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

2003? Recent?

[lecithin]

The title actual is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".

Re:2003? Recent?

[Phoenixhunter]

That's what happens when the submitter doesn't RTFA.

Re:2003? Recent?

[Sam Nitzberg]

20001-1990 = 18,011 years.

That's a big survey !

Re:2003? Recent?

[SlartibartfastJunior]

I work in a small bookstore, and looking through this list, it's pretty much the required summer reading for this area (minus the sex books). I'm in a pretty conservative part of the south, too - perhaps it's GOOD that kids are reading something that causes them to think about racism, gender stereotypes, religious differences, etc.

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. Arbusto]

I don't get The Giver being banned either. It was REQUIRED reading when I was in middle school, and then again in High School.

Why would it be banned? Depicts socialism and controled death?

Re:Why Harry?

[wired_parrot]

The difference is in the number of copies published. J.K. Rowling has achieved a phenomenom that C.S. Lewis could not even dream of. With fame comes greater scrutiny. I'm sure there's hundreds of books depicting magic and paganism and ways more objectionable to religious fundamentalists, but none of them achieved the level of book sales that Harry Potter did.

Re:Why Harry?

[Dj]

And would you like to give a reference to your factesque "is a proponent of Wicca"?

Or was it something you heard....

Maybe like http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm

That sort of stuff eh?

The simple fact that the Potter books are *counter* to some pretty fundamental Wicca principles is the other give away.

Still... what about them Swift Boat Vets eh? And are you interested in this bridge I have for sale?

Re:Why Harry?

[LarsWestergren]

When I read the CS Lewis books as a kid, I loved them all up to the last one (don't remember the name of it). I was six or seven, but even at that age I reacted against the judgemental mean-spiritedness of it. Here the preceding books had showed the endless fatherly love of the Lion, and here he let the world end, and a huge number of living beings die. If I remember correctly, all living beings passed by him, and those who passed into his shadow faded away forever.

When I got older, I read that it was basically the End of Days/Second coming of Christ, for kids. The two evil and foolish characters the Monkey and the Donkey represented scientists (evolution, get it?) and disbelievers. This didn't make me like the book any better.

Re:Why Harry?

[suwain_2]

This causes a problem with some Christian organizations, as it's clearly against their teaching.

And the opinion of "some Christian organizations" is impacting what's in a public school? (Maybe it's nothing new, but it still shouldn't be happening.)

How about the Qur'an? Do stories about an Islamic child get banned? It's clearly against their teachings, whether it's witchcraft, Buddhism, or Judaism.

Not that I'm a fan of Harry Potter (I saw that movie with family, and got up several times to just pace through the hallways, as it was more interesting). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm a practicing Catholic). I just don't think the Christian church has any right to control what's in a public school.

Re:Why Harry?

[drudd]

At the end of my senior english class in high school, the professor passed around a similar list of top 10 most frequently banned books.

More than half of them were on our reading lists, either in that class, or in previous english classes.

I think anything worth reading has probably been banned by someone, somewhere, since almost by definition it has interesting ideas which must offend/annoy/worry someone.

Doug

Re:Why Harry?

[Robotech_Master]

You might want to check out KidSpeak, formerly "Muggles For Harry Potter." It was created specifically to deal with schools banning Harry Potter, and then broadened its mission to include all free-speech and censorship issues concerning children.

Re:Why Harry?

[SEE]

The difference?

Magic is never used by good mortals in C.S. Lewis's books, except in the case of Merlin in That Hideous Strength -- and even there, Merlin's use of magic is depicted as something that placed his soul in jeopardy, only to be saved when he turns himself over to angelic beings as a vessel for their power.

Certainly, specific items of power are used by good mortals, when given to them as a gift, while Aslan sometimes uses poer directly. The analogy is miraculous gifts and Divine intervention.

Now, let's look at Harry Potter and his friends. Is their approach more like the Holy Spirit descending on the Apostles and granting them the power to heal, or Simon the Magician asking to be taught how to perform those miracles? Like being handed a healing cordial by Santa Claus, or by studying to learn the Deplorable Word? Like being given an apple of life by Aslan, or like carefully separating and purifying magic dust to create rings to travel by? Like letting an angel posess you and work through you, or learning the secrets of making things obey your will?

