the library, and know that his or her name will be monitored by Homeland Security. I mean books that describe how to build bombs, or how to assassinate someone; books whose clear purpose is to teach someone how to commit an act of terror or crime. These would be akin to the Horcrux books which Dumbledore removed from Hogwarts library.
I’m reminded of Eustace Scrubb who turned out poorly because he “read the wrong sorts of books.” Don’t ban them; just recommend the right sort of books so folks won’t have time to read the wrong sorts. That’s one of the things I love about the Hog’s Head. You folks are great at recommending the right sorts.
It may rankle a bit, but a little censorship has never killed anyone. A little too much is better than not enough. Of course certain books should be banned from children. Adults are supposed to have the sense to censor themselves. Who decides what to censor in this imperfect world? Local elected officials who are at least in theory directly accountable to the voters. Not some intrenched bureaucracy.
And what if 51% of the people are wrong about which ones to ban?
Not trying to be cantankerous – just pushing the issue a little bit.
If 51% of the people are wrong and local officials decide, than at least the injustice is confined to as small an area as possible.
Well said
(I’m a localist through and through.)
I will always come down on a very broad interpretation of the First Amendment and the right to speak one’s mind. As long as an author doesn’t openly advocate the death or harm of a specific individual or group of people, I’ll defend the average adult’s right to speak her mind or read what she pleases.
deacondon, I have to ask what qualifies as “a little” censorship? I completely agree with most here that very judicious restraint should be taken with respect to children. But I’m also very much aware that such restraint is difficult to define, at best, beyond some very obvious cases. Very well-meaning people consider HP to be extremely dangerous for kids. I think many of the arguments surrounding To Kill a Mockingbird and Huck Finn are patently absurd. Both books are among America’s finest statements against racism and segregation.
Heck if I know, Dave. But if it is left to local jurisdictions, then abuses will be, well, local. In my little KY hometown, one side of Main Street was dry, the other wet. All decided locally.
I forgot to mention that I’ve read at least two books on the banned list:
To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, and Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Oh yeah, and those books about witchcraft by a certain British female writer.
Looking at the list of challenged books in the US it seems that people don’t want other people to learn that there can sometimes be unpleasant things happening in this world (or good things like sex).
Somewhat like Hermione, they want to do a form of pre-emptive obliviating to protect people from nasty things, ‘for their own good.’
Many of the books on the list are High School textbooks in Australia and that’s where I read most of them. I guess the challenges come in the battle for the teenage mind. I noticed that the terribly subversive book ‘Where’s Waldo?’ (Where’s Wally in Aus) was on the list.
Johnny, I tried to post earlier and lost it. Here goes again.
The other two books in The Giver post-apocalyptic trilogy are really good, with the last, Messenger, in my opinion, being the best of all, with a strong Christ metaphor. When I first read The Giver, a powerful screed against euthanasia, the ending swizzled me for weeks as I wondered what really happened with Jonas. I highly recommend these literate, riveting books by Lowry. As I understand it, The Giver is banned because of the euthanasia aspect and because (this really underestimates kids), the ending is “too vague.” I thought it was fine for 11-12 and up.
While I don’t believe in censorship for adults, that doesn’t mean I want to see certain magazines (even if they carry them) out in the open on public library racks. But I do believe that not every book is appropriate for a school library (and I’m not talking Huck and Scout–that’s just silly–kids need to understand period literature); such books are still easily available.
Who decides and about what–that’s very difficult. Everyone has some gripe or other these days about what is appropriate.
Deacondon – my Korngoldian friend, I can understand your point of view, however, censorship has proved to be fruitless. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak. I also think the biggest censorship in literature is the name of Lord Voldemort. The fear in not speaking he-who-must-not-be-named’s name creates more fear. Albus says his name out loud. And we should learn from his fearlessness. I used the philosopher’s name Pete Singer, in another post; it doesn’t mean I ascribe to his rantings (infanticide is emphatically not my cup of tea) but to know his works, is to be able to debate his works.
In other words, if knowledge (good or bad) is denied – we lose a vital weapon against evil.
But here’s a quote from pianist Glenn Gould’s essay interviewing himself on censorship. It always makes me smile.
“g.g.: You do realize, of course, that you’re beginning to talk like a character out of Orwell?
G.G.: Oh, the Orwellian world holds no particular terrors for me.
g.g.: And you also realize that you’re defining and defending a type of censorship that contradicts the whole post-Renaissance tradition of Western thought?
G.G.: Certainly. It’s the post-renaissance tradition that has brought the Western world to the brink of destruction. You know, this odd attachment to freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and so on is a peculiarly Occidental phenomenon. It’s all part of the Occidental notion that one can successfully separate word and deed.
g.g.: The sticks-and-stones syndrome, you mean?
