Every year I get such a kick of the display of banned books at our indie store. Some I sort of understand. Others, I'm just baffled by. Most, actually.

Thing is when people ban a book, esp to children, the kids are gonna find a way. My parents never restricted me (tho it is a different world, I'll grant you). I managed to check out Valley of the Dolls at 11. There was a lot I didn't get, but I hid the book under my bed when I wasn't reading it. What was funny is that dad walked by my room one day and said 'oh, your reading Valley of the Dolls, let me know how you like it, I want to read it'. "Um yeah, um sure dad' Actually as an adult I suspect it was his way of saying 'if you have questions, ask'. But it was pretty funny.

Banned Book Week is great publicity and promotion for some maligned books, but sometimes I wonder if it's not mostly gimmickry. Yeah, I can be a spot cynical. ;-)

I am very cynical, not just can be :) But while I see gimickry in many things, I'm not sure I see it here. Its important for people to remember that banning happens even in our country, and to consider address issues of censorship, . In that way maybe we will never get to a world where the govt starts banning books.

I was looking for a quote, and I happened upon this list showing the most banned books of the 90s.

Of Mice and Men  by John Steinbeck

The Catcher in the Rye  by J.D. Salinger

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn  by Mark Twain

Heather Has Two Mommies  by Leslea Newman

Christine  by Stephen King

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings  by Maya Angelou

Little Red Riding Hood  by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

Slaughterhouse-Five  by Kurt Vonnegut

The Color Purple  by Alice Walker

James and the Giant Peach  by Roald Dahl

The Learning Tree  by Gordon Parks

The Grapes of Wrath  by John Steinbeck

Cujo  by Stephen King

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer  by Mark Twain

The Handmaid's Tale  by Margaret Atwood

Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols  by Edna Barth

Please enlighten me! Who has this Week and how are books displayed if they are banned, or is it just a cover display?

I'll second annpan's request for clarification. I don't think a book has been banned in the UK since the Lady Chatterly trial in the early '60's.

I remember reading The Well of Loneliness. How else, in the 60's would a good catholic girl like me learn that there were homosexual women as well as men?!

Many of the so-called "banned" books have never been actually banned but are books that have been "challenged" -- that is, objected to by individuals or groups who find the contents repugnant for a variety of reasons (religious reasons, hatemongering -- such as inciting crimes against gays, stereotypical behaviors, "bad" language, inappropriate content for certain age groups, etc.). For example, some parents will want a particular book removed from their children's school reading lists -- usually they want an exception for their child only -- but sometimes the group can be vociferous enough that a book will be removed from that particular school's library shelves. It can be a consensus and "will of the people" and is actually quite different from outright banning (as in against the law and subject to penalty of law for possession).

Often, though, challenges are viewed as attempts at outright banning -- or the fear of outright banning -- and things get blown all out of proportion. It is a very contentious issue: on one side people feel that certain books they find objectionable are imposed upon them or their children (in schools usually), and on the other side people feel that anyone who objects to materials are imposing their objections on everyone else. Both sides have valid reasons for their angst, but they are often so blinded by their anxieties that they can't see the other side and won't compromise.

All of this plays into the publishing industry's hands -- and I'll admit this is where I'm cynical and where I sense gimmickry is involved -- by giving them a launching pad for the promotion of their product. And, human nature being the way it is, people are enticed by the word "banned" when they wouldn't ordinarily give that book even a glance. What better way to advertise than collect up a lot of challenges and use the hyperbolic "banned" -- truth in advertising be hanged.

As a booklover and incessant reader, it would chap my hide for anyone, or group, to tell me what I can and can't read -- and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here -- but I think it is also rather ironic to hysterically promote untruths and half-baked notions.

BTW, annpan, the so-called banned books are displayed in all their glory, right out in the open, for anyone who wants to thumb through them.

Add me to the cynical club. Most of these so-called banned books are books that were challenged by parents in school libraries, and IMO a person shouldn't be demonized if they are interested in what their children are reading. Far better that than the anything goes crowd.

