As many of you know it’s Banned Books Week, a week-long event celebrating our great nation’s freedom to publish and read and a reminder of the perils of constraining the free exchange of thought. The website Banned Books Week even has an interactive map of the books that have been challenged and banned in the last couple of years.
Banned Books Week has not been without controversy as the Wall Street Journal published a chiding editorial about the celebration, noting that very few books have actually been banned in the last couple of years, which in the opinion of the editorial shows that the ALA has far more power over what kids read than the parents who (almost unanimously unsuccessfully) challenge books.
While I don’t particularly agree with much of the editorial, I do think it raises some interesting points for discussion.
Censorship and book-banning was certainly an important issue pre-Internet, when libraries and bookstores (if you were lucky enough to have both) were the only places where books could really be acquired. But these days the Internet has made any book readily available. Is the issue of censorship as pressing as it used to be, when the banning of HUCK FINN at a library meant a kid really couldn’t read it? Is the editorial correct that if censorship means actually suppressing a book’s availability, it is moot in the Internet age?
And perhaps more importantly, where is the line between parental and public discretion vs. censorship? Should public libraries stock everything and let patrons decide what is inappropriate? What about books that, say, incite prejudice or that the majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children?
Who should decide?
Lots of questions!
Laura Martone says
I should clarify that, while I'm fine with dissension and people expressing their small-minded opinions, I DO NOT want said small-minded opinions to affect what books are available.
As Ann Victor wrote, "Freedom of choice is essential." (No matter where you live.)
beckylevine says
For me, parental discretion works this way. When my son was younger, I had pretty much complete control over which books he got "offered." I did NOT have control over which he liked (Sorry, Wild Things!). As he got older and read more and faster and got referrals from friends, I had a lot less control. I also could not, unless I wanted to read none of my own books, read everything he was reading to see what it was about. So…parental discretion turns into parental awareness. Which means I listen when he tells me about something (discovering Flowers for Algernon in the school textbook) and getting him a book when he asks for it (1984). And it means I talk to him about the books I'm reading, so we keep the conversation open. It does NOT mean I tell him he can't read something. That's just laughable. And what it really does NOT mean is that I EVER tell a library or a school that "their" children cannot read something.
Yes, that matters just as much today as it did then, because you never know what book will hit a kid just so, or what book they will never get a chance at that COULD have been "the book."
As much as we would like to think otherwise, there are kids without easy internet access, kids who are embarrassed to admit to their friends that they read, let alone ask for recommendations or swap books with each other. My son will be fine, because we have a there-are-never-too-many-books policy in our house. I'm not worried about him. I am worried about the kids for whom one closed door is too much.
You asked! 🙂
P. Grier says
One of the things that gets to me about banned book week is that the ALA's focus has shifted from being a positive influence to encourage reading, to being bogged down with their perception of banned books. A quick look at their website shows how focused they are on this endeavor.
Another thing I see is that people would like teachers and libraries to shelve any book, but they don't see the big picture. Teachers are decision makers and a gate keepers of knowledge. We are responsible for what comes into the classroom and what information is exchanged.
Outside of the classroom, I have no active opinion on what my kids read and see. And I encourage my students to be risk takers and to think about if a book is right for them. I stock books that, when I see a student has picked it up, I talk about it with them so they can get some guidance in deciding to read it or not. If it is in my room, though, they make the decision, not me.
This isn't censorship, this is what we do as adults. We give children the tools to make good decisions. And as a teacher, I have to see the whole picture, not just what might work for one child. And I have limited funds. And I pick my battles because I have limited time and energy.
If that is censorship, then, stamp me "censor".
Annalee says
I'm with Neil Gaiman on this one: the fact that the book is at least ostensibly for sale where a kid can buy it does not mean kids have access to it.
How many twelve-year-olds have Amazon accounts? How many can purchase challenged books out of their own pocket money? It's all well and good to say their parents can buy it for them, but that presumes that their parents have the financial wherewithal to do so. The kids who most need free and open access to literature are the ones whose parents can't give it to them.
