Top Banned Books of 2003

michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003. Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"

Comments

Why Harry?

[BigHungryJoe]

Is the objection to Harry Potter that it depicts magic? I don't get it. C.S. Lewis had magic in his books, and Christians love him. What is the difference?

Re:Why Harry?

[Mr. Slippery]

In my mind those are two entirely different religions

It's not just in your mind. Wicca just doesn't feature Satan as a character.

And Satanism itself isn't really what people think it is, it's just a sophmoric power philosophy. It actuall seems to me to be more closely related to Objectism and "libertarian capitalistism" than to Wicca...

Re:Why Harry?

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

The irony of this whole thing reminds me of something I said long ago to a fundamentalist who was giving me a rough time about playing D&D:

We play games about monsters and magic. You think it's all real. Now which one of us has the problems with reality, again?

She didn't have much to say after that.

Re:Why Harry?

[myowntrueself]

Satanism requires Christianity; because the Satan character only exists in Christian mythology.

Interestingly, Satan exists only in relatively recent Christian mythology as well, largely due to certain, rather late, translations of the bible.

Judaism has nothing remotely resembling a devil character whatsoever (unless you count that thing (can't remember the name) who recounts to God all the wicked things you did when you are up for judgement).

Islam has a kind of satan like figure (Iblis or shaitan), but in essence this character is on the level of humans, not a fallen angel (its a Djinn; created by God from fire just as humans were created from clay).

Zoroastrianism has a devil like character, but its power and nature is exactly equal to that of the good god character.

The so-called 'pagan' religions of Europe had nothing like the Devil; for the most part they hac a trickster character (eg Loki). But that nothing like the Devil.

What I would like to know, mistranslations aside, is where did the modern Christian notion of the Devil come from? Did it arise out of the collective guilt complex of Christianity? Or was it deliberately concocted as a means of social control?

Because it (the devil) is a novel concept in the context of the mythologies of the regions which gave rise to Christianity.

I think that modern christianity needs a devil to keep its congregation under control.

banning

[BoldAC]

I used to think my high school literature teacher was the coolest person in the world. (Oh, and she was HOT!) Obviously a previous bra-burning flower girl...

Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.

What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.

AC

Re:banning

[NoMercy]

Lot better than in the UK, the national criculum has seen to that, all schools no matter where they are or who there teaching, teach the same stuff, so we all read Of Mice and Men, and we all do Macbeth in drama, we all study X in science...

It does mean everyone gets an equal footing, and the bad teachers don't slack off and just not teach anything but it does get increadably boring after reading the 40th poem of the NEAB Anthology.

Re:banning

[Java Ape]

Sadly, the life a teacher is not all roses. Many years ago, before I became a nerd, I took a job as a school teacher. My parents were both teachers, and I thought it a nobel and proud profession, despite the long hours and low pay.

I was trying to support a wife and three children on a teacher's salary, and had the sword of student debt suspended over my head. Some weeks after accepting the job, and moving to a new town, the principal called me in, and told me I would be teaching evolution and sex education. I was told that I was required to follow the district curriculum in these areas, and any deviatiation from the party line would be considered grounds for immediate dismissal. With a sinking feeling, I asked what the official curriculum would be. As expected it was a watered-down, "don't offend anyone, for any reason" curriculum with completely ignored all scientific evidence in favor of feel-good pablum and politically-correct platitudes.

I told the principal that this curriculum was laughable, I might as well teach Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Not an eyelash blinked. Dead serious "Mr. Briggs, you are apparently under the impression that the science curriculum is as important as the socalization of our students. Your job is to assist the school is producing good citizens, subject area mastery is a secondary and far lesser consideration".

That was Pasco, WA 1994. I desperately needed the job. I swallowed my principles, and taught what I was told, knowing that the principal was using the classroom speaker system to monitor the content of my teaching. I left the teaching field that year, and have never gone back - there is no honor to be gained on that battlefield.

The teacher's can't fight, and have no hope of winning -- those who would fight are dismissed, those who remain offer up their intellecutal integrity upon the alter of polical correctness, in order to avoid legal entanglements for the administration.

Re:Waldo

[M. Silver]

Perhaps someone who's read the article (it's loading in another tab, but I'm not holding my breath) can say for sure, but my best guess would be that the ban list must include books that are not "banned" so much as "excluded by policy," perhaps in this case because "Every time we buy a Waldo book, some smart aleck has to go through and circle Waldo on each page, so we should stop wasting our money on them."

Or some such.

It's *still* loading, though.

Is this the most important information?

[Phanatic1a]

See, I think that a more important list of which books were banned would be a list of which public institutions did the banning. If there are provincial, backwards-minded, insular communities out there banning books, I'm more interested in knowing where they are than what they're banning.

Pft, whimpy stuff

[u-238]

There are much more serious and interesting instences of banning, like the actual 1995 book burnings of Germar Rudolph's published findings (a German chemist who found evidence showing no signs of Zyklon-B use in Auschwitz other than in delousing chambers). Extreme or not, his publications were literally burned...

And another similar instance wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[linzeal]

I've met two Israeli famlies and numerous Israeli individuals over the years and the majority of their beliefs are so stained by delusions of grandeur (even if they would not admit being a orthodox, zionists or the like) that it is almost impossible to have a civil convesation with them about the middle east. However, I have met a smaller number of arabic people and a few palestinians and on the whole they have a much more 'worldly' view of matters.

