Banned Books week!

[conuly]

Of course, everybody is posting the list, and inviting discussion.

And most discussion is along the lines of "BOOK? But that's my favorite book! What could they possibly have against BOOK?"

This is where I pipe up and list all the things the sillies have against BOOK, whatever book BOOK happens to be. Just to interject a little, sometimes the sillies' complaints aren't totally silly - when people say, for example, that a Roald Dahl book is too violent for their precious child to read, I can only nod and go "yup, it's a bit violent", because they do tend that way. I don't consider that a reason to keep a child from reading it, certainly not children other than your own, but I will agree with the premise that the book is violent.

But is it scary that I can recite the reasons against most of these poor books?

Incidentally, I rather wish there were divided lists - children's books and non children's books (normal fiction would fall into that category because that's likely to be read in high school, and most censorship efforts focus on the precious children anyway) just so the likely reasoning could be compared. Some books might be on both lists.

Comments

[lordalfredhenry.livejournal.com]

Just curious. A ton of Judy Blume books were around when I was in elementary school. I'm wondering what the issue is with them (other than being kinda boring IMHO). I know why Harry Potter and some of the "teaching children about homosexuals" and others but why Judy Blume so much? Is it because maybe Judy Blume herself said/did something?

[conuly]

Um... Without knowing the particular book, I can only list the most common reasons.

And that's sex. Deenie involves masturbation, and gasp! mothers who are very wrong about their children. Forever involves sex. Margaret involves sex.

I can think of one that doesn't, since it involves younger kids, but there the complaint is that the bullies are never punished for their bad behaviour. That's why I *like* the book, it's realistic, but *shrugs*.

[phibby.livejournal.com]

Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat! I remember reading that back in second or third grade and finding it really interesting. I never knew it was controversial, but then again, I never knew anybody else had even heard of it.

I'm sort of surprised that the Scary Stories books are number one. It's easy to see why they're on the list, but I didn't think they were nearly infamous enough to warrant the top spot. I find it funny that adults are so eager to keep these books out of kids' hands when every kid I know used to love them and didn't find them overly frightening at all. *shrug*

I'm still puzzling over why Where's Waldo is on this list. I honestly can't think of any reason for it to be there.

[conuly]

I know a lot of people who had nightmares from the scary story books - we still read them, but they were really actually scary. We may've been too young for them...?

As for Waldo, amazon gives this opinion, in the comments:

Censorship reveals a shortage of assurance in a community. Yet censorship is used very frequently in our community today. To this date, the banning of the children's series " Where's Waldo," is the most immature thing I have seen our community do. To me, the banning of any book shows a real lack of confidence in us, as parents, and in our children. I have looked into it, and it appears that the reason "Where's Waldo" got banned was because it features adult material such as "topless sunbathers," and other adult "hidden pictures." I believe that these things are a necessity for our children to find, and contemplate by themselves.

[phibby.livejournal.com]

Huh. I remember reading the first book when I was seven or eight, but the only part I found scary was this one illustration of a half-man/half-skeleton thing. Were you guys younger when you first read them? A lot of stories in the first book weren't that creepy to me because they were just new versions of old urban legends I'd already heard, like the prom dress used on a corpse and the girl who dies of shock when she accidentally gets her dress caught on the knife at the grave. I don't think I ever read the other two books until I was a teenager, though I'll admit that "Harold" from the third book scared the crap out of me even then. Not enough to permanently scar my mind, of course, but enough to keep me somewhat jittery the rest of the night.

The Where's Waldo complaint...wow. Don't people have better things to do with their time? I mentioned the fact that Where's Waldo is on the list to my mom earlier, and the only thing she could think of was that perhaps people got offended by the Wizard Whitebeard. I'm glad it's not that, but I'm not sure a topless sunbather that you can probably barely see is that much better. Geez.

[adina77.livejournal.com]

WTF!!!!!! A lot of these books i like!!!!! what on earth is wrong with huckleberry fin???? or Blubber???? there are some books i understand like madonna's book but my freakin lord!!!!! half of judy blume's is on the list. oy vavoi!!!!! i'm posting this link in my journal.....

[conuly]

Blubber, that's the one I couldn't remember earlier. The bullies aren't ever punished for their actions, which supposedly sends a bad message to children.

As for Huck Finn, not only does it contain the word nigger, but, in addition, Huck is disobediant to just about everybody.

[adina77.livejournal.com]

ok here is a challenge to you...wheres waldo???

[conuly]

*points up*

[adina77.livejournal.com]

just read it, i'm replying to comments via email

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I have only read To Kill a Mockingbird, James and the Giant Peach, and Where's Waldo off this list, although I have heard of many of them.

...wonder what they nailed James and the Giant Peach for. Was it violence, like you suggested above? I don't remember anything particularly shocking there. (I won't ask about Where's Waldo, 'cuz you explained it already.)

Getting away from the specific book challenges, I think your suggestion of the divided list is really good. I don't even know what books would even make the non-children's ban list. Teh ebil Generic Popular Fantasy Series®, maybe? What reasons do USians give for banning books, besides "protect the children"?