"Parental discretion vs. censorship" is right, because censorship limits parental discretion. Just as parents have the responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching, playing, and reading, they also have the right to decide what flies and what doesn't. Saying they should only have that right if they have the resources to buy it on Amazon defeats the whole purpose of libraries to begin with.
Also, governments are run on compromise, and that makes them lousy nannies. My values are not your values, which are not the values of the fellow down the street. And that is awesome, but also fragile.
Lorrie T. says
Not-so-dear first Anon,
It is never appropriate to hope someone is dead. Censor yourself please.
Dana Fredsti says
"I might concede a parental permission required for certain books if kids are taking them out by themselves. I think that's a more realistic debate, anyway."
Agreeing with Ink on this. I really despise censorship.
Rick Daley says
"Oh the times, they are a-changin'"
– Bob Dylan
Censorship is very ineffective in this day and age. Look at the recent demonstrations in Iran, brought to the world via Twitter. The Iranian government tried to censor news of the domestic disputes but failed where not long ago they would have succeeded.
Even if the libraries banded together with the booksellers (including Amazon, etc.) and enforces a degree of true censorship, there would be a black market. If there's money to be made in any sale of goods, people will find a way to do it. Now this requires the censored material to have some intrinsic value, but assuming it does, it will find its audience eventually.
That being said, I'm all for content advisories. I want to know what my kids are getting into. Then I will make the decision of whether I will allow it or not. For me it boils down to how many questions I want to answer (and on what topics).
Anonymous says
parents are free to deny their children the book. They can excercise their parental discretion with books the same way they can with music, movies, and websites. But, it is not up to the library to decide. If something is banned, it is because the library or book stores are refusing their clientele the book and this isn't right.
Anonymous says
the other thing, how long can a parent really decide?
I was stealing my mom's romances when I was 12. Was that inappropriate material for a 12 year old? Yeah, probably. But I didn't turn around and start having sex just because I was reading books with people doing that any more than I would have murdered someone after reading Crime and Punishment in college. My actions and beliefs are usually not guided by the books I read.
anon 1:25p
Carolyn says
It is my responsibility–and no one else's–to rear my children. I'll decided what is appropriate and when, for each of them individually. A library, government or other public entity can't possibly focus on individuals, and the unique needs of each different person. Parents can, and should.
Rearing my children includes teaching them the wisdom to make wise choices in books, music, movies–any and all choices that affect their well-being–mentally emotionally, spiritually and physically. Sooner or later they will be adults, and will be making those choices for themselves. I want them to have the skills they need to keep themselves safe, happy and productive. I am robbed of that opportunity when a ban decides for me.
I don't expect anyone to make parenting choices for me, and I certainly wouldn't presume to make those choices for other parents.
Scott says
In order of appearance . . .
And perhaps more importantly, where is the line between parental and public discretion vs. censorship?
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that a line exists. I always (and I date myself as I write this) go back to the television show Dallas whenever this subject comes up. I wasn't allowed to watch Dallas until I was a sophmore in high school. Why? Because Mom/Dad said I couldn't watch it, and as long as they were home, I didn't. Yes, when they went out on a Friday I snuck peeks at this forbidden show. Still, their house, their rules, and all that jazz which is parental discretion. Do I think Mom/Dad should have started a protest about the show? No. I think when the views of a certain group of people take away the choices of other people (public banning of books, for example) then there is definitely something wrong.
Should public libraries stock everything and let patrons decide what is inappropriate?
Yes! Yes! Yes!
What about books that, say, incite prejudice or that the majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children?
Yes! Yes! Yes! Everything is subjective, including what might "incite prejudice or that that majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children". My dislike for a book's content shouldn't allow the book to be banned.
Who should decide?
In the end, a parent must decide what they want or don't want their children exposed to when reading, going to the movies or watching television. At a certain point, parents are going to have to let their children make their own decisions. That decision, however, shouldn't infringe upon the rights of others to read certain books or watch certain movies or television shows.
In the end, whatever the content, to totally ban a book is censorship.
S
Q says
I think libraries should stock what they think their communities will read, because libraries don't have endless budgets. As for parents, at a certain point they need to trust their kids' discretion about what they will read.
