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'."
"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.
The write-up is missing some context. For more info on what's being banned and why, see here and here.
[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.
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.
"Where's Waldo?" was challenged because of one part in the beach scene where a kid is sticking an ice cream cone on the back of a young lady causing her to lift her topless chest off the ground enough to see breasts. (It should be noted that her top is on the towel under her.)
0*0
00*
***
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.
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.
It's cool - I've read about 60-70% of the books on the list.
It's odd - Call of the Wild has been challenged?
It's informative - I've just started reading The Satanic Verses, and now i have a new reading list
It's missing? - I can't believe Farenheit 451 isn't on that list...
It's scary - many people in the world are denied access to these books.
It's scarier - many people in this country would have these books banned
It's sad - in 100 years, who knows if we'll all still have access to these books.
It's encouraging - challenges, even recently, to these books in schools and libraries have failed - let's hope history repeats itself in such a fashion for years to come.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project