G.G.: Precisely. There’s some evidence for the fact that — well, as a matter of fact, McLuhan talks about just that in the Gutenberg Galaxy — that preliterate peoples or minimally literate peoples are much less willing to permit that distinction.
g.g.: I suppose there’s also the biblical injunction that to will evil is to accomplish evil.
G.G.: Exactly. It’s only cultures that, by accident or good management, bypassed the Renaissance which see art for the menace it really is.
g.g.: May I assume the U.S.S.R. would qualify?
G.G.: Absolutely. The Soviets are a bit rough-hewn as to method, I’ll admit, but their concerns are absolutely justified.”
I think parents have every right to make decisions on what their children read & are exposed to. I may think they’re wrong or that they’re fighting a losing battle, but I can respect their responsibility as parents.
I think a great deal of the problem over challenging books or banning them has to do with the fact that so much of education is done in government schools. Thus, anyone who is a taxpayer has every right to object to what is taught there. And I think parents get rightly concerned over what their children are learning, especially if it contradicts the beliefs & values the parents are trying to instill in their children at home.
What the answer is, I don’t know, except as a libertarian, I can say it’s certainly not more government meddling.
Joivre, I’m referring to censorship (limiting, if you prefer) of what children have access to. Something parents are supposed to be doing already. Censoring for anybody over about 12 is probably fruitless, but if even one child is protected…
Korngoldian? That’s quite a compliment. More korn than gold, you mean.
deacondon, growing up in Eastern KY, I know exactly what you mean! Of course, where I’m from, our biggest bootlegger also happened to be the sheriff.
And one of our more recent game wardens retired early because he was tired of being shot at — or so I hear…
We need to swap stories about dear ol’ Kanetuck.
Dave, I’m from Meade County, west of Louisville. The preachers and the bootleggers had a tacit agreement to keep parts of the county dry. Everybody was happy. Lots of Burley tobacco farmed there. But now I hear the biggest cash crop is marijuana. I haven’t been back in a few years.
I suppose that this is not the place for this…
Dave wrote “I’ll defend the average adult’s right to speak her mind or read what she pleases.”
I agree 100%. But again, their right to speak their mind does not guarantee a right to be heard. If you want to give a speech or write a book saying what a great guy you thought Joe Stalin was, I support your write to say or write that. But that doesn’t give you the right to put it in every bookstore and library in the US. Nor does it give you the right to have an audience for your speech. You can go in the middle of the forest and say whatever you want. So in that respect, I do support what some might describe as censorship. I call it choice. Also, if someone wants to read that essay on Stalin, they don’t have the right to force their library to carry it so everyone else sees it. You may end up having to spend some effort finding that, and that’s okay.
Now, I also do agree with the idea that more knowledge is always good. As my college philosophy prof. taught me, the best way to know your own side of an issue is to be able to effectively argue for the opposite side as well. But you have to give people the choice to get that knowledge themselves. If they do not want to be exposed to opposing viewpoints, you can not force it on them.
I’d like to return to Travis’ question (comment 11):
Are there some books that should be banned, or removed from libraries? And if so, the most important question becomes: Who gets to decide, and based on what?
The localist answer – the democratic answer – doesn’t work for me. What the majority decide isn’t necessarily right.
I’d actually agree that some books should be restricted – anything preaching hate or violence, or bomb making, as someone said above. But once again the question arises: who gets to decide?
I do think that parents should have to decide what their kids are exposed to, even if it does lead to narrow-minded or even bigoted kids, because I can’t think of who is better qualified to decide. I just don’t think they have the right to decide for other people’s kids.
On the other hand, if a parent living in one of those places where the schoolboard bans To Kill a Mockingbird wants his kids to read the book, he can walk to the nearest library to get it. Or that failing, a book store. Or order it from Amazon. com. So it’s not a very effective restriction. Actually seems more like a political statement to me.
My bottom line is that restrictions on books should be as minimally restrictive as possible.
I can’t guess the motivations of those who ban or challenge books, but I’ll have a go anyway.
Judging by the books that have been banned or challenged, it seems that many of them threaten someone’s power. Governments don’t like books that speak about freedom or expose the emperor’s new clothes. Books that weaken the power of racists, or the powerful in the status quo also get the chop.
And then there’s others… the people who feel they are better qualified to make moral judgements. They alone can determine what is dangerous or safe for others to read.
We had neighbours where the husband always read a book before letting his wife read it. If it didn’t pass muster she couldn’t have it. She thought he was being wonderfully protective, as did he. When I heard that as a kid I thought he was on to a good scam where he got to read all the racy stuff and not pass it on.