Terry says
Lots of questions, yes.
As far as children are concerned, I think the more a child reads, the better prepared he or she is to face real life. Imo,hiding things from a child is going to put him or her at a disadvantage later on.
It's good to discuss books and movies with them though. That way you can guide them.
I'm with Ink on this one. It's not my place to tell someone else what their kids can or cannot read.
And then there's the whole forbidden fruit thing.
kyred says
I would have to say that banning books is a moot point in the age of internet, and instant access. However, nothing substitutes for good parental guidance.
I think the public library should carry everything, but the school library should be discretionary. That's not to say that they should "ban" books, but kids need a lot of clear messages about what is appropriate. If they see it in context they'll understand. Will they still read stuff that's maybe inappropriate? Well, yeah. Didn't we all do what our parents told us not to? And then didn't we mostly grow into our parents values anyway?
I think that families have the most influence on children and I don't want anyone to tell my child what he can or cannot read, but I don't mind if others make suggestions to him about what may be "age appropriate."
Kimber An says
I don't believe the public library should ban any book, because it's there for everyone.
As a parent, I do believe parents need to take responsibility for what their children read. That's not censorship. That's good parenting. A parent should be taking his or her children to the library and helping her choose books from the earliest age and forbidding certain books according to their own set of family values, but then slowly back off as they mature and find their own paths in life.
I read AUSCHWITZ as a teenager and handled it fine. Now, it'd give me nightmares. I shudder to think of my own children reading it, yet I believe all human beings ought to read it by adulthood.
Rhonda says
By chance, just this morning I located an article on the internet about the history of libraries in America. Here is one paragraph from it, "In 1876, the U.S. centennial year, the American Library Association held a conference in Philadelphia. Roughly one hundred librarians (including 13 women) gathered "for the purpose of promoting the library interests of the country." Topics at the meeting included what sort of readers to allow into the libraries and what sort of books they should be permitted to use. This was all new. In the past, collections were pretty well defined, as were the members/readers. But with cheap paper and mass production, new books were being published at unprecedented rates, and librarians wanted to provide guidance to the masses on appropriate reading."
I find it interesting that libraries have been doing some sort of "censorship" from the beginning. I'm not a supporter of censorship per se, but I can see why someone has to make some choices about what to offer. I don't have any knowledge about how credible the web site I was reading is, but reading about the history of libraries is actually pretty interesting.
Anna Claire says
Censorship isn't moot in the Internet age. Most books that get banned at school are required reading-type books. They're not typically books that every kid is going to rush out and read if they aren't "forced" to read them for school. These books are important, which is why they're assigned, and kids might not be exposed to them otherwise.
I think the best method (and one that was adopted at a high school where I live, when A Lesson Before Dying was challenged) is to keep the challenged book in the curriculum, but offer an alternative book/assignment for parents and kids who are offended by the challenged book.
Public libraries should stock what they want. Nobody is forcing some lame parent or her kids to read Harry Potter if they don't want to.
Parents will let their teens play super-violent video games and watch PG13 movies, but won't let them read a good piece of literature with a few curse words and a mention of boobs? Give me a break.
Jennifer K. says
Parents have the right to decide what their kids can and can't read. They do not have the right to make that decision for anyone else.
I think school libraries should stock age appropriate books (The Gossip Girl books probably wouldn't fit at an elementary school, but they certainly would at a highschool, and a Penthouse Forum book has no place at a highschool), but Public Libraries should stock whatever they want.
If someone complains because their kids got their hands on a 'grown up' book, then perhaps they should go back to Parenting 101 to relearn that they are solely responsible for their kids actions, and if they don't want their child reading certain things, perhaps they should pay more attention.
The Storylady says
I agree with the ALA that the parents are the primary ones to decide what a child reads. However, my local library also has a policy that I am not allowed to review what my minor child has checked out on her library card. Isn't that contradictory? If she goes to the library on her own, and can easily hide from me what she checked out, how else can I be the parent in charge?
Also, remember the "it takes a village" mantra. If the village thinks some materials are inappropriate for minor children in a school, they should be allowed to pick and choose what goes into that school.