I have nothing against any religion but Israel reminds me of rich white South Afrikaners I've met more than 'holy people'.

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[EinarH]

On the first point you do have a point, but just becasue it's common doesn't make it anything more just. When the orignal poster talked about "more serious and interesting instences of banning" I think he refeered to the fact that although banning books from school-children is "bad" it's "worse" to destroy the books of a writer or censor the publication of a scientific article, both aimed at adults.

On the second point yes, the talk about "cencentration camps" was stupid, but that is not the point, If they first had reviewed it on a scientific basis and decided to publish it, they should not back off just because some of their readers dislike the wording in the paper. The paper was significant and important in the field and the "concentration camp talk" allthough stupid, was just a detail unrelated to the data, methods or conclusion. People have written far more controversial stuff than erroneously calling a refuge camp a concentartion camp without publishers pulling out.

And the "common with earlier studies" was the Observers remark, not the writer(s) or the publisher.

After the controversy Villena resubmitted the paper without the "concentration remarks", you can read in the Observer article how he agreed that they where irrellevant to the conclusion in the paper, and the publisher agreed to consider it for publication. But they never published it.
You can search their archives here and here but you won't find anything.
Even without the "concentration camp" remark they would not publish it. How do you explain that?

So much for "providing an exchange of information and ideas on structural polymorphism of HLA genes" .

A Wrinkle in Time

[Citizen_Kang]

A Wrinkle in Time is apparently banned because it contains magic and "new age" nonsense. (http://solonor.com/bannedbooks/archives/001742.ht ml). Oddly enough, Madeline L'Engle was openly Christian, known to run with other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. It boggles the mind.

What books get banned over seas?

[Shivetya]

Out of curiosity what gets banned overseas? I would figure most NAZI related material isn't permitted in France, Germany, or similar countries.

Re:So What?

[secolactico]

My parents vetted my reading

So did mine. And that was a sure fire way of getting me to obtain and read those books ,-)

Your point is valid, tho. I get to decide what my child reads or not but I have no business doing to same with your kid. The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.

A desicion has to be made by the school custodian (or PTA or whatever) as to what books to have available at the library. It is unrealistic to think that the librarian will have a list of allowed books per student.

If I'm interested in making sure my opinion counts in deciding what books will or will not be available to my kids at school, I'll make sure my voice is heard at the committee that does the deciding.

That said, I believe children should be able to read what they please and form their own oppinions instead of being "censored" into thinking like we do. If my kid wants to read "Mein Kampf", I won't forbid it to him. I will, however, make sure he has access to counterpoint arguments and will sit down to discuss it with him.

Judy Blume?

[puzzled]

I read a Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle a million years ago and I forget the details. I've read all of the Harry Potter stuff, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye, Flowers For Algernon, S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, the
Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.

The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.

I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
understand ... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.

Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?

Why?

[/Wegge]

I see the following entries on the list:

40: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras

61: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras

Why? Is the sexuality of girls more quationable the that of boys, or is this list simply a list of sexual prejudice?

Re:Waldo

[Deadstick]

That brings to mind a vaguely similar series of books: Stephen Biesty's Amazing Cross Sections, which show cutaway views of all manner of engineering works: pyramids, ships of all eras, trains, skyscrapers, on and on...they're very minutely detailed, and in almost every one, there's a tiny little person somewhere taking a dump. (In the case of Lord Nelson's Victory, there's a whole line of guys waiting to use the two-hole head.)

Not a lot of folks realize how meaningful that is: shit was the very first engineering challenge, and how we get rid of it speaks volumes about where we are on the development timeline. And kids treat it very much like a Waldo book, examining all the details as they race to find the guy on the crapper.

rj

Re:topless sunbather

[Kell_pt]

I agree with Hogwash McFly in finding a relation between facing problems with information and good-sense, rather than attempting to supress them.
Maybe it's just that puritanism doesn't work. :) Do you recall seeing how the Administration recommends abstinence as means of stopping AIDS in African countries? Well, it's not just about that being hypocrite, that's a fine example of puritanism at the higher levels. Don't you find it at least a bit odd?! I mean... c'mon, abstinence? They don't have TVs or computers to spend their times in... ;) And the worst part is that I can imagine many people in most states in the US, in their homes watching TV and nodding in consent at those declarations of abstinence. Then they'll quietly change channel to the pr0n cable network.

Topless sunbathing is allowed in every beach in Portugal. Yet, it's a very conservative country, and quite religious (at least middle-age up). The thing is, it's a matter of personal choice and context. Respect for the other people and facing issues with information rather than attempting to hide'em, that plays a large role in the lack of sex-related crimes and a population with a healthier mind. Drinking is allowed to people above 16 that don't show signs of mental disorder, and although we have our share of people who exceed their account, most people are raised in the notion that there is a limit. It's a matter of teaching good-sense instead of forcing people to obey rules.

Another fine example - I've been to Marrocos, and that's a country where the majority follows the islamic religion. I felt ashamed at how easily they meet foreigners and accept the difference in cultures. They'll make jokes about Allah showing us the way while we're there and will usually meet you with curiosity as opposed to the arrogance you'd find for being a foreigner in a more developed country. In comparison, in the US and in other more developed places, pre-conceptions and the belief that "we know best"... well... you know where this is going, and I don't want to be moderated as a troll. :)

Cheers.