I'm sorry, but I can't get all bent out of shape over this, not since I discovered that by far the greatest number of challenges come from parents. Parents have enough problems; I won't jump all over them for this. Parents *are* censors -- always have been and, indeed, should be. That they ask for a little help now and then is understandable. That they get so little -- that's what bothers me.
Well, as a parent, I don't appreciate other parents cutting in with their dubious concern trolling. I've got 99 problems as a parent, and Captain Underpants ain't one.
But they aren't just censoring them for their children. They are trying to censor them for my children, too. In the same way that I don't try to tell them that they are wrong to try to prevent their child from reading Sherman Alexie or Toni Morrison, I expect them to keep their busybody nose out of my encouragement to my child to read Sherman Alexie or Toni Morrison.
People who want extensive control what their children read almost invariably want to feed their children (and mine, as well) pablum - predigested fare that will neither challenge them nor compel them to challenge themselves. Anything that rocks their personal boat is off-limits to everyone's kids.
I want my kids to get smarter every day. John Steinbeck will help them on their journey. The fact that a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists are afraid for their children to read Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison's books means that their kids need those books more, not less.
In reality, most schools have a process in place for parents to object to their kids reading a specific book for class. In addition, if they are really displeased with the curriculum, they can always withdraw their child from that school and either home school or send their kid to a private school that will be more consistent with their demands. What they don't get to do is dumb down the reading opportunities for my children.
I get that. I just don't appreciate people seeking to remove books from libraries or curricula, which impacts my kids as well. I have forbidden the Berenstain Bears from my house, for example, but would never seek to have them removed from a library.
Well, what if a community voted on it, and they voted it out? You'd respect that, wouldn't you? Democracy in action and all that. Or not? I don't know, so I'm asking.
While I don't own a copy, I read FSoG. It made me a sad panda. But there is a long and storied tradition of kids stealing sexually explicit books from parents -- like my husband goggling at Wifey or my own somewhat harrowing read of R. Crumb comics in the house. Yeesh.
Ugh, they're just nose-picking goody goody pablum. Mostly, my hatred for them is a running joke with my kids, who occasionally come home with copies checked out from the library and chase me around the house with them.
Well, I don't know about that. The "local standards" approach to controversial material is really questionable, to put it lightly, especially in the age of the Internet. Obviously, private institutions are able to institute any fool standard that pleases them, but when you're talking about public funds, you are talking about a public that is much broader than your particular kiddie pool.
The tyranny of the majority is what our Constitution was designed to avoid. So, no, I wouldn't.
Besides, Putrid, it's never a majority of anyone who want to ban these specific books. It's always one or two parents who can't stand the idea that their little darling might read something that causes him/her to question their parental authority or their narrow religious doctrines. They disrespect the autonomy of the young mind and it's immense thirst for knowledge because they are so insecure in their beliefs/faith that they fear that it won't stand up to any sort of intelligent scrutiny. They want to remake their world. But it isn't just their world, it's my world, too. And yours, and Ceridwens.
Ceridwen, one of my friends stole Wifey off her mom's nightstand in sixth grade and we passed it around at recess. Also, remember Flowers in the Attic?
Ceridwen: I am sure that my local library has copies of FSoG. I wouldn't have 'em in my house, but I don't care that they are in the library.
Ah, the internet. But parents can't complain about that either, I don't suppose. But I agree that it's a difficult issue (one way or another), and that's why I just can't get all upset about this. : -)
I read SO MUCH Flowers in the Attic. SO MUCH. All that tragic hair brushing! And ballet!
I read Wifey again as an adult, which was a really interesting experience. It's this intensely uncomfortable narrative of a woman who is in a real crisis. We just kinda missed all that in our rush to the naughty bits. Kids, man.
I'm raising two kids - my daughter is going to be 18 in a month, and my son is 14. Of all of the stuff that I have to worry about with my kiddos, the fact that the high school library possesses multiple copies of The Bluest Eye isn't even on my radar screen.
I've tried to think about how I would feel about the HS library owning copies of FSoG (I don't know if they do or if they don't). I feel like it has absolutely no redeeming literary or educational value, but I still don't care if its in the library. Heck, many of my friends with children have copies of it on their bookshelves. And if my daughter brought it home from the library to read, I would mock her unmercifully. She has really good taste in books, though. I can't imagine that she WOULD bring it home to read, unless it was for the purpose of mocking it herself. YKWIM.