Karen Schwabach says
Agree with all those who say: no censorship, no way. People who object to their children reading certain books need to take it up with their children.
Personally I think children should be allowed to read anything they want but that some books that are classified as children's books probably should be classified as adult books– which children should then be allowed to check out of the library.
And I do envy banned writers the free publicity.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
I'm racking my brains to see how I can make this relate to censorship…it's an image on wikipedia that is public domain – The North American Tapestry of Time and Terrain:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2781/
Well, I just love the name OF the map, and the map itself…North America as a midnight rainbow…and what a fiction book title it would make…but, I did just start reading Ian McEwan's THE INNOCENT, so perhaps I'll get a pass on this one measly off-topic post… 🙂
PS I thought of NB's blog, because if this map was an animated video, well, you all might be enjoying it some Friday! (I think that's when videos get posted around here).
Ok I'll go away now (hi Mira & Laura the travel writer)
Wanda B.
Fawn Neun says
Returning to the scene of the crime, I have to say as a parent I'd be beaming with pride if my kids 'snuck' books behind my back! 🙂
It's my job to say what my kids can and can't read, it's their job to test those boundaries. Rebellion for the sake of knowledge is a beautiful thing.
It's indicative of curiousity and intelligence and self-determination. I want the libraries to have those books! I want them to listen to the underground whispers and seek the forbidden and to learn and to thrill to the written word.
I think I'll go home right now and forbid something wonderful and slightly exotic. Hopefully, they'll sneak behind my back and read between the boards of their dull, lifeless textbooks.
Any suggestions? 🙂
J.J. Bennett says
Parent disretion is everything in my mind. I hate only being able to offer certain books where I work. My librarian is against many authors, not just banned books. I personally don't think that's fair. Her opionions should not be a part in choice on the students part.
Susan Helene Gottfried says
Definitely parental discretion. But with that comes the caveat that us parents READ the darn book, too — and discuss anything that bugs them/us.
Anonymous says
Fawn, IMO your kids will question your all of your rules, and think you might be a little mental if you ban something because for no better reason than you want them to read it.
All it takes to get my kids to read something is to say I like it, but honestly they normally tell me what to read and what not to. They have a lot more time than I do. BTW they hate it when they get a hold of something aimed at their age but isn't appropriate for them.
Kristin Laughtin says
I work in a library, am in library school, and I'm working toward a publishing career, so when I haven't been involved in Banned Books Week activities over here, I've been reading posts about them. And the focus in most places has changed to celebrating both banned and (unsuccessfully) challenged books, of which there are still plenty.
First of all, it's impossible for any library, or even library system, to buy everything that comes out; although there are selection criteria to guide purchasing decisions, not buying everything could be looked at as a form of censorship, if one wished.
I'm not in favor of children reading extremely violent material, or books that are too mature for them to understand (although every kid varies in their maturity and comprehension, so age-specific blanket labels don't work), but I do think it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their materials are appropriate. Of course, material meant for adults will be housed in that section of the library–it's up to the parents to make sure the kids don't wander over there if they don't want them exposed to that material. (Even if a librarian were to say something, half the time the parent would chastise them for telling the kid what to do.) If there's material a parent finds objectionable in the children's section…well, freedom of speech gives them the right to complain, and the library might heed their advice and reshelve or weed the book if they deem that fit. If the library chooses to do nothing, parents certainly have the right to keep their child from reading it, but they don't have the right to dictate what is or isn't allowed for everyone else. Libraries provide a service; if that aspect disappoints too greatly, the patron is free to leave. Really, what's best though is for parents to teach their children to deal with all these Big Scary Things they're worried their kids will read about, especially since the more you forbid something, the more the child is going to want to seek it out.
But this is a huge ethical issue that is still being debated in the library community.
What about books that, say, incite prejudice or that the majority of a community feels is inappropriate for children?
We could take this back farther. Why is it the library's responsibility to suppress this book? Why was it even published in the first place?