At my daughter's school, there was an objection to a popular kid's series because there was teen sex in it. The librarian was surprised, because it had been rated 9 years and up (but usually those ratings are for reading level, not content), and she removed them from the shelves (oldest kids are 12 in her school). Also, after another complaint, the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants books were restricted to grade 6 students only.

I actually found myself using the N-word in reference to black people spontaneously while I was reading Huck Finn, and I think that this particular book should not be read by youngsters without classroom discussion.

ana and veer (and others), the Week is put on by none other than the American Librarian Association - and not the publishing industry. Its done to promote awareness to banned books. Usually when I see displays, it does say 'banned or challenged'. But 'Banned and Challenged Book Week doesn't roll off the tongue as easily :)

>but I think it is also rather ironic to hysterically promote untruths and half-baked notions.

I have an allergy to hyperbole. But because the history of the world is filled with banned books being the start of something much more sinsiter, I don't thik this is hysteria. I do think its important for people to discuss the issues around banning, and I do understand why there are some problems with ratings, grade levels and the like. But for those discussions to take place in the open, we need something like a week to give us the awareness.

> actually found myself using the N-word in reference to black people spontaneously while I was reading Huck Finn

I recall when reading that book as a kid, knowing when it was written, and knowing (certainly by the 70s) that the word is not to be used, and I never did. I'll grant you that I was probably a more sophisticated reader then many of my peers, I've just not heard of this before.

Do people really pick up language just from reading a book? I wonder - I see images in my head when I read. I know some people 'hear' a voice when they read. Could 'hearing' a scene rather than 'seeing' it influence the possibility? And is the fact that this happened to you a reason to keep a child from checking it out sans parent approval? (and I'm just asking for the sake of discussion, not to accuse you of doing so).

I do think parents have a responsibility to know their child well enough to know what they can handle, whether its books, film, or computer games. At 11 or 12 I easily could handle many adult oriented books - knowing I could always go to dad for help. I know teenagers that probably would be a bit to impressionable and indeed would need to read some of this stuff either within a class setting, or with a parent.

And I really don't get why there is all this fuss about having the week itself. I am more upset by people who use their religious or political agenda to keep people reading what they determine is 'offensive, taking away personal choice from others who don't share that view. Is the week bothersome because its being used as a marketing tool? Well, I could say that about a lot of 'weeks' we seem to have in this country. But if people read these books on sale, they can come to their own conclusion whether or not a book is for them or for their child. And I'd rather that happen then someone with fangs drawn who's never seen the book much less read it.

Here is a link that might be useful: ALA Banned Book Week

Just to clarify: I would NEVER use the N-word willingly, but in thinking about the book, and in describing it to my husband, it slipped out, simply because it is repeated 10 times per page and entered my subconscious, in a way. But I easily pick up voices from books: I read Roddy Doyle and pick up the Irish brogue.

I happen to believe that most people who challenge books do not have "fangs", and I think it's really unfortunate that they are portrayed in that manner. And I don't think there's anything sinister about it. They are simply concerned about what their children are reading. As is their right. And it is also no one's business to judge how they are raising their children. I'm not saying I agree with them: I am not crazy about seeing the Chronicles of Narnia on school shelves, but I wouldn't make a fuss about it. I would probably have a good talking to with my daughter if I saw her reading them, however.

In my opinion, we should be far more concerned about media concentration and manipulation of the masses than what parents want to see on school shelves.

As one who read Forever Amber under the bedcovers by flashlight (age 11) when this was considered pretty hot stuff, I am allergic to banning and censorship in any form. Add to this I am a medical librarian, with all the biases that librarians have toward non-censorship. I want no one telling me what I or my children may read; I will be the arbiter for both. And (see Forever Amber)kids will read what they want, no matter how.

A Banned Book Week can bring about discussion of censorship, pros and cons -- look what we're doing. :-) And for that reason, I can hardly object. Yes, it's the marketing of it that bothers me; but I agree that the plethora of "Weeks" we have here in the U.S. dilutes whatever message is intended. Most people either won't care or they will pick up and repeat superficial arguments, such as: "Little Red Riding Hood was banned! Isn't that stupid?!"