My kids are in grade school, so I would assume that none of the grown up books are in the library, which is fine. Interestingly, my husband dislikes Captain Underpants, because he claims that all the (intentional, comic) misspellings are going to muck up the kids' ability to spell. I tend to scoff at this. We once wrote a fan letter to Dav Pilkey -- the boy and I -- and he (his publisher) wrote back. It was really sweet, especially because my son used a semicolon, without prompting from me, in the letter. Which I think is an indicator that my husband was wrong.
Miraculously, she graduates AND turns 18 on the same day. Two major milestones. She'll go off to college this fall. She is brilliant and funny and incredibly well-read for someone her age. She actually reads much more substantive literature than I do - she's pleasure read 1984, and A Brave New World, and Oryx and Crake this year. She's reading East of Eden right now. I was just like her as a girl - I went through a Russian classics obsession in high school. I have tremendous respect for the voracious maw that is the bright young mind.
My son is not much of a reader, although he is a huge fan of Harry Potter. I keep at him, though, and I maintain my hope that something will click with him. He is very much into video games, and like many boys his age, dreams of working in that industry. I use this interest as a hook for reading - video games are another form of story telling, and he needs to understand narrative and be able to write well even (especially) if he wants to work in video gaming. I think I have him a bit convinced of my position - I encourage him to write fan fiction for some of his favorite video game franchises.
Wow, that's going to be a big day! I probably read smarter when I was younger too; reading was more a way to experience things I hadn't experienced, and less something I do when dog tired at the end of the day.
I think encouraging him to write fanfic is great! It can be a really cool engagement, a way to think about narrative choices and all that.
Aw, I'm sad that poor ol' Huck hasn't made the list in several years. Is he losing his edge? Very timely post though - I'm currently reading Tom Sawyer with my daughter and she's begging to read Huck next. I personally think that Huck is best suited for older readers. I'm mostly worried she'll be bored and disappointed (due to its more mature themes and language) and have a bad experience with a wonderful book simply because we tried to read it before she was ready. Still I'd prefer to grapple with the question of whether or not to read it with her than have someone make that choice for me.
Huh, that's funny that Huck is dropping off the lists! I think your concerns about reading Huck too young are valid -- oh how many I ruined for myself. Twain's such a zippy writer though; I doubt she'd be bored. (You know, I say, not knowing your daughter's predilections myself. You're of course a better judge.) Our racial history is really messy though, and I know my daughter has some really weird notions of timeline -- "Obama freed the slaves with Rosa Parks and then there was a Civil war" kind of stuff. Teachable moment?
...which is kind of a problem too, the teachable moment thing, because it can turn a book into a drag. For whatever its more mature themes, I think one of the reasons Huck endures is that it's FUN.
And some are more dickish than others. I was laughing with my husband about Tom last night and talking about how Twain really nailed kids and how I, like all kids, used to fantasize about being *temporarily* dead and attending my own funeral. My husband looked at me like I'd grown a third eyeball. I guess not all kids had fantasies like that...Funny thing is, that was one of my more benign childhood fantasies!
My parents never really 'banned' any books. They sat me down and talked to me about why they might not like some books and having read some of those books now...I kinda agree. But they knew what I liked to read and they let me...'police' myself isn't the right word but it's the best I can come up with right now. I occasionally got books unknowingly that I was like *close and back to the library ASAP* but one thing they also taught me was to read both sides of something. Don't say something against something you haven't researched.
That doesn't mean I'm going to to pick up FSoG...and I will also say I don't like it and think it's not a great book for anyone to read. There are so many better books out there.
Aside from discouraging me from reading adult books when I was in elementary school, I don't recall my parents even expressing an opinion on my reading. Probably figured nothing I read was going to hurt me any. They were right.
They did draw the line at violent video games, but my brother and I just played them behind our parents' backs. Since a book is much easier to hide than a video game, I can't imagine any attempts at book censorship would have had much success.
My parents never tried to censor my reading; my mother says the only time her parents tried it, she sneaked a copy from a girlfriend. (Can't remember the title, sounds like it was the Flowers in the Attic of the 1940s.)
The most unfortunate thing I see here is that books are 2.5 times more likely to be challenged for sex than violence. Typical for our society, but skewed as hell.