Ink says
Interesting discussion, particularly on the sort of conflation going on in the debate, where the task of choosing stock is being wedged in with the removal of stock. Those are very different issues, I think. You can't choose everything, and failing to choose something is not banning it. I think people have a right to voice their opinion about what books a library should provide, and librarians, teachers, etc., have the right to select (or not-select) books according to appropriateness. Limited resources makes this task inescapable.
That's quite different, however, from someone demanding a book's removal. That is, not saying that they don't want to read it, or want their children reading it… but that no one else can read it. Ever. One person's opinion should not prevent the opportunity for other people to develop their own.
I think those two scenarios are quite different, and it's dangerous to conflate the two.
My best,
Bryan
Sam Hranac says
As a parent, I determine what my kids can see hear and read. I become less restrictive in the use of this power over time. Now that my son is almost 14, I ask him to use his own wisdom and please don't try to sneak into R movies. He's a great kid and shows good judgment (better than me at his age).
But I expect degenerate underground comics, frightening images, wrenching noises and Palin's book to be readily available to him throughout his adult life.
Parents should raise their kids. Society can help, but is not in charge of this. Adult sections of book stores are as much censorship as we need.
Paula says
Libraries should not "censor" books. Of course each library drafts and adheres to its own collections policy, which means that some books don't make it onto the shelves. Budgets also confer restrictions on acquisitions.
But outside of collections policy constraints, neither librarians nor the communities they serve should reject books just because of their content. It's up to the individual–and in the case of children, to their parents as well–to decide whether or not to read a given book and what to think of it.
Frankly, with Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, blogs, etc. available to everyone these days, can there be any point in censoring books? What people say on the Internet is more inflammatory–if that's what you're worried about–than what's in any book.
Courtney Johnson says
I think like many other posters here, I firmly believe in a parent's right to be the final word in what their children read. If you don't want your children to read Harry Potter or Huck Finn or even the Bible (Nevermind that it has a lot more violence and adult topics than most any book a high school student would be assigned…) that's just fine by me. It's when those ideas are enforced on other people that I start to get all touchy.
You can't kill an idea, and what's a book but an idea put to paper?
Suzan Harden says
Wow. I wish I had the problem of of taking away an "inappropriate" book from my son. Ironic that Nathan has this topic on the same day I blogged about my struggle to get my son reading again after a bad encounter with a teacher.
My vote – parental discretion.
Anne-Marie says
Parental discretion all the way.
I am reading Lois Lowry's The Giver to my grade 5/6 class right now as I have for many years. It raises a lot of disturbing questions, but I have never once had a complaint from a parent regarding the book. On the contrary, I've had parents come up to borrow a copy because their kids have insisted they need to read it.
ajcastle says
I don't like other people deciding what is okay for my kids to read and what isn't. While there are some books that go on the "banned" list that I probably wouldn't let my kids read, I would rather it be my choice.
As with a lot of things now a days it seems like those in higher up positions are dictating a lot of what is okay and what's not. My vote goes to parental discretion.
Grapeshot/Odette says
As a kid I was a voracious reader and my parents had no clue what I read. Was some of it "inappopriate?" Assuredly. Over my head? Yup. Literary swill? Absolutely. Did one word I read, including that then shocking word in "Guadalcanal Diary" harm me in any way? Nope. I read comic books, cereal boxes and Argosy with the same concentration.
I did become a more discerning reader and left "Forever Amber" and "Sheena, Queen of the Jungle" behind.
Sissy says
I commented earlier and just now came back to see what else had been said on the topic. Interesting theme going on here…most of us say that parents should decide what is appropriate for their child in accordance with their family's beliefs. But I have to comment and say that most of us are avid readers, writers and are carrying on a love affair with books. But the people we're talking about, the ones that want to ban books are the ones that don't love the written word, and find offense in books with different beliefs than their own. They probably haven't read Harry Potter before deciding it was evil and writing the letter to the ALA, or storming into the library and demanding it be removed.