I guess when he died before her she could no longer read.
Dear Scott – if people will buy a book on the virtues of some evil despot like Stalin, in this society where capitalism is certainly not dead (much to the consternation and prognostications of others) one has every single right in the good old US of A to sell it in a book store! Yes, you are right, people don’t have to buy it. Ah – but the the libraries. The libraries. This is where I differ with so many of you unfortunately. Yes! Let them have it in the collection. Please have all the horrible books the world has ever known in the collections – everywhere. I want too know about the final solution, I want to know about the bomb, I want to know everything there is to know. Why in the libraries you ask? Because there is a child out there, somewhere, and she is 10 years old and will save the world. How you ask? Because she was too poor to buy a book on her own – so she went to the Library and learned about the evil in this book. And she figured out how to save the world from it. If not for that book that would have been censored, the one that was considered evil, and was evil, she never would have grown up to fight against it.
I amaze myself with my own melodrama sometimes.
Deacondon – no korn – you are worth all the gold in Gringotts. I understand your protective nature of the young, though it doesn’t seem like it from my posts.
And Revgeorge – even though I’m a blue dog, I would be happy if my child (even though I don’t have any) would grow up to be a Libertarian. It would mean she is passionate for a world where people would be responsible for their own actions and there would be no need for laws. I might not think it feasible, but I would respect it.
I just finished re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel I love. I’m reviewing it at Epinions this week as part of a banned-book week writeoff that’s hosted there each year by a fellow writer. Reviewers write about various books that have been banned and/or challenged. In previous years, I’ve reviewed Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time, Kat Paterson’s Bridge to Terebithia, and…hmm…oh yes, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
First time commenting on a HH’s discussion because, well, I’m a wuss. My first language is Spanish, so excuse any crazy English. (That’s part of the reason I stay away from discussions.)
As for banned books, I believe parents have the responsibility of monitoring what their children read. Absolutely. My problem starts when a selected group of people tries to decide for all, and their actions prevent someone that has no problem with it from freely accessing a text.
Scott (#29), you can’t call it choice when the action inherently takes the choice away from someone, even if it’s not you or your children. After all, you wouldn’t read it anyway, I suppose. And that’s ok too, if you don’t.
A lot of comments have been based on the idea that everyone has access to books, whether they are in the library or not. I completely disagree with that statement. Yes, the library banned book would be in book stores and over the internet, but that doesn’t really make it accessible for reading. Those resources are not available to everyone, especially for monetary reasons. And that’s the point of Joivre self-called “melodrama” on comment 32. Libraries are available to everyone, for free! Some people won’t read that book at all, because the book was not there, and it wouldn’t be because of their choice. Some people may not have access to the forest where the person was displaced to say “whatever he wants”.
Travis’ question still stands: Who should decide? I think myself should decide. I think parents should discuss and decide with each of their OWN children. But challenging and/o banning books, seems to me like a someone is trying to decide for everyone.
Joan, so glad to see you commenting here! In the words of Albus Dumbledore, “We have corresponded, of course.” But it’s good to see you commenting here, and please don’t worry in the least about “crazy English.” Your English is fine, especially if you can get through, and like, my overly-wordy book!
Joan – Estube in Madrid para dos anos. Pero olbidao todo and my spanish is still horrific. Your english is great! And not only because you agree with me. I agree with you! You should decide what you or your children will read. Be fearless. Keep on commenting here! I understand everything you said perfectly and it was very much appreciated! My friend, thank you. Come back again.
But Joan, it is still your choice if the book is available in a bookstore and you can’t afford it. You are making the choice not to spend money on that, but on other things instead. Perhaps if we were in a desperately poor country like India or one of the African nations, you might make that argument. But the poorest people here in the US still have wealth beyond imagining in other countries. So you are still making the choice not to buy that book.
And even if you really need to read the book for free, you can probably find somewhere you can borrow the book, but it may just take some effort. If you really want that knowledge in that book, maybe it’s worth the extra effort. If it’s not worth it, that is also a choice you are making.
Sorry to sound a bit redundant, but as someone else pointed out, in most cases, once a book is published, the cat is out of the bag. If you really want to read it, you can find a way to do so. So there really isn’t a way to ban a book on a macro scale. Which gets back to the localism idea. If the majority of a community decides they don’t want a particular book in their library, that should be fine. Who should decide? Largely the patrons of the library I would think. In the case of a school library, the parents should have some input. But at a public library, if they get a lot of complaints about some book, they should stop carrying it. Or try to open a debate with their customers about it. On the other hand, if I don’t go to a library, I shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what they carry.
I am starting to feel weird about the above posts. And others. Am I being set up? Are they fake?
I’ve never felt so paranoid about posting before.