Re:Why Harry?

[Yokaze]

Reminds me of Kino no Tabi (Kino's Travels). In one episode, Kino travels to the Land of the Books. They value books very high and in exchange for one book you may lend one from their Great Library.
Finally, reaching the library of the country, Kino looks for an interesting book. The library of the country, which prides itself in books, however has only two rooms of books, and not a single interesting one.

They only have books in the library, which are officially aproved because they don't unsettle someone.

I've learned English as a foreign language, and in my last year at school, we read "Catcher in the Rye", "Brave New World", "Lord of the Flies".
Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.

Re:Why Harry?

[rgmoore]

Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.

It would be disturbing if that were what this list is, but it isn't. It's actually a list of books that people are trying to ban, not a list of the ones they've succeeded in banning, and part of the way that a book gets onto the list is by being so widely used that there are many opportunities to challenge it. It's also important to remember that the list is based on fewer than 7000 challenges over a 10 year span, so a book can make the top 100 if it was challenged fewer than 10 times per year in the whole country.

Re:Why Harry?

[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.

Re:Why Harry?

[__aailob1448]

who's this "muslems" guy you're talking about???

i sure as hell didn't threaten that Salman rushdie guy with anything. In fact, not a single muslim I know did either...

Please stop thinking of "muslems" as some kind of hivemind. some ayatollahs wrote fatwas against the guy, that's all. and it just so happens that the vast, crushing majority of muslims don't pay any attention whatsoever to some obscure fatwa written by some unknown imam from god knows what country calling himself an "ayatollah". (ayatollah means "verse of god" and is basically a pretty looking title some dudes felt like having...god knows why)

Always remember, Islam is as decentralized a religion as it gets, there is no hierarchy of any sort, anyone can become an Imam if he wants to. he just reads or memorizes the coran, goes up early in the morning and starts shouting the call to prayer, if people show up, he can lead the prayer. that's about it.

heck, muslims don't even have to go the mosque if they don't want to. much less feel obligated to follow a fatwa (which is really just a statement of opinion that anybody can write with no other weight than what that particular Imam's congregation feel like giving it.
.

Re:Why Harry?

[sjames]

If the librarians were stocking the shelves with Mein Kampf and Unfit for Command and The Bell Curve, to the exclusion of Heather Has Two Mommies, you can be sure that all the pious liberals now deploring censorship would be bitching front and center at the next school board meeting.

Funny, the public library where I live has all of those. I don't see a bunch of agnostics and Democrats picketing!

Perhaps librarians as a group just tend to be intellectually honest and believe in making books available, even the ones they don't necessarily agree with.

Perhaps (some) people on the right are much more likely to be frightened of the free exchange of ideas. To be fair, in some countries, the left IS doing the banning.

Purchacing decisions are not in themselves true censorship, as you say. However, not purchacing a book that has a greatb deal of demand BECAUSE some people object to it most definatly IS censorship.

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

[barcodez]

Well yes, if your employer asks you to do something immoral or just plain wrong then you don't do it - seems simple enough to me - it's people blindly following orders that lets things like Hitler's Germany happen.

Re:banning

[Ranger96]

Wow - only three levels in the thread and there's already a technical violation of Godwin's law!

I would agree with you about immoral activities. However, a school board telling a teacher not to teach certain material does not fall into that category. It may be unfortunate or anti-intellectual, but not immoral.

Re:banning

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Godwin's Law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.

Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's Law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.

Finding the meme of Nazi comparisons on Usenet illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a counter-meme. The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.

Many people have extended Godwin's Law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because these events were so horrible that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.

Various additions and addenda to Godwin's Law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. Addenda to the law include:

Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.

Morgan's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.

Sircar's Corollary:
If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.

Case's Corollary:
If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.

Van der Leun's Corollary:
As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.

Miller's Paradox:
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.

Enki's Corollary:
As an online discussion involving law grows, the probability of someone making a comparison involving the McDonald's coffee lawsuit approaches one.

NialScorva's Law:
Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke the DMCA.

Freiler's Maxim:
Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat.

Re:banning

[donscarletti]

Did we just equate a school board's request to not cover a book with the massacre of millions of Jews?