What tends to happen to me is that a mom or dad approaches me about something objectionable in a book (that their daughter read, mostly.) I get books with post-its stuck on the pages with the bad content, or words underlined. I've had parents cry about the smut I pushed into their child's hands (uh, I have 700 kids and 12,000 books…you think I selected it for them personally?) I've had dads yell at me on the school sidewalk. One mom of a 6th grader blamed me for the fact that she finally had to tell her daughter about the birds and the bees because of the trash novel she came home with in her bookbag. I think the daughter should have been told that already, but hey, I'm not the parent.
But the kicker was one mom who asked me if she wanted me to get a group of parents together to read all the books and decide if they were appropriate. Um, no. Each parent can decide for their kid, not for everyone, but it's a heady responsibility for school librarians. The parents have the power and everyone knows it, but not everyone uses it well.
Nathan, you sure opened up a topic that is interesting. How do you agents decide what should and shouldn't be in a book? Is there anything you ever come across and think, "this is pushing the envelope of good taste?" I would be curious to hear about it from your perspective.
bibliobibuli says
I wish we could make this an international fight. I live in Malaysia where books are banned regularly (and we face fines or imprisonment for their possession) and others seized by the Home Ministry without reason, or pulled from university or bookshop shelves. We are greatly inspired by the ALA's fight and by the insistence that all books should be accessible.
Dick Margulis says
"Availability" is a red herring. Library budgets being what they are, the vast majority of books are not available in school or public libraries.
The fights over book banning are entirely about the conflict between two sets of values, those of the librarian (whose interest is in broadening the horizons of young minds) and those of, typically, the religious conservative parent (whose interest is in narrowing the horizons of young minds).
So the reasons for having a Banned Books Week are sound. But the conflict would disappear if a parent simply said to a librarian, "I understand that you have the right to stock your library as you see fit, but I would ask that you let me decide what my child is ready for. And to that end, please do not let my child borrow these books." That's the way adults communicate. Petitioning to ban a book so that nobody else's child can read it exemplifies the logic of a two-year-old.
Kathleen says
my two cents: I'm not sure how the internet make Huck Finn "readily available" to all kids. Many many kids don't have access to the internet. Probably the kids who would really rely on the library to supply them with books.
Also, what kids have paypal or a credit card to order a book from Amazon or whatever? Use of the internet to obtain a book would often require parental help, which use of the library doesn't.
So, in sum, I don't agree at all that the existence of the internet in its current form makes the issue of censorship for kids less pressing.
Dawn Maria says
As a parent, I feel we have the responsibility and right to censor what media and literature our children use. I didn't let my boys read the CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS book because I didn't like the language and how stupid the adults were. They were young and more impressionable in terms of copying behavior back then than they are now at 16 & 13.
As they've grown older, I've allowed a large number of content most would censor in the areas of music, video and literature. Obviously I can't control what they see and do outside of my house (or after I'm sound asleep) but I doubt it's much.
I don't just blindly allow explicit content, we discuss and share it. When we sing along with Green Day, everyone says the F-bombs. And I'll never apologize for giving my older son a copy of THE THINGS THEY CARRIED.
Literature still provides one of the best looks into other worlds and points of view. The discussion of those topics should never end, especially in a house with children.
The Last Witness says
I will play Devil's advocate and ask how you would feel if something you actually objected to was placed in the school library. For the sake of argument, and to make sure it's considered offensive, let's say it's a Playboy magazine for people who practice beastiality. The annual "Lassie" edition, in fact.
What do you do?
Ink says
Dawn Maria,
The Things They Carried is one of my all-time favourite books! Heck, I even wrote a book because of that book. I figure that's pretty high praise. Hope your son liked it.
Anonymous says
Personally, I believe in Parental Discretion.
But I'm also surprised to read about how parents of teenagers underestimate their kids. You think you can watch what they read, but you can't.
Between the ages of 13 and 18 there were a few Penthouses under my mattress. And I don't think Mom knew about them 🙂
WhiteOpal says
Hello everyone.
This is an interesting question in an age of evolving technology and its embedness in teenagers today. There is never a simple answer when parenting as more influnces come from outside the home than ever before due to the ease of access to information, banned or otherwise, available to your children and their friends. As one knows if its available to friends you may as well consider it yours too.