Oh no, am I going to lose a place for my voice?
Is what fake? To which posts are you referring?
There’s no set-up or trick or anything, and no one’s losing an opportunity to speak their mind. It looks to me like a healthy debate with some lively discussion.
Joivre, not to be blunt, but what are you talking about? I don’t think any of the above posts are fake nor any others. Travis doesn’t really let spammers or trolls on the site, so perhaps all that’s going on is some misunderstanding? Online communication isn’t always the clearest, & sometimes humor or kidding especially doesn’t come across clearly. I hope you don’t think you’re losing a place for your voice. I appreciate you commenting.
No Traivs, You’re right I suppose. I just wonder (like korg’s response to me on drac) if I might be a pun of a joke. I speak my mind and then recoil. Why oh why am I so embarassed by my own comment when I see them written out?
Everything’s anon. So it’s silly for me to be so affected. Geez – I really put the “sensitive” into the artist stereotype don’t I? Forgive me.
Here’s the thing with libraries, even there you cannot have access to every book ever written. Libraries simply don’t have the room nor do they have the funds to acquire every book. Just talk to somebody in acquisitions & you’ll learn quickly how much of a budget they have & the choices they have to make about which books to stock in the library.
And again, if a library is funded with public funds, i.e. tax dollars, then any citizen who has paid taxes in that locale has a say in how that money is used.
No worries, Joivre. You can feel comfortable here. There may be push-back and disagreement, but when people start getting disrespectful, Aberforth kicks ‘em out. That’s why I post these rules.
Scott, if you take away someone’s choice to not have, don’t you take away their choice to have?
So far, I’ve chosen to not read Hitler’s Mein Kamph, an evil tract if there ever there was one, but I want my public library to have it so I can read it if I want or need to.
I’m a staunch defender of libraries and became an activist (so not my style!) to save our services when they were threatened. The low-income percentage is increasing by the day. Those who scrimp hard to to make the choice of food or medical care or utilities payments don’t have the luxury of purchasing books or hunting down acquaintances who might have them.
Libraries themselves are making tough purchasing choices. A friend and I requested John’s Deathly Hallows Lectures, How Harry Cast His Spell, Harry Potter’s Bookshelf and Travis’ HP&I, hoping to get them into the library for others to read. Of the four, they only bought HPB; the others were interlibrary loans, two from across the country. Owning all but Travis’ (which I joyfully read), I felt bad that they’d spent the ILL money. What didn’t they buy instead?
While I feel school libraries should use discretion, I feel public libraries should have it all (although I wouldn’t want the bomb-making materials, etc). Even so such things are freely found on the Internet, available everywhere. Sigh.
Dave, I still disagree. You can’t assume everyone can afford to buy a book, let alone seven (if we consider Book series, like Harry Potter), and I don’t think you have to go other countries to debate that. You can’t assume the resources are there for everyone, ’cause if they aren’t, reading would become a privilege for those who can afford it. That’s scary to even say.
I don’t think that encourages people to read either, which is the point of the existence of books, really. You and I already love reading, maybe buying a book would be such a burden for us. We wouldn’t mind putting a bit of money into it. But that doesn’t really justifies why that same book shouldn’t be accessible to some that’s interested for free. Why make it harder for people to read it? The ones banning the book won’t read it anyway, so why go to the lengths of preventing others that want to from doing so? Why single these people out? Why they have to go to more trouble to get it?
In the same way, not everyone has someone to lend them a book. I would like very much myself. It would save me a few bucks. But sadly, I’m the “friend” that lends books to other friends, because they won’t buy it themselves. And I can’t buy them all.
Again, I’ve no problem when someone decides to not read a book themselves, or for their children. It’s their prerogative. When they start putting obstacles for other people to be able to do so, whether the obstacles are considered small or inconsequential, I don’t consider it fair. Parenting should be left for the parents, not the books, anyway.
And after writing all this out, Arabella managed to condensed it into her first two sentences, lol. I agree with what she says in her post. Travis & Joivre , thanks for the encouraging words. I’ll try my best to keep posting, and you keep at it, too, Joivre. (Btw, I got all of your “horrific” Spanish.)
Claro que si! Muchas gracias amiga.
Joan, um… I’m not sure how this impression happened, but in no way would I ever advocate restricting book access for anyone. You and I completely agree on that! Everything you said is spot on to me.
I’m not sure how helpful it will be to keep beating the “what is poor” issue, but I’ll take one last quick stab at it and then leave it alone.
In the US, we have no concept of real poverty. The poorest people here still have, on average, 2 TVs, a decent car, a roof over their heads, a computer and internet connection, and generally a far too regular diet of McD’s.