The funniest, that FSoG is challenged for its "religious viewpoint." Who reads poorly-written erotica and then complains to the library that it's preachy?
Generally that challenge is related to the fact that it isn't preachy enough in a mainstream Christian way. Like, Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series will be challenged for it's "religious viewpoint" because it's "religious viewpoint" is inconsistent with the theological bent of the challenger.
His Dark Materials actually has a viewpoint on religion, what with all the "God is dead" stuff. I've heard it called the atheist answer to Narnia. Does FSoG express a viewpoint on religion either way?
The Hunger Games has apparently been challenged for the same reason (don't recall any religion there) and so has The Kite Runner (because it has Muslims in it? Good grief).
I find the concern expressed about 50 Shades a little...odd. No, it's terribly written and all that, but I would imagine that many of its challenges are in public libraries, not in school libraries where it likely isn't stocked anyway. (The list aggregates all challenges in all libraries, not just ones for kids.) I've read several articles about 50 Shades being removed from public libraries, which I find ludicrous. I have been well more scarred by sex scenes written by John Updike.
If we're going after just shittily written books, then I think we need to seriously consider how unworkable that standard is. I've been watching a lot of people sneer at The Goldfinch, which just won the Pulitzer, for being "badly written"; obviously, standards vary. (And *cough cough* some of this has to do with Tartt being a woman, but whatever.) I have actually read 50 Shades -- which I checked out of my public library -- and its reputation as the worst thing ever is slightly puzzling to me. Yes, it's bad, but mostly it's just forgettable and silly, not even as memorable as Twilight, which it used as source material.
I have, unfortunately, turned into a Twilight defender in my dotage. Yes, of course it is chockablock with very questionable shit, and its messages make the little hairs on my arms rise in feminist fear. But so much of the snarling about that book (and 50 Shades) seems intent on shaming its readers for their sexual response. I object to this kind of policing (which, yeah, questionable verb) in public library books. There are better books out there, no question, but that this one takes the brunt of the concern seems freighted with a lot of moral panic about female sexuality.
Just as, I think, a lot of challenges on sexual grounds are actually a stalking horse for racial discomfort. Only the most craven fool would characterize Beloved by Toni Morrison as pornographic -- pornography being designed to titillate or arouse -- when it depicts sexual violence. (Ditto The Kite Runner.) But that is exactly what has happened in many places.
100% agreed that 50 Shades treats BDSM communities poorly, being my main objection. A real and socially marginalized group of people should not be treated like vegetarian vampires, who do not exist and cannot exist. Putting aside any hand wringing about BDSM in the first place, 50 Shades enacts the usual bullshit Freudian arrow of sexual cause and effect, culminating in simple equation that kink can be "solved" through a magical vagina, love, and domesticity. No. Nothing James says about how BDSM works should or can be trusted, because it's clear she's working off of Google and her own fantasy life of how that might work.
I guess, point being, that I completely dig criticism of the book, just not ones that rely on the usual dreary panic that ladies might be getting off on it. Ladies getting off on middle class fantasies of wealth and domination is problematic, sure, but not because they're getting off. Is how I'd frame it.
How is Harry Potter "anti-family"?
And why are they getting at Huxley's Brave New World for "insensitivity"?
LOL!
People who want extensive control what their children read almost invariably want to feed their children (and mine, as well) pablum - predigested fare that will neither challenge them nor compel them to challenge themselves. Anything that rocks their personal boat is off-limits to everyone's kids.
I want my kids to get smarter every day. John Steinbeck will help them on their journey. The fact that a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists are afraid for their children to read Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison's books means that their kids need those books more, not less.
In reality, most schools have a process in place for parents to object to their kids reading a specific book for class. In addition, if they are really displeased with the curriculum, they can always withdraw their child from that school and either home school or send their kid to a private school that will be more consistent with their demands. What they don't get to do is dumb down the reading opportunities for my children.
...and cross-post.
Also, why the hate for Berenstein Bears? Just wondering. They were never on my radar screen when my kids were the right age.
Ugh, they're just nose-picking goody goody pablum. Mostly, my hatred for them is a running joke with my kids, who occasionally come home with copies checked out from the library and chase me around the house with them.
