Banned Books Week
You probably didn’t notice, but we’re nearing the end of the American Library Association’s "Banned Books Week." You probably didn’t notice because Banned Books Week is culturally irrelevant -- and that’s a shame. In theory, raising awareness of book-related censorship is a great idea. In practice, Banned Books Week has become an exercise in politically correct posturing.
According to the ALA, "Book banning [is] alive and well in the U.S." -- but it's not. If you go to Bannedbooksweek.org you’re greeted by a banner graphic of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; Forever by Judy Blume; The Catcher in the Rye; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; and Beloved by Toni Morrison. While all of those books have been the subject of attempts at censorship, is anyone seriously concerned about such books not remaining widely available?
Looking at the American Library Association’s list of the ten most frequently challenged books, almost all are challenged on the grounds that they are “unsuited to age group.” That parents want to limit exposure to things that teach values contrary to values taught at home is not surprising.
No one questions the fact it would be considered inappropriate for a teacher to show school children an R-rated movie. Why should a school librarian handing your adolescent a young adult novel full of explicit sex and drugs be any different? The fact is that the young-adult market in particular has become loaded with drugs and sex. Authors defend this as reflective of unfortunate realities, but it’s also true prurience sells. For instance, on the ALA's most challenged list last year was the Gossip Girl series – young-adult novels based on the trashy TV soap about wealthy and promiscuous Manhattan teenagers. I doubt many are willing to defend placing these books on school library shelves on the basis of literary merit.
If as a parent you don’t want tax dollars at school libraries stocking a book aimed at junior high girls about text-messaging accounts of sexually graphic encounters -- which is a rough summary of TTYL, the book that topped ALA’s “most challenged” list this year -- I hardly think that means you hate freedom. (Sample Amazon review: “In the future, robot archaeologists will be sifting through the rubble of a long dead human civilization, patiently searching for the ultimate cause of mankind's extinction. After sifting through the remains of our fallen society, searching through libraries and the streets of ghost towns and the insides of long-dead computers, they will eventually find the horrific shout that set off the avalanche that would destroy us. They will find TTYL. It will be the first time a robot weeps.”)
Banning the publication or sale of any book for any reason is deplorable. But banned books week is increasingly about debates over what’s appropriate for schools and taxpayer-funded libraries. The latter issue is much harder to be indignant about.
Two years ago, Sarah Palin was pilloried for merely inquiring about the process for removing objectionable books at the local library when she was a small town mayor. NEWSFLASH: Libraries pull books off the shelves all the time. Libraries all over the country have yanked Tintin in the Congo of the venerable children’s book series due to its racial depictions. Somehow no one screamed “censorship!” Similarly, the local Jewish community is probably happy your neighborhood library isn’t stocking The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It’s true many attempts at removing books from libraries are motivated by ignorance, political correctness or knee-jerk moralism; I find it incredibly frustrating to see that Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird has popped up on the list again this year. According to the ALA, this year’s objection comes from Canada where some P.C. do-gooder got the book yanked from classrooms due to it’s use of the N-word.
Fortunately, successful attempts to remove worthy books such as To Kill a Mockingbird are few and far between. It’s telling the ALA produces a list of the “most challenged” books rather than the “most banned.” In fact, if you look at the ALA’s list of books that are “banned or challenged” you see that almost always these books involve questions of age-appropriateness in school libraries or classrooms, are just listed as challenged with no further report on what happened, or they were put into a more age-appropriate section of the library.
Regardless, communities are perfectly entitled to set library and classroom standards – within reason – they feel are appropriate. Who else should set such standards? That parents want a say in whether the material being taught in public schools has always been the case. Such complaints do not amount to “book banning.”
Further, framing the debate in these terms neatly sidesteps very real and pressing issues of censorship happening now. Yale University Press self-censored a book on the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Random House purchased then declined to print The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about one of Mohammed’s wives, fearing Muslim retribution. In 2008, offices of the book’s London publisher was firebombed. (Note that for all their chest-thumping about “banned books” the ALA has not issued any statement on threats directed at “The Jewel of Medina” that I can find.) Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris just went into hiding with help from the FBI for starting “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and we hear crickets from the cultural elites.
Events like these don’t seem to be a focus of Banned Books Week -- because, well, Americans are such puritanical tyrants! The library in Pataskala, Ohio won’t let kids check out “Mastering Multiple Sex Positions” without parental approval. Sound the alarm! (I’m not making up that bit about the Pataskala, Ohio -- it’s in the ALA’s report.)
While the intent of Banned Books Week is honorable, it would be nice if next year Banned Books Week was about actual book banning for a change.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Banned Books Week
Librarians "ban" books all the time. They ban them because they're of poor quality, or they're obscene, or they're duplicative of what the library already has. That argument goes on, in some form or another, all the time. Where the danger comes, is where the decisions get made nationally, and not locally. Try to open a private lending library in Cuba, and see what happens to you.
Oct '10
Re: Banned Books Week
My youngest son read To Kill a Mockingbird last year in Grade Nine (yes, in Canada no less). It was the first book he has had to read for school that he really enjoyed. And as to the use of the 'N' word and issues of racism in the book, it made him exceedingly sympathetic to the black people in the novel, and he particularly liked its realism, which would be destroyed if it were to be bowdlerized.
May '10
Re: Banned Books Week
Agreed.
My mom asked for a DVD copy of Disney's Song of the South years ago, but Disney doesn't sell that film in the U.S. anymore. I had to order a copy from Britain (and, as I recall, have it converted to American DVD format).
A private business should legally be able to sell and not sell whatever it wants. But social and market pressures should discourage universal censorship in most cases.
Speaking of which, you folks in Hollywood need to figure out what it will take to get Cast a Deadly Spell distributed on DVD!
Jul '10
Re: Banned Books Week
Mark Hemingway: Further, framing the debate in these terms neatly sidesteps very real and pressing issues of censorship happening now. Yale University Press self-censored a book on the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Random House purchased then declined to print The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about one of Mohammed’s wives, fearing Muslim retribution. In 2008, offices of the book’s London publisher was firebombed. (Note that for all their chest-thumping about “banned books” the ALA has not issued any statement on threats directed at “The Jewel of Medina” that I can find.) Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris just went into hiding with help from the FBI for starting “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and we hear crickets from the cultural elites.
While the intent of Banned Books Week is honorable, it would be nice if next year Banned Books Week was about actual book banning for a change. ·
That's exactly right Mark. This is important. Random House & Yale aren't, quite, the equivalent of a Mexican newspaper pitching editorial control to drug runners. Nevertheless, their behaviors are creepy and creeping.
Sep '10
Re: Banned Books Week
"The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame."
--Oscar Wilde
Nov '10
Re: Banned Books Week
The purpose of a public library is to increase public access to the written word. The purpose of a school library is to further the educational mission of the school.
A public library should strive to expand its collection based on what is culturally and intellectually relevant; if something is controversial, it ought to be available for public study. A school library should strive to build a collection consistent with the school's curriculum.
However, neither a public nor a school library should determine what is appropriate for children; this is a parent's job. While it is true that a parent may not be able to supervise what a child borrows from a school library, if a parent has a concern, it should with whoever sets curriculum. It is reasonable for a school to control what is available to pupils, so long as the decision is consistent with its principles.
A public library is different. A parent may reasonably be expected to accompany his or her children to the library; it's the parent's job to do be involved this way. As such, there is no justification whatsoever for limiting what is available at a public library.