You can say people sometimes don’t have the choice of buying books because they have to pay for food, healthcare, etc. But having lost a large part of my income this year, I am finding how many places we waste insane amounts of money, starting with eating out and fast food. Cut out fast food and Big Gulps at Circle K, and you can probably save a bunch. Do you smoke? You probably spend >$100 a month on that. Stop at Starbucks every day? There’s $50 a month anyway. Coffee is my addiction, and we were spending $50-75 a month just on gourmet coffee.
Now, we have been blessed in our income for a while, but the point is a lot of people here in the US see that kind of stuff as just part of how they must live. You make choices about all that. Most people could reduce their spending enough to keep them in books all year, especially if they hit used bookstores and such.
My second point is skirting a little bit around the edge of politics. If you accept the idea that some people can truly not afford to buy books or obtain them any other way, and so have a right to have access to them in a public library, you are essentially taking away some of my ability to buy the books I want. Those public libraries are paid for by taxpayers, so for you to demand that the library carry even books that you may never read but you want the option to in some nebulous future is hurting my ability to buy books now. So in that case, your choice of access diminishes my ability to make a choice about access to books.
I’ll stop before I start sounding too much like I hate libraries. I don’t. I think they are a great place to figure out what you like to read without wasting a bunch of money on stuff you don’t like. I mostly buy books at this point in my life though because I prefer to own them so I can re-read them. I’m a fairly slow reader so it doesn’t break the bank too much.
I’m going to be a little less restrictive about my rules on politics for this thread. After all, I initiated a very political conversation when I started a thread on Banned Books.
So, feel free, everyone, just on this issue, to bring political viewpoints into the discourse. Just keep it kind and civil. You’ll get moderated if you get mean. I think it’d be wise, for the most part, even to avoid sarcasm.
And now, I’m thinking there are some folks who will want to respond to where these comments have gone
Dave and Joan, my guess is that the mix-up here is that Joan was responding to Scott, but accidentally wrote “Dave.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done the same sort of thing.
First an oops- ite’s Mein Kampf. Six whaps with a blue pencil for Arabella….
Scott, you’ve painted a picture of people who can easily afford, what to a large and increasing number of people, are luxuries–gourmet coffee, regular Sbux, eating out, etc. I’m not going to judge poor parents who can squeeze out an occasional dining/drink treat for their kids.
While it’s true that even the poorest on America live well compared to those in other countries, costs here are higher as well–for transportation, utilities, medical costs, insurance, etc.
Across the country, job losses are increasing, with the job pool rapidly decreasing. Food bank and meals for the poor are struggling to keep up with the burgeoning need. Some local schools here, with large bases of poor families, depend on donations of sweat pants and undies for small children who get soaked when falling in snow or rain during recess (some of the pants are returned, some become a critical part of the child’s wardrobe). Such people are not contemplating regular Big Gulps and Barnes & Noble forays.
Library use here has phenomenally increased. I consider my taxes going to the library as not only beneficial to me, but a grace to those less fortunate.
Dave, I’m sorry. Travis is right, I mixed-up the names. That’s what I get for posting at 1:30 am. Oops.
I wrote in comment #51: “I consider my taxes going to the library as not only beneficial to me, but a grace to those less fortunate.”
I should have added that I also consider it a justice issue.
Arabella, how is it a justice issue?
Scott, this is a fair question and an answer is difficult to articulate. I simply feel it’s the right and just thing to provide access to library materials to all, regardless of financial wellbeing. This benefits the whole community, especially children who rely on services for resources. I am willing for my taxes to support this (and, really, our library district take is a minimal amount compared to other taxes). Our community is very supportive of our library services.
I somewhat agree. Libraries do use a very small portion of our taxes. I would say that it is good to have libraries, because spreading knowledge is always good. But I don’t see where having a public library is a matter of justice. It’s not like someone has been wronged and we need our local sheriff to ride in and dispense justice for them. I just see it as an issue of something that is good for a community, within reason. Getting back toward the original topic, when you have someone from the ALA trying to carry stuff that is inappropriate or dangerous, then it’s up to the patrons of the library to let their views be known.
Hi Scott – yes, I’m baaaack. I am curious as to what you think is dangerous.
Plans to teach someone how to make a nuclear bomb, biological weapon, chemical weapon, that sort of thing.
Inappropriate would be somewhat subjective, but I think most people would think it inappropriate, for instance, to have a computer in the middle of a public library that is able to access pornography. And yet I have read articles where the ALA fought to let people look at porn in the middle of a library where kids were.