[conuly]

Well, violence is a common reason for banning/challenging/leaving nasty comments on amazon about Roald Dahl's books.

Reading the comments on the link I just posted *points up a few entries*, it sounds like it had more to do with disrespect towards his elders, another common theme in Dahl's books.

I've found that whenever an author is banned/challenged, all his/her books will be attacked, with depressing regularity, on the same grounds.

[lordalfredhenry.livejournal.com]

Just curious. A ton of Judy Blume books were around when I was in elementary school. I'm wondering what the issue is with them (other than being kinda boring IMHO). I know why Harry Potter and some of the "teaching children about homosexuals" and others but why Judy Blume so much? Is it because maybe Judy Blume herself said/did something?

[conuly]

Um... Without knowing the particular book, I can only list the most common reasons.

And that's sex. Deenie involves masturbation, and gasp! mothers who are very wrong about their children. Forever involves sex. Margaret involves sex.

I can think of one that doesn't, since it involves younger kids, but there the complaint is that the bullies are never punished for their bad behaviour. That's why I *like* the book, it's realistic, but *shrugs*.

[phibby.livejournal.com]

Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat! I remember reading that back in second or third grade and finding it really interesting. I never knew it was controversial, but then again, I never knew anybody else had even heard of it.

I'm sort of surprised that the Scary Stories books are number one. It's easy to see why they're on the list, but I didn't think they were nearly infamous enough to warrant the top spot. I find it funny that adults are so eager to keep these books out of kids' hands when every kid I know used to love them and didn't find them overly frightening at all. *shrug*

I'm still puzzling over why Where's Waldo is on this list. I honestly can't think of any reason for it to be there.

[conuly]

I know a lot of people who had nightmares from the scary story books - we still read them, but they were really actually scary. We may've been too young for them...?

As for Waldo, amazon gives this opinion, in the comments:

Censorship reveals a shortage of assurance in a community. Yet censorship is used very frequently in our community today. To this date, the banning of the children's series " Where's Waldo," is the most immature thing I have seen our community do. To me, the banning of any book shows a real lack of confidence in us, as parents, and in our children. I have looked into it, and it appears that the reason "Where's Waldo" got banned was because it features adult material such as "topless sunbathers," and other adult "hidden pictures." I believe that these things are a necessity for our children to find, and contemplate by themselves.

[phibby.livejournal.com]

Huh. I remember reading the first book when I was seven or eight, but the only part I found scary was this one illustration of a half-man/half-skeleton thing. Were you guys younger when you first read them? A lot of stories in the first book weren't that creepy to me because they were just new versions of old urban legends I'd already heard, like the prom dress used on a corpse and the girl who dies of shock when she accidentally gets her dress caught on the knife at the grave. I don't think I ever read the other two books until I was a teenager, though I'll admit that "Harold" from the third book scared the crap out of me even then. Not enough to permanently scar my mind, of course, but enough to keep me somewhat jittery the rest of the night.

The Where's Waldo complaint...wow. Don't people have better things to do with their time? I mentioned the fact that Where's Waldo is on the list to my mom earlier, and the only thing she could think of was that perhaps people got offended by the Wizard Whitebeard. I'm glad it's not that, but I'm not sure a topless sunbather that you can probably barely see is that much better. Geez.

[adina77.livejournal.com]

WTF!!!!!! A lot of these books i like!!!!! what on earth is wrong with huckleberry fin???? or Blubber???? there are some books i understand like madonna's book but my freakin lord!!!!! half of judy blume's is on the list. oy vavoi!!!!! i'm posting this link in my journal.....

[conuly]

Blubber, that's the one I couldn't remember earlier. The bullies aren't ever punished for their actions, which supposedly sends a bad message to children.

As for Huck Finn, not only does it contain the word nigger, but, in addition, Huck is disobediant to just about everybody.

[adina77.livejournal.com]

ok here is a challenge to you...wheres waldo???

[conuly]

*points up*

[adina77.livejournal.com]

just read it, i'm replying to comments via email

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I have only read To Kill a Mockingbird, James and the Giant Peach, and Where's Waldo off this list, although I have heard of many of them.

...wonder what they nailed James and the Giant Peach for. Was it violence, like you suggested above? I don't remember anything particularly shocking there. (I won't ask about Where's Waldo, 'cuz you explained it already.)

Getting away from the specific book challenges, I think your suggestion of the divided list is really good. I don't even know what books would even make the non-children's ban list. Teh ebil Generic Popular Fantasy Series®, maybe? What reasons do USians give for banning books, besides "protect the children"?

[conuly]

Well, violence is a common reason for banning/challenging/leaving nasty comments on amazon about Roald Dahl's books.

Reading the comments on the link I just posted *points up a few entries*, it sounds like it had more to do with disrespect towards his elders, another common theme in Dahl's books.

I've found that whenever an author is banned/challenged, all his/her books will be attacked, with depressing regularity, on the same grounds.