To counter this it is best to teach your family values young,in-utero :-), instill a sense of self worth and the ability to make good choices, but acknolwedge there are many types of family values but you want your children to follow yours.
When curiosity strikes and they can't fight the urge to open a book of any kind, hopefully the young person will make the right choice for them to match their values that they develop as they grow from all the information they have at hand. They probably won’t be exactly the same as the parental values, maybe they will be even better if given a chance.
Smile, phew first blog post done!
Cheers
Marilyn Peake says
I suddenly remembered a situation where I "censored" myself, but I would hardly call it "banning" or "censoring" my own books. Shortly after my trilogy of middle grade fantasy adventure novels – THE FISHERMAN’S SON, RETURN OF THE GOLDEN AGE, and THE CITY OF THE GOLDEN SUN – were published, I was invited into schools and after-school programs to speak. The main character, Wiley O’Mara, is a twelve-year-old boy from the beginning of the nineteenth century. His father is an alcoholic and his mother dies from disease passing through their village. When his father leaves home to go on a drinking binge, Wiley travels through a magical forest on his way to find a priest to bury his mother, and there encounters his destiny to become a great hero. My middle grade novels are meant for eight to twelve year olds and carry the message that, no matter how difficult a child’s situation, they can become a great hero. When I was asked to speak with pre-schoolers and kindergartners, I didn’t read excerpts about alcoholism or disease. Even when I spoke with middle grade children, I didn’t read excerpts aloud about sensitive issues because I wasn’t sure what each child might be going through in their lives. Instead, I read excerpts about Wiley O’Mara’s grand adventures traveling on the back of a magical dolphin to an ancient city beneath the ocean. I also talked with the children about how much fun I had doing research for my books, and I showed them amazing photographs of undersea creatures. The kids had a great time and asked me lots of questions about what it’s like to be a writer. I censored the material I presented out of courtesy to the children … and, in the case of pre-schoolers and kindergartners, because they were so young … but I hardly felt "censored" or deprived as a writer. It was very rewarding when some of the children told me, after my presentation, that they hope to be writers when they grow up.
Loren Eaton says
Is it proper to say that something is banned when it is widely available for purchase and not declared a criminal possession by a local or centralized government?
Jemi Fraser says
When I read through some of the lists of books that have been banned I was a little surprised to find several I've read aloud in my classroom. Probably more than 10 — and I teach in an elementary school. There are some truly wonderful books on those lists!
Andrew says
My heart tells me that banning books is a truly bad idea, in direct contravention to the First Amendment.
My head tells me that we ban what we fear.
My eyes have seen the child tormented by sadists schooled in violent pornography, and proud of it.
My hands have held the remains of a brother, shredded by an IED whose design was downloaded from the Internet.
And where do we go from here?
Anonymous says
As the mother of 5 it is MY job to decide what is age appropriate for them to read.
My husband is an Army soldier and served his country for 21 years, so far. Freedom of speech does and should include books, even if we don't agree w/ the subject matter.
wickerman says
They should ban Nathan's book. He watches reality TV and as such cannot be trusted to influence children… or me for that matter.
J. Jones says
I hate all forms of censorship. I understand why people want to ban certain books. Really I do. But I am a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, and the verbiage there is exceptionally clear. It was paramount to the Founding Fathers, and is so significant that it has not been altered since its inception.
A few years back, I was watching a program about the Ku Klux Klan, I believe on Discovery. During the program, a gathering was presented during which the members of the Klan were using their hate speech in a public area. There was a crowd of people around, shouting back at them, and a line of police between the two to make sure things didn't get out of hand.
My wife asked me, "Why are those cops protecting those guys? They're saying those horrible things."
Now I don't particularly like the Klan. However, those guys weren't doing anything wrong, no matter how much I disagree with their message. They were merely having a public gathering to recruit using their message. They threatened no one, and no hostile actions were taken. Therefore, they were entitled to police protection, which was provided for them as much as for the others who gathered in opposition.
As I said, I do not agree with that message (my father is black). But it is certainly their right to say it, as long as they are not harming anyone physically. We shouldn't ban their speech any more than we should ban Huck Finn or any other story.