Censorship is bad. But if someone gives into the school board's request, rather than putting up a fight and getting herself fired, I fail to see the parallels to the Holocaust.

Okay, so the Nazis banned some stuff. I think the similarities end there.

How do you think the Nazis rose to power? How do you think the Nazis managed to get popular support to massacre the Jews? How do you think Hitler and co. managed to take control of the Reichstag and undermine the (flawed) democracy of the weimar republic?

The Nazis came to power because the Germans were forced into blind obedience by the own fear and insecurity. Many people like to think that it was some violent coup d'etat or something that made Hitler chancellor then fuhrer. No, Hitler was democratically elected by good decent Germans (I say that with no intended irony) because they just didn't care what he was doing because at the time they thought they had bigger problems. They let themselves be bullied by the browncoats in the street, they let themselves be frightened by the Communists. They had the power to stop Hitler's tyranny but they didn't stand up for their rights because they were obedient.

Look, I am not usually a fan of disregarding Goodwin's law, at least so early in a discussion but this is an important thing to consider in this topic. Fascism is the product of total obedience as concretely as anarchy is the product of total disobedience. Do what you are told when it is wrong and you are no better than the guards at Auschwitz operating the death chamber. Sure, what an average person is asked to do in a compromising situation is not nearly as heinous as genocide, but I am sure the average SS officer didn't go straight to genocide from helping old ladies across the road either.

It is ignorance of an unforgivable magnitude to compare 1944 Germany to your own country and then immediately assume that your country is immune to fascism simply because there are no deathcamps around. Nazism started as a simple mix of national pride and workers rights, both intrinsically good things, but pretty much the complete basis of the worst tyranny in recorded history. Nazism was truely a good thing for Germany for a while and the Germans loved it, just as we love benign things in our own societies today. The Germans could not see what Nazism really was, because by the time it unveiled itself it was too late and Germany was already dependant on it. Can you confidently say that there is nothing evil like that lurking in our society with any more cirtainty than the Germans had? But we are far more fortunate than the Germans of the nineteen thirties because we now KNOW what can happen and we CAN do something about it. However Nazism happened to good, well meaning people before and it can happen to us too, you just have to let it. Will you?

Re:Waldo

[DrunkenTerror]

Nudity.

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.

Re:Waldo

[deanj]

Well..this wasn't banned really... They just couldn't find it.

Good U Penn Article

[Geiger581]

here.

Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.

Maybe for good reason

[a5cii]

Harry Potter - encourages children to take drugs, mainly pot

Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking

and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty

People are stupid.

[CFBMoo1]

No question after seeing the list and finding these.

5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl

88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford

96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell

That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.

Re:People are stupid.

[Ranger96]

Then obviously you need to read Huckleberry Finn again. Your comment hightlights the exact ignorance that leads to people wanting this book (and others like it) banned. They may or may not have read the book, and if they have, they didn't understand it.

Specifically, Huckleberry Finn uses a specific cultural setting to deliver an anti-racist messsage.

Re:People are stupid.

[canadian_right]

I don't think you quite get "freedom of speech" if those are the only books that "really shouldn't be banned". NO BOOK should be banned for holding an unpopular opinion. Libel laws should handle most damaging factual errors in published works, but I don't think any fiction should be banned. Sure, not all books should be read by elementary school students, but that doesn't justify banning the book.

Re:How about...

[arose]

30. "The Goats" by Brock Cole

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

[Class Act Dynamo]

I am Jewish and I, of course, believe that the Holocaust happened in all its horror. But, by banning books that deny it rather than letting them remain in the open to be argued against, we look as if we have something to hide. It also brings unnecesary attention to such filth. Let these people publish their garbage in the open and get torn to shreds by others who know what they are talking about.

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.

That's a tad harsh.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wouldn't like your kids reading those books, fine; the library doesn't have to stock them. Schools choose what books they do and do not show, and it's well within their right to simply not accept copies of "Sex", but banning them altogether is certainly inappropriate. Ultimately, it's the reader's choice whether or not he/she wants to read a book, not the author's; no book should be completely banned.

Not shelved, fine. If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children. But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No.

Re:That's a tad harsh.