What comes to mind is Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s statement of what she understood to be Voltaire’s position on the freedom to express one’s ideas:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
There is something called the slippery slope argument in logic. Applied to porn in libraries it might look something like this: if you censor a single site from a computer, then you set a precedent for censoring and no one knows where that will stop. I can sort of see it would be valid in this case. People object to so many different things for so many reasons, and feel so strongly about their objections, that once they start, they will not stop. And if Mark Twain and Harper Lee are fair game, then no writer is safe.
All of a sudden – I feel great kinship for you Red Rocker. I will defend to the death your right to post your last post.
I’m teaching 1984 to my high school class at the moment. Certainly a classic, and it has had its share of protestations. The kids are really enjoying it, though I daresay it requires a great deal of discussion. It’s probably one of my favorite novels of all time — it’s so timely (even sixty years on from publication) and chilling. It’s the kind of thing that makes you think twice about the current state of the world, and I would even argue that it changes your worldview forever. Some might call it the catalyst for a loss of naivete, and perhaps it is, but that loss is an exhilarating (and dreadful) epiphany that few would wish undone.
As my students would say “I can’t unhear what I heard, I can’t unknow what I now know.” Which is the terrible beauty of Orwell.
Afterwards, I’m planning to do Fahrenheit 451 with them, which should be interesting. It, too, has been banned or censored — which is, of course acutely ironic considering its subject matter. Perhaps those wishing to censor it are well-versed in doublethink.
(Oh, and, hello…I’ve been lurking here for awhile and enjoying all the fantastic discussions. Thought I should introduce myself at last.)
Red Rocker, I absolutely agree with the slippery slope argument. It’s one of my main arguments against big government (allow them to tax this today, and what will they tax tomorrow?). I was just saying Ask a bunch of parents if they want their library to block porn sites, and I bet they will all say yes. And I’m talking actual porn sites, not sites where you can do legitimate anatomy research and such. There’s just no reason not to block stuff like that in a library, in my opinion. Just my opinion.
SJ, when you’re done with Orwell and Bradbury, try Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (sp?). Another great read along the same lines, but written a fair bit earlier than 1984.
Glad you joined the conversation, SJ
I’m curious: who censored Fahrenheit 451? Goes rather to the heart of things, doesn’t it?
Wow! SJ – what a courageous teacher you are. I daresay Dumbledore would hire you (Muggle-Studies anyone?) You would do well at Hogwarts. I remember reading 1984 in Catholic High School and I also remember my dear Jesuit teacher wishing with a wink in his eye that he’d never assigned it to me – I was never the same after that. Please come back again.
Red Rocker, they didn’t censor Fahrenheit 451, they burned it…
;-D
So I Googled my own question. Here’s the coda Bradbury wrote for a later edition of Fahreneit 451:
There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist / Zionist / Seventh-day Adventist / Women’s Lib / Republican / Mattachine / FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse….Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by the minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the library closed forever. … Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with the censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place
BTW, Bradbury offered more than one interpretaton for his book (which should make those who scorn authorial intent happy). Despite writing the coda, he also stated that:
it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.
Oh dear. How incendiary. Damns and Hells and all.
Red Rocker, they (the amorphous “they” being a Mississippi high school –that’s the only one I am 100% sure of) have banned Fahrenheit 451. Many people have tried to get it banned over the years due to a few curse words and a Bible being damaged during one scene, and probably a general unease about what it portends.
It has been censored much more often than it has been banned, which I take as a small comfort. The editors at Ballantine Books censored some 75 passages of the book, without Bradbury’s knowledge, and sold the altered version. Bradbury didn’t learn of it for about 13 years, I believe, at which point he demanded they use the original words he’d written. Another example was in 1992, when Venado Middle School (CA) students received copies of the book with words blacked out.
As Bradbury himself notes in Fahrenheit 451, books weren’t all burned at first — no, it was the careful tearing of a page here, a page there, then whole sections, which eventually led to the incendiary outcome.
“The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
-Ray Bradbury
Ha! well, I suppose you couldn’t wait for a response.
And here I was researching away…
Anyway, I’ve been wondering what, if anything people on here would censor about Harry Potter? Say…for certain age groups. Personally I wouldn’t change a thing, but I imagine some might not want children reading about murder, or reviving dark lords in graveyards…
Interested to know if anyone thinks that censorship wouldn’t “hurt” HP.
Censorship, in any fashion, is not my style, obviously. However, I am like you in waiting to see if anyone has the courage to censor any part of Harry Potter. What to censor? we ask. Well, we will always be surprised with what might follow.
SJ, I think censorship of that kind more often does the opposite of the intent. It’s like someone trying to boycott a movie. It only makes more people want to see what the fuss is about. It might be a really stupid movie or book, but if someone turns it into a controversy, people want to see it. That seems to work especially with younger people, say under 20.
