Slashdot Mirror
Banned Books published by Google
Lens Hood Man writes "Marking the 25th anniversary of Banned Books Week, Google is inviting users to celebrate their freedom to read by making Banned Books available to all. From the Google Blog: "...you can use Google Book Search to explore some of the best novels of the 20th century which have been challenged or banned." Those books challenged this year include 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Lolita'."
China will just see a big photo of Mao when you try to load the books on Google. Maybe they could get a backdrop of the glowing fire from a pile of books being burned too!
stuff |
It seems to just previews not the whole books.
Similarly, explain the difference between formal and implicit polymorphism in C++.
HINT: both involve overloading of terms.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Google is inviting users to celebrate their freedom to read by making Banned Books available to all."
Google has not made these books available to read online, it just gives you the ability to find a library that has the book.
Great! I've been meaning to read up on some musical history.
This guy's the limit!
[1] http://www.amazon.com/100-Banned-Books-Censorship- Literature/dp/0816040591 k s/100mostfrequently.htm
[2] http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlin
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
From the list of Top 100 challenged books:
#7 : Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
#19: Sex by Madonna
#88: Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
You're right. They're not publishing these, just making the searchable by all ... er most (pending China's great firewall).
... I was hoping Google would provide the original typesetting (that Joyce was very particular about) but instead it seems I just get a preview :-(
A lot of these I have seen on Project Gutenberg.
Sometimes when I'm dying in my cubicle at work, I open up a random page of James Joyce's Ulysses and drift away
My work here is dung.
I don't see how these are banned books... they might even choose at a community level not to stock your book at the library, that doesn't mean that your book has been banned.
If the government at any level forbids a library from carrying a book, it has been banned. In addition to that, books have been banned for ownership in certain localities.
Heck most libraries don't carry everything anyway, I can't go get Hustler and Playboy at my Library. At my local library I can't find copies of the Jane's Reference books, or many other books.
The difference is, is it the choice of the library or of an external influence? When some of the most popular and requested books, like the Harry Potter books, are not carried by the library because the city council has passed a law preventing the library from carrying them, then they are effectively being censored. This is a common occurrence and something everyone should be aware of.
There are good books on that list, but you don't need to hype them by saying that they have been banned or censored by "the man." You should take the books as what they are.
The point is, they have been banned and burned and what is being celebrated is victory over that. The fact that anyone can go online and find a way to get these books is worth celebrating.
I guess this means that Google is going to be banned in Alabama libraries? I'm assuming they have libraries in Alabama.
Kidding! Of course they do.
Oh You POS
Sounds like someone doesn't live in hickville. Or belonged to a PTA anywhere. To believe that banning books is either temporally remote or over with is naive AND incorrect. These days parents seem to just are about different stuff, like 'promoting witchcraft' (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). And sometimes, they succeed for a time (till a suit or injunction slaps them back into shape). Same shite, different decade.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Seriously: So many of the books on this list are completely and totally harmless. I can understand the challenges to "My Dad's Roommate" from a Christian perspective (Don't agree, but understand). But WTF is wrong with Waldo? "How to Eat Fried Worms" is a nice, innocent book. My mother is a conservative Mormon, and she loves to read it to her First Grade class every year.
The fact that many of these books make these lists says a lot about the mentality of people who want to ban books.
If they are banned how is it I can go buy them? A more honest and less inflammatory term would be controversial books. At least in the US they are not truly banned. Maybe not available in some school libraries or even some public libraries but that isn't the same thing as banned.
Frankly I would like to see libraries "ban" more books.
Chariot of the Gods would be a good start.
Why wasn't the Bible on the list? It is banned in and or restricted heavily in many countries.
Also I didn't see any Holocaust denial books or pro Nazi books on the list. Those have been banned in many countries as well.
If you are going to pretend that you support freedom of speech I guess posting a list of books "banned" in some US high schools is a freaking safe way to do it.
I have to admit that publishing a book online that you can can buy at most any book store in the US really does make up for censoring pro-democracy cites in China. Good for you Google. Let us all bask in your "Celebration of the Freedom to Read".