[Krach42]

The thing is that the ALA is counting any book that a parent raises an objection about, and thus some action is taken upon the book.

You've said the school has every right to choose what books they stock. Right, but the ALA will list a book as "banned" just because the school chooses not the shelve it.

"If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children." Such a book that would be removed would still be counted by the ALA as a banned book.

"But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No." So a single lone mother who objects to an elementary age child reading a book describing, lets say, a gratutiously descriptive account of a rape, would be wrong and inappropriate?

The children can still read these books, if the parents want them to. But the same as a school wouldn't allow an R rated movie to be shown to any child on school grounds (regardless of who owns it, and who's watching it, and what kind of parental permission they have) there are some books that are INAPPROPRIATE for the student at school.

But they can still read the books at home, because they're not actually BANNED. They're just this nebulous thing that the ALA calls "banned", because they have had action taken against them, and have been removed, or moved due to the objections of one or MORE parents.

Re:That's a tad harsh.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You've said the school has every right to choose what books they stock. Right, but the ALA will list a book as "banned" just because the school chooses not the shelve it.

Um, no. The ALA doesn't call these books "banned." They use the word "challenged," as in somebody somewhere was challenged for shelving this book.

They use the word "banned" to describe books that were actually, you know, banned.

The fault here, as usual, likes with the idiot submitter for using the word "banned" to refer to books that the ALA calls "challenged," and even more so with the idiot editor who didn't bother to check and correct the submission.

Re:So What?

[shalla]

And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school.

And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.

Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.

I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.

If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.

Re:So What?

[Krach42]

Not only that, but many of the books weren't even banned, but the parents rather requested that they be simply moved. As in "This doesn't seem appropriate for a first grader to be reading. Do you think you could move it to a fourth or fifth grade level area?" The ALA makes no distinction about this, and the book being "banned".

Also, I heard a story from a parent, whose child in the second grade (it was elementary school at the least), was reading a book that had a vivid description of a rape scene. ... YES! This child is being subjected to a book, that were it a movie, it would have been rated R (or at best PG-13) and wouldn't be able to see on their own. And heaven FORBID that the school would sanction such a movie to be shown to the child.

So, the parent complains, and the school complies, and the ALA lists it as a "banned" book.

The ALA has a decent idea here, fight censorship, but they have to be aware, we should but the same sort of standards on our literature that we put on our movies. There simply are some books that aren't appropriate for children.

And NEVER have these "banned" books been truly banned. If the parent, or the child really wanted the book, they could obtain it for their child to read. It was just felt by the school system, that it wasn't appropriate for them to supply it.

Re:So What?

[suwain_2]

Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies

I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. Something like "The New Joy of Gay Sex" I could understand. But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal. (Conservatives will totally flip out over that?)

Go back 150 years, and imagine it was "Heather Has a Black Mommy." I'm not trying to defend gay marriage here or anything, but I think it's the same thing -- I strongly doubt the objection to this book was because of the homosexuality, as opposed to the homosexuality.

A homosexual couple has nothing to do with sex until, well, they have sex. It'd be like banning a book with a mother and father because they have a heterosexual relationship. The mere act of having a child proves they had sex!

I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't cover their bedroom activities, I don't see the problem. But maybe that's why I'm a liberal democrat.

Re:What books get banned over seas?

[Star_Gazer]

Yes, here in Germany you basically only get into trouble with old Nazi literature ("Mein Kampf" from Hitler comes to mind) or when you glorify the time or deny the crimes happened during '33-'45. Related to that, books can be banned (only from courts!!!) when they are "hate inspiring", call for some kind of nondemocratic/nonfree society or don't respect the honor of living persons (or persons that are not so long dead).

Nevertheless, even if it is no ban, you are not allowed to make works available to children that are rated as unsuitable for them. This is true for all kind of media, from books to movies, music or computer games. Except when it comes to violence in computer games, this ratings usually make sense (you don't want your kids to see a porn movie, do you?), but it can be quite a hassle nevertheless, because you can't just deliver them with standard mail, you are not allowed to do any advertisement that kids could see and so on.

Bottom line is: If someone here would call for a ban on works like Huck Finn, Harry Potter or "The Catcher in the Rye" he woud get laughed at from 95% of the society, but 50-70% would agree to a ban on Doom3....