I do have to say the controversy over HP was what got my wife and I started reading the books. She was working in the children’s dept. at our church and had a lot of parents asking about the books, so she read the first couple. That got me interested, so I tried them too, and here we are.
SJ, thanks for the response anyways: I didn’t know a school had done that, I thought it was only Ballantine.
Speaking of censoring, I was listening to the Katy Perry song Hot N Cold this morning on the radio and I realized that they (the amorphous they again!) had electronically deleted the word bitch from the song. When Perry sings the word, you hear a low, neutral humming sound instead of the word. Now it’s not a word I like, and I don’t want my 8-year old hearing it, which is why we decided (he and I together) not to put the song on his MP3 player. But deleting it when you play it on the airways? I think they should either play the song, or not play it if it offends them, but not mess with the lyrics. Reminds me of the Pope who put diapers on Michelangelo’s statues.
it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.
This was the first thing that struck me when I read Bradbury’s book. When I read about the wall-sized TVs, I thought, “Bradbury knew these things were just going to keep getting bigger and bigger till they took up whole walls.”
and a Bible being damaged during one scene
How … odd. Especially since they’re quoting the Bible at the end as one of the very important works that can’t be lost.
Red Rocker, they’ve been doing that for a long time. I remember Tom Petty’s song, “You Don’t Know How it Feels,” when the blurred the word “joint” (as in, “let’s roll another joint”). Green Day got tons of words edited. Snoop, instead of “rollin’ down the street smokin’ endo” was just “rollin’ down the street smokin’ smokin’”).
But on the radio, which is supported by ads and such, I don’t have an issue with it if it’s what the consumer demands from their stations. I think people have the right to say, “I want my kids to be able to listen to your station and not have to ban them from entire radio stations because you won’t cut out words on two or three songs.” And the radio station has the right to say, “Screw you,” and then all the people have the right to say “No, screw you, none of us are listening anymore” and push the radio station.
What I don’t like is the federal government deciding these things and fining stations for breaking rules of decency decided by the feds. But that just gets us back to politics again.
Seriously I read like 50 books a year, if it weren’t for public libraries I would be in so much debt-textbooks and academic books are ridiculously overpriced and regular books are still quite expensive. If books aren’t available to borrow that means they just won’t end up in my papers, and the scope of my education is being dictated by small groups of people. Books are not cable tv or slurpies…access to them at an early age gives kids critical skills they need to get through school.
The Stalin example doesn’t work for me, we’re not talking about some hypothetical fringe political propaganda-distributing things that people don’t want or care about vs blocking the distribution of things that people are already reading. What if you decide to ban the communist manifesto from a high school library because they think it would be a bad influence-there’s something that has about a zillion legit academic reasons to be studied but about a zillion reasons for people to object to it as well. Is there even one person that wants porn to be widely available in schools? Again, not something you would have to censor in the first place. But like, DH Lawrence or Henry Miller can certainly be censored.
Also, I never understood why so many people like Lolita. That book was boring as hell(pardon my french.) Also, my principal veto’d 1984 and Brave New World from the grade 12 curriculum, so we got Wuthering Heights.
Just a note on library computers. The ones in the childrens’ section have blockers, but the rest don’t. Children can use the adult ones, but at least young ones can be “safe.” Again, one hopes for parental supervision or permssion. I think this choice is a good one and gets avoids censorship.
Interesting question on HP censoring; that’s one way of condensing the overlong OotP!
Nadia – that’s so interesting that you brought up Lolita. My mom had never read it because it had a “reputation”. When I was in 6th grade I asked about the book and she said don’t read it because it was pornography, tsk, tsk. So I promptly went to the Library and checked it out. The film was on PBS last month and my Mom and I watched. We were disgusted and riveted. Loved it.
Oh – I forgot to add – when I read it in 6th grade – I had no clue what all the fuss was about because I was incredibly naive. It was just a book about a girl and her stepfather to me.
Joivre I can’t remember why I brought Lolita up now either, heh. I wouldn’t ban it, and I can understand why it’s considered literature, but it’s one of those books that I consistently see on the favourites list of a lot of people I respect and I have never understood why people like it so much. Besides some taboo subject matter I don’t see what it had going for it.
Yeah it’s funny the things that our minds sometimes don’t (or won’t) pick up on. Something like Lady Chatterly’s Lover on the other hand, doesn’t leave a whole lot to the imagination.
I saw this list online:
The reasons given why some people want to ban a book (or in the case for Bradbury Burn, burn).
Real Reasons Given To Ban or Challenge Children’s Book
1. “Encourages children to break dishes so they won’t have to dry them.” (A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein)
2. Children shouldn’t be “scared by materials they read in school.” (Scary Stories 3 by Alvin Schwartz)
3. The book “portrays the U.S. government as lacking in intelligence and responsibility.” (The Fragile Flag by Jane Langton)
4. The book “teaches children to spy.” (Harriet the Spy by Louise Fitzhugh)
5. “The little boy did not have any clothes on and it pictured his private area.” (In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak)
6. “Children are not ready for illustrations and conversation about jockstraps.” (The Dallas Titans Get Ready for Bed by Karla Kuskin)
7. School board members were concerned about a “sad ending.” (Alan and Naomi by Myron Levoy)
8. Challenged as a summer reading assignment because, “it sounds like pretty explicit stuff.” (The Contender by Robert Lipsyte)
9. The book is “demented.” (The Long Secret by Louise Fitzhugh.)
10. “Promotes cannibalism.” (Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein)
source: from the Banned Books Resource Guide by Robert P. Doyle
This makes me hunger for “Where the Wild Things Are” which is coming up soon.
Roooooooaarrrrhhhh!
I came apon this article and this poem, the author is responding to some who wish to ban books.
This year, the event features work by Ellen Hopkins, a young adult author who was recently banned from speaking at an Oklahoma middle school when a parent complained about her novels Glass and Crank, which are based on her daughter’s past addiction to crystal meth. According to the school superintendent, the school banned her out of concern for the appropriateness of the subject matter for its students.
Hopkins offered her own opinion on her blog.
“I can see a parent’s concern. So fine. Don’t let YOUR child read them. However, NO ONE PERSON should be able to tell other people what their children can or can’t read. I have received thousands of messages from readers (and yes, many are middle grade), thanking me for: turning them away from drugs; insight into their parents’/other family members’ addictions; allowing them to live vicariously through my characters, so they don’t actually have to experience those things; literally saving their lives. Who has the right to keep books that do these things off the shelves? And the bigger question, who has the right to keep ANY books off the shelves?”
Hopkins also responded angrily in verse, with a poem called “Manifesto” which has become something of a manifesto for this year’s event.
“Manifesto”
To you zealots and bigots and false
patriots who live in fear of discourse.
You screamers and banners and burners
who would force books
off shelves in your brand name
of greater good.
You say you’re afraid for children,
innocents ripe for corruption
by perversion or sorcery on the page.
But sticks and stones do break
bones, and ignorance is no armor.
You do not speak for me,
and will not deny my kids magic
in favor of miracles.
You say you’re afraid for America,
the red, white and blue corroded
by terrorists, socialists, the sexually
confused. But we are a vast quilt
of patchwork cultures and multi-gendered
identities. You cannot speak for those
whose ancestors braved
different seas.
You say you’re afraid for God,
the living word eroded by Muhammed
and Darwin and Magdalene.
But the omnipotent sculptor of heaven
and earth designed intelligence.
Surely you dare not speak
for the father, who opens
his arms to all.
A word to the unwise.
Torch every book.
Char every page.
Burn every word to ash.
Ideas are incombustible.
And therein lies your real fear.
by Ellen Hopkins
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-lundberg/a-poem-highlights-banned_b_300302.html
and http://ellenhopkins.livejournal.com/7107.html
R. Ross thanks for posting this. It’s pretty heavy duty and hard hitting. Maybe a bit too hardhitting for my taste. If I might so bold as to say – there are alternative ways to capture your enemy other than attacking them outright. And on this subject, you can’t arm-wrestle a winner. The surest way to Victory is to persuade. Persuade your opponent to surrender.
What I always loved about Albus, was that he was always so cordial, polite and good natured with his enemies. I wish everyone could be more like him.
I agree with you, Joivre. That poem is so full if itself that its almost laughable.
My name’s Francis. You call me Francis and I’ll kill you.
She lost me at multigendered identities. Too many syllables and too abstract a term. It makes for better poetry if you call a spade a spade. I’m also unclear about the reference to the Magdalene: is she talking about Dan Brown’s book? Again, call me old fashioned but a reference to a popular author does not make for poetry, imho.
Sigh. I feel old.
I do like the bit about the father who opens his arms to all. And denying magic to kids in favor of miracles. They have a certain ring.
“To you zealots and bigots and false patriots who live in fear of discourse.” Bombast away! Lumping together terrorists and “the sexually-confused”–whoa.
She should tell us what she really thinks.
I believe His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman was banned for a while because of its anti-Christian message but surely a way to encourage Christianity would be to allow children to decide for themselves whether they want to be Christians or atheists. I used to be a Roman-Catholic but am now an atheist on account of having religion shoved down my throat.
Nooo! My avatar’s changed! I liked the last one!
Hey Tom, you can upload the avatar of your choosing by signing up with Gravatar.