I didn't mean to imply that the publishing industry sponsors Banned Books Week, instead of the American Library Association, so thanks for clarifying that, Cindy, for our non-American RPers. However, the publishing industry has taken it up and run with it. My local Barnes & Noble makes a big deal out of it, as do several other booksellers I've seen; their motives I suspect are not entirely altruistic. And all the bookselling promotions I've seen, lazily or intentionally, omit the "Challenged" part, which is nigh unto misrepresentation if you ask me.
In my opinion, we should be far more concerned about media concentration and manipulation of the masses than what parents want to see on school shelves.I couldn't agree more, venusia.

I have some problems with the American Library Association's statements at their site. For example, they cite John Stuart Mill's On Liberty with this:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."The ALA, of course, is using J.S. Mill to bolster their argument against what they perceive as censorship; but they are ignoring the fact that beleaguering the act of challenging is also an attempt at censorship. In fact, their open statement is:Banned Books Week emphasizes the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.Yet, from the tone of their Q&As, it sounds as if they are deeming challengers as always wrongheaded.But because the history of the world is filled with banned books being the start...

>They are simply concerned about what their children are reading. As is their right. And it is also no one's business to judge how they are raising their children.

I agree, they have the right to be concerned, I certainly would be if I had a kid. Problem is, that many folk don't just want to keep their child from reading something or at the very least want it read with parental guidance. Many folk want all children forbidden to read it. Thats not their right, in fact, it impunes (sp) on other people's right to decide what is best for their own child.

As for school book lists: I don't know how it works now, but if I ruled the world children would be given at least one option for every book asigned. The option would be of similar themes, but would be perhaps more accepted by certain folk. Then the books could be discussed in class, comparing and contrasting them. That way the class lesson can continue, yet with different kids reading two different books. That might be fun to teach, actually.

> And I don't think there's anything sinister about it.

No I don't think these folk have fangs and I don't think they are out to create a change in our govt. I do think that they forget that this is a free country, and that one of the blessings of that freedom is to be able to read, watch, listen to anything without the say so of the government. With kids, yes this is different. But the parents who are out to ban certain books from the school library shelves have to realize that they are infringing on the freedoms of other parents and their desire to raise them the way they want.

Consider this also: If you look at the history of totalitarian states - most of them started with banned books, often ones for kids. So while it might just be a small thing to ban one book from a reading list at one school, it could, and has, led to more.

>we should be far more concerned about media concentration and manipulation of the masses than what parents want to see on school shelves.

If you mean how the mainstream media spin the facts of local, national and world events, making people believe things that aren't nec true? And how the media has made entertainment into news, ignoring the truly important events that are happening in our world? Yes, I totally agree.

frieda, its such a slippery slope, isn't it? I would keep hard core porn out of kids eyes. But then we have to ask what is considered porn? Remember, Michalangelo's David was considered obscene enough that in the 1800s, someone put a covering on him. Some of the more beautiful works of art have been of the human body. I don't consder it porn, but some do. So who decides? I want to say that it should be in each person's hands, but its so hard when you have commercials, movie trailers, even store front window at the mall (ie Victoria Secret), all using sex to market their products. If we ban 'hard core pornography', how soon will someone say that other things need to be banned...

cindy, with regard to people picking up language from a book, I have to admit to doing it. I seem to be a language 'sponge', picking up stuff from TV, books and, much to my sixteen year old's chagrin, people. I have found a really good way to put him off using some word or phrase I don't like, is to take it up myself. Hearing dear old mum use it sort of takes the gloss off a bit *VBG*

As an interesting aside to that, I find that when I am away from Australia, my speech becomes much more Ocker. While living in Wales in the 80s, I often found myself saying things like 'beauty' (or more realistically, 'bewdy') and 'mate', which are words I rarely use at home.

With regard to the main topic here, I don't have a problem with parents limiting what their children read, and asking that certain books not be given to their children, but I don't think that a school should be made to take books off the library shelves because some parents object. Library books (and by extension, non-compulsory reading) should not be governed by a few for the rest. At this level it is a personal choice for parents to make.