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.

Re:So What?

[UnknowingFool]

Well, I don't know about banning them, but quite a few of the books on that list certainly qualify as total crap.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to prevent other people or other people's kids from reading them. If we could ban anything that people considered crap, Britney Spears and the all those "Spice Boy" bands would not be played on any radio stations if it was up to me.

* Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes.

I agree with you that material that deal with sexuality (homo or hetero) is not approprite to younger children. But the list is not definitive on what was banned and where. If these books were banned from a high school, I would have a problem with it.

Really, most of the books on that list suck. Some are great, but not many (Slaughter House for example). And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school. Others, though, make no sense at all. Really odd.

I think you answered our own question. People with strong opinions like yourself have probably taken on themselves to make sure that the libraries in their area do not carry books that are against their beliefs or tastes. I think one reason why the list is so huge is that some people don't distinguish between material they don't like with material that offends them. They think that they can speak for everyone and have that material banned.

Re:What about "Unfit for Command"

[suwain_2]

This isn't quite what it appears.

John Kerry's claiming the book is incorrect; he didn't use the word (that I see), but it's essentially saying it's a slander campaign. He's asking that they stop selling a book that's just out to slander him.

He's not legislating it away because it's damaging to him.

Granted, I'm a Kerry supporter, and you're clearly (by your signature) anti-Kerry. It's no secret that if you support someone, you'll make allowances for things, and if you oppose them, you'll blow things out of proportion. Which is why I hate arguing about politics.

Asking someone not to carry what you perceive as a slanderous book is totally different than him trying to legislate it away, which is what's suggested.

Re:So What?

[deglr6328]

*snicker* ...Others from 150 years ago:

"I know why the caged bird is quiet and subservient."

"The new joy of...proper wifely housekeeping and cleaning"

"What's happening to my body? Shameful and filthy wicked things."

"Where's E.A. Poe?"

"Heather has an upper class mommy and an Irish daddy!"

"It's perfectly abnormal and wrong!"

"Saying no! to 'sex'!"

"The Whig's cookbook"

"A brave new world of corsets and revealed ankles!"

Huck Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc.

[angst_ridden_hipster]

This is one that always confounded me.

Books that deal with issues of race are often banned by people who object to racism. I sometimes think it's because they haven't actually read the books, but have merely done the kind of sanctimonious counting of "offensive" terms or situations (e.g., like the CAP Alerts. Or anybody remember that lady who talked to the Meese commission, and enumerated the number of times the word "horny" was used in Catcher in the Rye?). You could argue this for several of the books:

Huck Finn was clearly written with an anti-racist agenda, but was written ironically, from the perspective of an ignorant kid. It contains the word "nigger" many, many times. As a result of these two factors, it's considered by some as inappropriate for children.

To Kill A Mockingbird deals with a rape trial, and therefore could be considered inappropriate for kids. It also contains a lot of racial slurs and violence.

I think what's underlying the attacks on these books, though, is less these characteristics (which are usually the nominal reasons for banning them), but the anti-authority themes running through the books. They question the conventional morality of the times they describe. People who don't like that kind of thinking may find that mroe offensive than all of the ostensible faults of the books. They don't wnat to encourage this kind of questioning (of course, they're way too late to try to stop it now.)

You can see a similar effect, by the way, against some of the best anti-authoritarian books like Animal Farm ("it makes kids think animals can talk!"), Brave New World ("but it mentions sex!"), Slaugherhouse Five ("it's filthy!"), and so forth.

Judy Blume?

[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?

Re:Judy Blume?

[SlashdotLemming]

Only here can a question with no answer be modded informative ;)

Re:Judy Blume?

[mmmmmhotpants]

I'm a male and I actually read "Are you there God, its me Margaret" when I was 10 or 11 (in my defense, it belonged to my sister and was just lying around). Its about a girl going through this new time in her life with new friends and waiting for her menstrual period and trying to get boys to notice her. The girls do things like open Playboy and say how they want to look like playmates, watch each other change to see how much they've developed. I remember also reading "And then again maybe I won't" which has on the cover a boy looking out the window with binoculars...spying on the hot girl that lives next door.
Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.

Re:So What?

[The Snowman]

Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).

Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.

When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.

Re:Define "Banned"

[base3]

What moron modded that tripe insightful? If you took the trouble to read the article, you would have known that this wasn't a list of books libraries simply chose not to carry, but that were specifically challeneged.

Your comparison to porn is disingenuous or ignorant--most of the books were banned, yes, banned in those school district or public libraries because they contained cultural or political views that offended a few squeaky wheels.

Lastly, while it's nice that you and I have plenty of money to buy whatever books may not be found in a library, I for one would like to see my tax-funded libraries not reacting for or against some would-be censor's political agenda.

Re:So What?

[ambrosine10]

Heh. People didn't see interracial couples as "normal". There were laws against it for many years, they didn't get repealed until the 60s.

A lot of things considered "normal" today - women voting, blacks not being slaves, minorities having equal rights - were not in previous years. What makes you think that our idea of "normal" today is any better than it was a hundred years ago?

The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.

Book bannings are like book burnings

[I-R-Baboon]

The burning of books has long been a sign of an oppressive regime flexing it's muscles of propaganda to strike down things that counter their essence. From early Chinese emperors burning scrolls and burying the scholars alive to erradicate knowledge up to the Nazis burning books and sending off their undesirables to death camps. While some have been successful in their campaign to destroy knowledge and hide it, for the most part it is an exercise in futility. Reasons for burning books are typically to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses, reasons for banning books are to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses. In the age of the Internet this is a shallow useless act that only shows a repressive nature of somebody or some group.

Some books are banned because they showcase the shame of America, like Huckleberry Finn with the word nigger being used correctly in context as it was for the time the story was wrote in. Does banning this book for printing the word nigger as it was used make bigotry and racism go away, change history and the fact that it was used, miracle away American hypocrisy of liberty and justice for all except slaves? By not learning the truth and being exposed to facts we erradicate the lessons we should have learned. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you have such a serious problem with a book, close the cover and get rid of it. If you are such a failure as a parent you don't want little George reading a book because you don't have the time to invest in your child, don't get them the book. If they have book because they do not want to follow in your silhouette, take it from them or find somebody to be the parent you are not. Nobody is making you read them, why force others down to your level of illiteracy.

Putting a book on a banlist is a quick way to get my attention, and usually much more reliable for a good read than the bestseller listings. Celebrate the banned book list, check them off as you read each one.

No book should be banned, censorship spawns ignorance.

Re:So What?

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

and what of childrens' innocence?

Children's innocence is an adult fantasy.

My parents tried hard to keep me not only sheltered, but their "little baby girl" forever. Yet by the time I was 10, I knew all the facts (or at least myths) of life, courtesy of classmates. I knew things that would have curled my parents' hair. Children were far from "innocent" when I was 10 years old -- and I'll be 42 in September.

Unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has seen mommy and her boyfriend going at it on the couch, unless your isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who has been molested by her uncle, unless you isolate your children from every child who knows a child who knows a child who knows about something you want to pretend doesn't exist, there is no "innocence." There never was. There is only adult blindness, pretending that if we don't talk to children about things we don't like then those things will go away, or at least never affeact our children.

Newer list (2003)

[cavebear42]

The article should have cited the 2003 list:

The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:

1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.

Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).

Re:Waldo

[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.

Re:topless sunbather

[Jedi Alec]

well, over here in Holland, as most of the world knows, we have some of the finest pot there is, and we're even allowed to buy it, smoke it and on a very small scale transport it. result: we smoke less pot than the british, the french, the germans, heck, everyone around us. it's allowed, so the whole thrill of "doing something forbidden" goes away. most highschool kids try it once at a party and decide it really isn't all that terrific to begin with and that's that, end of story.

another funny thing is that if you take a map of holland, and mark tiny red dots for every teenage pregnancy, you'll find a couple of big red blobs right in the areas where we still have some really, REALLY religious folks hanging out. the kind that refuses to take polio shots...or teach their kids about safe sex, or even the subject "sex" at all. imo this mindset is fighting a losing battle. kids these days have all the information they could ever want right at their fingertips. tv, internet, you name it. either parents adapt to this, and steer their kids in the right direction instead of simply saying "you're not allowed", or they'll utterly fail.