Besides, Putrid, it's never a majority of anyone who want to ban these specific books. It's always one or two parents who can't stand the idea that their little darling might read something that causes him/her to question their parental authority or their narrow religious doctrines. They disrespect the autonomy of the young mind and it's immense thirst for knowledge because they are so insecure in their beliefs/faith that they fear that it won't stand up to any sort of intelligent scrutiny. They want to remake their world. But it isn't just their world, it's my world, too. And yours, and Ceridwens.
Ceridwen, one of my friends stole Wifey off her mom's nightstand in sixth grade and we passed it around at recess. Also, remember Flowers in the Attic?
Ceridwen: I am sure that my local library has copies of FSoG. I wouldn't have 'em in my house, but I don't care that they are in the library.
I read Wifey again as an adult, which was a really interesting experience. It's this intensely uncomfortable narrative of a woman who is in a real crisis. We just kinda missed all that in our rush to the naughty bits. Kids, man.
I've tried to think about how I would feel about the HS library owning copies of FSoG (I don't know if they do or if they don't). I feel like it has absolutely no redeeming literary or educational value, but I still don't care if its in the library. Heck, many of my friends with children have copies of it on their bookshelves. And if my daughter brought it home from the library to read, I would mock her unmercifully. She has really good taste in books, though. I can't imagine that she WOULD bring it home to read, unless it was for the purpose of mocking it herself. YKWIM.
My kids are in grade school, so I would assume that none of the grown up books are in the library, which is fine. Interestingly, my husband dislikes Captain Underpants, because he claims that all the (intentional, comic) misspellings are going to muck up the kids' ability to spell. I tend to scoff at this. We once wrote a fan letter to Dav Pilkey -- the boy and I -- and he (his publisher) wrote back. It was really sweet, especially because my son used a semicolon, without prompting from me, in the letter. Which I think is an indicator that my husband was wrong.
My son is not much of a reader, although he is a huge fan of Harry Potter. I keep at him, though, and I maintain my hope that something will click with him. He is very much into video games, and like many boys his age, dreams of working in that industry. I use this interest as a hook for reading - video games are another form of story telling, and he needs to understand narrative and be able to write well even (especially) if he wants to work in video gaming. I think I have him a bit convinced of my position - I encourage him to write fan fiction for some of his favorite video game franchises.
I think encouraging him to write fanfic is great! It can be a really cool engagement, a way to think about narrative choices and all that.
That doesn't mean I'm going to to pick up FSoG...and I will also say I don't like it and think it's not a great book for anyone to read. There are so many better books out there.
They did draw the line at violent video games, but my brother and I just played them behind our parents' backs. Since a book is much easier to hide than a video game, I can't imagine any attempts at book censorship would have had much success.
The funniest, that FSoG is challenged for its "religious viewpoint." Who reads poorly-written erotica and then complains to the library that it's preachy?
The Hunger Games has apparently been challenged for the same reason (don't recall any religion there) and so has The Kite Runner (because it has Muslims in it? Good grief).
If we're going after just shittily written books, then I think we need to seriously consider how unworkable that standard is. I've been watching a lot of people sneer at The Goldfinch, which just won the Pulitzer, for being "badly written"; obviously, standards vary. (And *cough cough* some of this has to do with Tartt being a woman, but whatever.) I have actually read 50 Shades -- which I checked out of my public library -- and its reputation as the worst thing ever is slightly puzzling to me. Yes, it's bad, but mostly it's just forgettable and silly, not even as memorable as Twilight, which it used as source material.
I have, unfortunately, turned into a Twilight defender in my dotage. Yes, of course it is chockablock with very questionable shit, and its messages make the little hairs on my arms rise in feminist fear. But so much of the snarling about that book (and 50 Shades) seems intent on shaming its readers for their sexual response. I object to this kind of policing (which, yeah, questionable verb) in public library books. There are better books out there, no question, but that this one takes the brunt of the concern seems freighted with a lot of moral panic about female sexuality.
Just as, I think, a lot of challenges on sexual grounds are actually a stalking horse for racial discomfort. Only the most craven fool would characterize Beloved by Toni Morrison as pornographic -- pornography being designed to titillate or arouse -- when it depicts sexual violence. (Ditto The Kite Runner.) But that is exactly what has happened in many places.
I guess, point being, that I completely dig criticism of the book, just not ones that rely on the usual dreary panic that ladies might be getting off on it. Ladies getting off on middle class fantasies of wealth and domination is problematic, sure, but not because they're getting off. Is how I'd frame it.