While I never used the n-word when reading Huck Finn (my mom would have slapped me across the kitchen had I done so) I do pick up voices when I'm reading. Give me a week of re-reading Georgette Heyer and I'm talking like some Regency miss. I catch myself quickly, but it has slipped out. So I do understand what Venusia is saying.

I've told the story here before about how my aunt lead the battle to stop her daughter's class from reading Up the Down Staircase because it contained the f-word. I was Drama Club President that year at the same school and insisted that we do it as one of our plays. So yes, kids do just use banning as an incentive to embrace the banned.

Still, I always get an unattractive whiff of smug moral superiority from those who like to list banned books.

Oh my gawd - Up the Down Staircase? For heavens sakes, its a wonderful book, funny, gentle, moving.... Haven't seen the play, but if its anything like the original, the thought of it being banned is just - too funny, and sad.

And good for you Chris. I like it when kids stand up for something like that.

>I always get an unattractive whiff of smug moral superiority from those who like to list banned books.

Just listing banned books, or calling for books to be banned? If its the former - I get that same unattractive whiff of smug moral superiority from those who insist that they know what everyone else should read/watch/think.

Standing in the middle (call me Ms Shades of Gray on this issue, though I'm not gray in everything), I not only get whiffs but full blasts of the smug moral superiority from both sides.

What drives me batty is both sides think everyone else is telling them what they should read/watch/think, and six out of ten times both sides are right -- leaving the other four times to the middle of the roaders who say: "Read or watch or think what you want, just don't insist that we take sides and don't try to move your pole closer to me."

Parents who challenge books, usually do so with only their own children in mind -- at least that's my experience in teaching and as a parent -- because they feel threatened by peer groups, teachers, school boards, the media, and society in general to conform, conform, conform and NOT think for themselves. The fact that they stand up for their beliefs -- as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others -- should be an admirable thing, but it's usually not considered so when it conflicts with majority thinking. The very people who screech loudest about the right to read/watch/think everything are often the most intolerant of people who don't want to read/watch/think everything that they do. That this a phenomenon of ideological blinkering at both poles is the only way I can comprehend it, but then my own view is hampered because I'm on the equator.

That's why I partially find the ALA Banned Books Week disappointing -- not only because big business has coopted it, but because the ALA program has, by implication, a biased agenda: Banning is bad. So is challenging.

Wow, I don't think I can get my head round all this. To think this is all coming out of the Land of the Free. Whatever happened to tolerance? And,as you know, I'm not talking about the people who have put such interesting ideas up here, but the folk who caused these ideas to be expressed in the first place.

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw in a mag. some years ago.
The Mayflower is anchored off-shore and a party of 'Pilgrims' is standing on Plymouth Rock. One is saying to another.
"Free at last from the religious oppression back home. Now, just let me get my hands on a few of those heathen Indians in dire need of conversion to Christianity."

I would agree with the view Kath expressed in her last paragraph. Perhaps this is because the mores of the UK and Australia are so similar in many ways.

I have never heard of any parent, group of people, religious group demanding, even asking, that a book should be removed from the school curriculum. It just does not happen.
Parents seem to have faith in the judgement of the 'powers that be' to decide these matters. The same would hold true of libraries and their staff.
No they wouldn't put 'porn' type books in either the adult or children's section, but neither would there be copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' or Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall .. .' for youngsters to wallow through.

Thinking of Darwin, are these the same parents who are calling for and succeeding in getting 'Creationism' (is that the right word?) taught in US schools? And can someone tell me if it is true, as the UK papers tell us, that almost half the US population believe the Bible teaching that the world was literally created in seven days? Is this happening in the most powerful country in the world?
Cindy do some people really believe that unclothed statues, and art depicting nudes is pornographic? We did hear about the fuss made in the Janet Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction' case . . . and we laughed!
And again Cindy, what is the 'porn' that you have seen displayed over here in England that you would not find in the US . . . if you can say it without being banned from the site!

I'm just throwing out questions here Please don't think I am trying to 'get' at anyone.

Re the N word (as I suppose I had better call it). When I was a child it was used quite openly and not meant as a term of abuse, in fact it was a commonly used word to describe the colour brown, for reels of thread, dyes, clothing etc just in the same way we might say 'Prussian blue' or 'hunting pink'. Although we seem to have followed the US lead on that, there are still many derogatory terms bandied about and I feel in many ways we are far less PC than you folk in America. You should hear some of the terms the Australians use for the English . . . and we don't even mind!

>"Read or watch or think what you want, just don't insist that we take sides and don't try to move your pole closer to me."

>as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others

I agree - on both sides of the issue. There should be a happy medium and if the two sides could sit down and discuss it calmly, a compromise in individual situations could probably be reached. Unfortunately, like every issue, its the extremes that are the loudest and then everyone thinks of the issue only in the terms of extremes.

>It just does not happen.

Veer, I suspect that the reason you don't hear parents there demanding that something in the curriculum be removed is that parents have learned here that they have rights (which is usually a good thing) and have learned that they indeed can make demands that they can't elsewhere. And because schools don't want to lose kids to private or charter schools, they are more likely to do some give and take in the process. Or the parents are more willing to go to court (and there are more lawyers willing to take them there)

>are these the same parents who are calling for and succeeding in getting 'Creationism' (is that the right word?) taught in US schools

The phrase they use is 'Intelligent Design' Some, not all. And two important court cases have thrown them out on their ears.

>that almost half the US population believe the Bible teaching that the world was literally created in seven days?

be very careful of those types of statistics. I doubt its half. You need to check to see what question was asked, what the choices were, and what the sample population was before you can come to any conclusion. And remember what a large county we are. We have as many opinions as we do people, probably.

>Cindy do some people really believe that unclothed statues, and art depicting nudes is pornographic?

In your own country - check your history of the Victorian era. There were people who thought that the Sistine Chapel should have been painted over. Trust me, we got our puritan values from somewhere, former Mother Country:)

And that leads to a big part of the issue - what is pornographic, what is obscene, what books, art, films should be kept from kids, until what age?

And again - why is it usually sex or bad language that causes a book to be banned (challenged)? Why isn't it the graphic violence?

>we did hear about the fuss made in the Janet Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction' case . . . and we laughed!

Most folks here did too, esp when the 2 second incident was shown again and again every day for weeks till everyone did see it! Much ado about nothing.

>And again Cindy, what is the 'porn' that you have seen displayed over here in England that you would not find in the US

A few glaring examples: in Rome there were billboards advertising some kind of beverage. The billboard had a photo of an actractive scantilly clothed woman laying on her stomach, tied up. In England, the...

Does anyone here think that we really have banned books anymore? sure, we have books removed from the curriculum for a variety of reasons. But the kids in that curriculum, or their parents, can walk into the local booksellers and purchase said book. This, too, seems much ado about nothing.

Furthermore, if this were a genuine list of challenged books, wouldn't it include books on creationism/ intelligent design? Haven't folks tried to get them taught in schools and had them rejected by school boards? Isn't that the epitome of a banned book? I personally believe the subject shouldn't be anywhere near a science course and only addressed in a course that deals with a multitude of creation stories. But that isn't the point. They are still banned in our schools, and I see no outrage by the ALA.

Which makes a mockery of the lists. A genuine list would include books we, too, find objectionable.

IIRC, religious books are usually on those lists, including the bible and the quran. And I suspect, if you look, you might find one or two of the CI books. But I think the issue you bring up isn't about banned books - its an argument about CI and Evolution taught in science classes, and which text books to be used. And thats a whole other can of worms I'd rather not open up here.

And yes, there are places that ban certain books. There are bookstores (indies) that chose not to carry books. And there are certain libraries that have bowed to pressure and taken some books off the shelves. Can people still go and get them elsewhere? Of course, But thats not really the point. They are banned, for all intents and purposes, from that place.

I also think you are making too much of the lists - they are a list of books that have been challenged (if you read the site, you'll see why they don't say 'Challeneged and Banned Book Week'). But the purpose is simply an awareness that it happens, and an opportunity for folks to look at said books and come to their own conclusion.