I think I will go puke now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I've been seeing a lot of comments about "Hey, I read most of those books in High School! How can they be banned?" First of all, this is a list taken out of context... many of those books were taken out of libraries due to topics that are not controversial now, but were controversial a few decades ago. Depictions of euthanasia ("Of Mice and Men"), drug addiction ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Brave New World"), sex (Lots of books on the list), even favorable depictions of non-Caucasian races ("Adventures of Huckleberry Finn") all would be cause to get a book banned. In hindsight, it seems silly, but every generation has its taboos. Just TRY to get a book approved about terrorism or school shootings in today's English curriculum. AIDS is okay to talk about now, but it wasn't 20 years ago.
It's a lot like Rock stars. They do a lot of publicity stunts and live a lifestyle that seems garish and offensive to the social conservatives of their time, but looking back in hindsight, most of the hype is just plain silly. Biting off the head of a bat? Ozzie, your domestic home life is much scarier than that; so is the fact that we find it entertaining to televise it.
Second, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of these books are chosen by high school English teachers in a misguided attempt to jazz up their curriculum. "Ooo, this was a banned book. That'll reach out to my jaded kids who barely can read a page a day, let alone a whole book." I don't think they realize how big the Cliff Notes market is, or how easy it is to rip off essays about banned books from the Wikipedia.
From TFA :
/.ers are actually more digging into the fact than average persons only frightens me, I mean, have you tried to only read only the headlines in a newspaper ?)
"To Kill a Mockingbird. Of Mice and Men. The Great Gatsby. 1984. It's hard to imagine a world without these extraordinary literary classics, but every year there are hundreds of attempts to remove great books from libraries and schools. In fact, according to the American Library Association, 42 of 100 books recognized by the Radcliffe Publishing Course as the best novels of the 20th century have been challenged or banned."
Only those 42 books are online right now. Remember that the headlines are misleading (the thought that
Of course, as pointed by the parent, and pointed in other posts, a lot of significant works have been banned : Mein Kampf, Mark's Capital, the Bible, etc... but they are not in the top 100 NOVELS of the century.
Plus, may I be the first to say, that putting online all books that have been banned at one time and at one place in human history would be a very huge work and probably would result in a digitalization of the entire litterature.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
"I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate..."
"What the hell does rant mean?"
Whatever man, I spelled it write!
Let me remind you that the Islamic-Fascist's go one better: attempt to kill the author. Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists that drew the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark have had to live in hiding
I find the news coverage and people's opinions of the cartoon issue very interesting. Certain rabble rousers intentionally tried to cause trouble over the cartoons, the the point of sending ones they created and which had never been published anywhere to newspapers and to religious zealots in many countries. And yet, I saw not in one place, but in many, Muslim clerics placing themselves between an embassy and a mob throwing stones and trying to calm the situation and prevent violence. Islamic culture won big points in my mind that day.
I just picture a bunch of hicks from rural America showing up at an Iranian embassy after the widespread publication and promotion of pictures of jesus being sodomized. Then, to put it in context, I picture this happening in Texas, months after an army of middle easterners had conquered Mexico, bombing cities and sending frightened refugees to hide in the USA. Where each of these hicks knew some old friend or relative or friend of a friend or friend of a relative who had lost a mother or son or child to the bombings. And then I pictured all this happening after the President of Iran had made comments about how they should invade the US too, since the US had aided Mexico and all those christians were violent sodomites. With this picture in my mind, I wondered how many local pastors and priests in texas would be there, placing themselves between the rocks and the mob, and the Iranian embassy.
Yes Virgina, evil exists and it wants to kill you.
I don't approve of censorship or murder, but I do understand why people are convinced that both are right in certain circumstances. Lets just be sure not to pre judge people based upon religion or ethnicity. A catholic, muslim, or atheist is equally capable of promoting fascism.
Maybe, but fascism is a good discription of what they, the Islamo-Fascist, want. A world wide totalitarian society with scrict information control, progroms, purges, and thought policing by a central Islamic government called the Caliphate.
Fascism is also a good description of the ideology of the Neo-Cons here in the US. It's almost funny how we have one group of fascists calling another group fascists. It brings to mind that old quote from Huey Long:
When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag
Or, Long's response to the question of whether or not Fascism would ever come to the US:
Yes, but in America, we'll call it anti-fascism.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig