Blogroll

Banned Books Week in review

There’s been quite a bit of coverage of Banned Books Week in the blogosphere and the mainline media. As the week comes to a close, I thought it worthwhile to post links to a few of my favorite bits this year:


Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.

A. Whitney Griswold, “A Little Learning,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 1952)

October Bibliolust

Some actual progress on the lust front, with nine books read in September. It’s always good when the number of books read in a month exceed the number lusted after books for that same month.

I’m thinking this may be another good month. Even though the fall publishing season is here, so far I haven’t seen a ton of stuff that begs to be read. As a result, the list this month is unusually short.

Life, Keith Richards — Although coming out at the end of the month, how could this book not be on my lust list?

Room, Emma Donoghue — A couple of rave reviews (which isn’t always a good sign) for this novel brings it to the list. I’m not the only one listing it, though. I’m number 33 on the reserve list at the library.

Sleepwalk with Me: and Other Painfully True Stories, Mike Birbiglia — I’d never heard of Birbiglia until I heard him on an episode of This American Life talking about life in junior high. It was funny enough his book ended up making my list, which is rare for a comedian to do.

Report Card:

Year-to-date (January-September)

Total Bibliolust books: 52

Number read: 35 (67%)

Started but did not finish: 4 (7.7%)

Cumulative (September 2008-September 2010)

Total Bibliolust books: 138

Number read: 95 (69%)

Started but did not finish: 8 (5.8%)

Old and fat, I waddle, gasping, up the beckoning path of lust.

Mason Cooley, City Aphorisms, Second Selection

Banned Books Week: Reviewing a local challenge

For the first time since I’ve known of the map, you will find Sioux Falls on the map of book bans and challenges at the Banned Books Week website. The city’s appearance stems from a challenge to a book in the Sioux Falls School District last year, one begun, ironically, in the midst of last year’s Banned Books Week. Although I discussed the debate over the book at the time, this year’s Banned Books Week seems an appropriate time to review what happened.

On Sept. 28, 2009, a parent of a sixth grade student at a Sioux Falls middle school filed a formal request that the School District remove a graphic novel, Stuck in the Middle: 17 Comics from an Unpleasant Age, from general access at the school’s library. The parent complained that the book, which contains material from 16 cartoonists based on their own middle school experiences, “contained repeated foul language, sexual references, and pictures of teenagers smoking.”

Following established policy and procedure, an “instructional review committee” evaluated the “values and faults” of the material, “viewing [it] as a whole and not individual passages or images.” The committee, composed of two parents, two teachers and an assistant principal, voted unanimously to place the book in the “professional section” of the two middle school libraries that had it. That meant “only teachers will be able to check it out.” The committee’s written report basically cited the “emotional maturity” of middle school students and a belief “the book would be more effective if a teacher chose specific selections and guided student discussion of those vignettes.”

Although the School District procedure seems sound and it looks at a work as a whole and not just isolated parts of it, I am somewhat dismayed by the decision. (Full disclosure: Our law firm does legal work for the School District. I was not involved in and am not aware of anyone in the law firm who was consulted on this matter. My thoughts on the decision come as an avid reader and parent and are mine alone.) Granted, the challenge to the book was one in which the parent sought to limit access for all students, not just their child. Still, I think a less restrictive avenue was preferable. Rather than allowing only teachers to check out the book, why not also allow a parental opt-in? If a student provides verified written permission from their parent or guardian allowing him or her to check out the book, more protection is afforded the freedom to read. It also allows each family the opportunity to evaluate whether the book is appropriate given their son’s or daughter’s “emotional maturity” and, if they desire, to use the book as a learning tool.

Granted, there were and are two copies of the book at the local library so it isn’t like students at the two middle schools had absolutely no access to the book. Still, when a book focuses on issues confronted by middle school students, isn’t a middle school library a highly appropriate place for it?


Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared.

American Library Association, The Freedom to Read Statement

Banned Books Week: 21st Century book challenges

Although you could nitpick when the 21st Century actually started, we’re at least through the first decade of the 2000s. That doesn’t mean book challenges and book banning turned out to be a phenomenon limited to earlier centuries. The process continues (including, as I’ll review tomorrow, around here) and the American Library Association can now tell us what were the most challenged books of the decade.

I’m not going to repeat verbatim the ALA’s list of the top 100 banned/challenged books from 2000 through 2009. The top 25 alone indicates that what people consider inappropriate to read can still boggle the mind. And if you think I exaggerate, here’s a few of the books, listed alphabetically, in positions 26-100: Beloved (Toni Morrison); Black Boy (Richard Wright), Brave New World (Aldous Huxley), Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury), The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood), The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini), One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Ken Kesey), A Prayer for Owen Meany (John Irving), Slaughterhouse-Five (Kurt Vonnegut), and The Things They Carried (Tim O’Brien).

Here’s the top 25 for the beginning of the 21st Century:

  1. Harry Potter (series), J.K. Rowling
  2. Alice series, Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
  3. The Chocolate War, Robert Cormier
  4. And Tango Makes Three, Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
  5. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
  6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Maya Angelou
  7. Scary Stories (series), Alvin Schwartz
  8. His Dark Materials (series), Philip Pullman
  9. ttyl; ttfn; l8r g8r (series), Lauren Myracle
  10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky
  11. Fallen Angels, Walter Dean Myers
  12. It’s Perfectly Normal, Robie Harris
  13. Captain Underpants (series), Dav Pilkey
  14. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
  15. The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison
  16. Forever, Judy Blume
  17. The Color Purple, Alice Walker
  18. Go Ask Alice, Anonymous
  19. Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger
  20. King and King, Linda de Haan
  21. To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee
  22. Gossip Girl (series), Cecily von Ziegesar
  23. The Giver, Lois Lowry
  24. In the Night Kitchen, Maurice Sendak
  25. Killing Mr. Griffen, Lois Duncan

It amazes and saddens me that in our so-called modern world people would even consider keeping Of Mice and Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird out of the hands of those capable of reading them.


…if all Printers were determin’d not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.

Benjamin Franklin, “An Apology for Printers”

Banned Books Week: Giving a reason doesn’t require reason

Lists are always popular during Banned Books Week. Two related and somewhat fun ones have appeared this week looking at the reasons people give when they challenge a book.

First, MobyLives give us The Top Ten Ludicrous Reasons To Ban A Book. Perhaps my favorite is the objection to Little Red Riding Hood: “The basket carried by Little Red Riding Hood contained a bottle of wine, which condones the use of alcohol.”

Flavorwire comes up with The Absurb Logic Behind Some of the Most Famous Banned Books. This list’s highlight is one of reverse psychology. Echoing my comment Monday about the allure of forbidden fruit, the head of the English department at Anaheim Union High School had Silas Marner banned from the school: “it was the only way to get students to read the damned thing…within weeks of banning it, every last one of [them] knew it by heart.”

The two lists also prove ludicrousness and absurdity are not the same. Why should Shel Silverstein’s A Light in the Attic be challenged? The ludicrous reason: “Encourages children to break dishes so they won’t have to dry them.” The absurd reason: The poems in the book “glorified Satan, suicide, and cannibalism.”

I’m betting kids who broke dishes after reading the book said the devil made them do it.


Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot.

Eugene O’Neill