Banned Book Week: Cat's Cradle

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. ISBN: 9780140285604.

I don't usually fetishize books. They aren't really so much objects to me as they are containers of knowledge. But I do find comfort in their presence, possibly because of what they represent, and also because they are familiar to me. Almost anywhere I go, I know that a book will be somewhere within a short distance. Chances are, it will be a book I have read before, and if I get hold of one that I've read before, even if it has a different cover, the very words inside will be known to me. This particular book traveled with me during most of time at Antioch College. It's a slim volume, so it went with me on at least a couple of co-ops.

Most notably it went with me when I was working for the Syracuse Peace Council in New York where I first discovered there was such a thing as Banned Books Week. In fact, I don't think I knew that people in America had called for the banning of books in the last 50 years. It seemed like such an un-American thing to do. So when the ACLU, which worked closely with the Syracuse Peace Council, put on a Banned Books reading I learned that I had dragged a copy of a book that had been banned or challenged across the country with me. At the time we were faced with the possibility of a second term from George W. Bush and so I selected what I felt was an appropriate portion of the book. I even notated it with "read 9/29/2004." That shit happened. Here's the passage:

"I was fired for pessimism. Communism had nothing to do with it."
"I got him fired," said his wife. "The only piece of real evidence produced against him was a letter I wrote to the New York Times from Pakistan."
"What did it say?"
"It said a lot of things," she said, "because I was very upset about how Americans couldn't imagine what it was like to be something else, to be something else and proud of it."
"I see."
"But there was one sentence they kept coming to again and again in the loyalty hearing," sighed Minton. "'Americans,'" he said, quoting his wife's letter to the Times, "'are forever searching for love in forms it never takes, in places it can never be. It must have something to do with the vanished frontier.'"

WHY AMERICANS ARE HATED  45

Claire Minton's letter to the Times was published during the worst of the era of Senator McCarthy, and her husband was fired twelve hours after the letter was printed.

"What was so awful about the letter?" I asked.

"The highest possible form of treason," said Minton, "is to say that Americans aren't loved wherever they go, whatever they do. Claire tried to make the point that American foreign policy should recognize hate rather than imagine love."

 In some ways I found this passage comforting at the time. Only three years after 9/11 and most Americans were still whipped up into a "patriotic" frenzy, the height of which very much looked like McCarthyism. If you said anything negative at all about America or Americans you were at the very least given dirty looks, and often shouted down. The fact that it was self-policed for the most part made it no less oppressive and unfortunately it is easier to end laws and government behavior than mob rule. Not that they look that different anymore.

My problem is not that Americans behave badly. I mean, yes, we act like assholes half of the time, but can we at least be consistent and honest about it? Douchebags who know they are douchebags are much less annoying than those who proclaim otherwise. If we really love freedom so much, can we please for the love of whatever you want to love act like we love freedom? Because, ya'll, banning books is not an act of love or promoting freedom.

LibsNote: I can't remember if I bought this, or if it was a freebie, but I still have it, which is why I can provide you with the ISBN for my copy.
*Banned Graphic provided in part by Barefoot Liam Stock, with permission.

because it proclaims that Capitalism is not so great, and neither is religion.

Banned Book Week: Harry Potter series

Harry Potter (and the Entire Freaking Series*) by J.K. Rowling.**

I'm not going to talk about magic so much in this post. I feel like I covered that last year with my Strega Nona post. Instead I think I'll talk about faith versus belief and how beliefs can and should be challenged in order to build a stronger faith and why I think the witchcraft hubbub is actually weakening Christianity.

I was raised in a Judeo-Christian faith which promotes reflection on both my own traditions and the traditions of other religions. As a result, my beliefs have constantly been challenged, and even changed, usually for the better. Although I have gone through cycles of agnosticism, those cycles have actually brought me closer to God in the long run, and they allowed me to be more honest with myself and my God, who I am sure appreciates that I love "him"*** because I want to and not because I have been told to.

If you notice, most of the revered characters of the Bible have had tests of faith. Jesus himself was tested. And yet, many Christian leaders seem to think that the moral fiber of their flock is not strong enough to withstand the fictional world of Harry Potter; that somehow reading about witchcraft will turn all the good Christians into devil worshiping orgiastic nymphos. My response is, if you're that worried about testing your beliefs, then you must believe that your faith is not strong enough to survive other ideas which... doesn't seem like much faith to me. And if you are a religious leader and believe your parish/congregation/et al isn't strong enough to withstand those tests, then you have not done your job to prepare them.

After all, one of the definitions of faith is, "strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence." While some of your beliefs might be tested by reading the Harry Potter series or exposing yourself to Wicca and/or its practitioners or even just reading about fictional wizards and magic, your faith ought to remain intact if you have prepared yourself and truly believe in God. If you avoid the testing of your faith, you are avoiding a rite of passage as important as Baptism or Communion or whatever other ritual your sect goes through. Testing your faith will bring you closer to God, not further away, and you ought to be pissed that people are keeping you from that rite in the same way that you ought to be pissed that the church ever prevented the people from reading the Bible for themselves. 

LibsNote: Banned Graphic provided in part by Barefoot Liam Stock, with permission.
*Image ganked from Blueberry Brands.
**No ISBN, since I cannot for the life of me remember all of the ISBNs for each and every single HP novel I read.
***I believe God is both genderless and genderful, encompassing everything that is and was, but male pronouns are traditional and so they're just easier.
 

Because Harry Potter and his friends are THE DEVIL.

Banned Book Week: It's Perfectly Normal

It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris.*

Note: I cannot be completely sure that this is the book I read on puberty, but I did look looking at the Google preview (note, contains drawn nudity) of a more recent edition. It was first published at about 1994, when I read my first puberty book, and I will be talking about my feelings/thoughts regarding what I know of this book and how I felt about the book I actually read... which may or may not be the same.

The title is welcoming and non-judgmental and tells you exactly what's going to be covered in the book, and it appears to be a book for everyone because there are a multitude of different children on the cover from different backgrounds and of different stages in development. So while this may not be THE puberty book I read, it is probably close enough for this discussion and I would certainly not hesitate to give any educational book to my child regarding sex or puberty. Yes, I've read the reviews that there are naked cartoon people everywhere in this book; I'm actually not concerned with that. I think children understanding that there is a variety to naked bodies is both important and healthy and really, what's so terrible about breasts, vulvae, penises, and testicles anyway? (I'll wait for the less mature to stop giggling.)

...

So I learned about puberty through a book. My mother probably sat me down at some point and told me in general terms what puberty was. I certainly had a general idea of what puberty was when I asked her to buy a puberty book for me from the Hastings in Altus, Oklahoma, but even at the young and tender age of somewhere between 8-10, I knew I wanted details and that reading would give me: A) better and more thorough information, B) include information my mother might not want to tell me herself, and C) allow me to read, reread, and digest the information at a good-for-me pace, rather than listening to someone ramble on and missing things. Not only did it let my mom off the hook for explaining some of the more awkward things that were happening to me (yes, I was an early bloomer at about 5'0" by 2nd grade), but it made it easier for me to ask her questions and to know what questions to ask.

It astonishes me that people are so afraid of these books. Even if you want to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong, having them know that it exists and other people experience homosexual feelings is not going to hurt your child. You can still teach your child that homosexuality is wrong, as backwards and mean as I think that is, but it will not prevent your child from having those feelings if he or she is so inclined. It is better for your child not to be surprised about puberty, not to be surprised by sudden sexual feelings, not to be surprised that puberty has come early or hasn't come at all yet, not to be surprised that they look different naked than their friends, etc.

And while I do recognize that there is a lot of nudity in this book, seemingly more than is "necessary," I am also okay with it. I actually found it useful as a child. I was not looking at these naked drawings for any sexual reason, but because I was naturally curious about what my body might look like. Having a variety of drawings helped, because I knew I wouldn't look exactly like any of them. So while it may seem gratuitous, it actually serves a very noble purpose, especially when we are bombarded daily with very specific kinds of bodies via marketing companies, etc. We have long lives ahead of us to deal with body issues; starting life with them isn't going to help, and not including the drawings will only put the especially curious child in the position of seeking out other ways of looking at naked developing bodies.

LibsNote: *No ISBN as I am not sure which version I originally read, if it was indeed this particular book. Looking at the preview, it is an excellent resource and I would definitely recommend it.
**Banned Graphic provided in part by Barefoot Liam Stock, with permission.

Because people want to teach their children that menstruation is a sign of the devil rather than a normal thing. 
Also, there is Teh Gay in this book.

Banned Book Week: Twilight

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer.

This is probably the only time you will really see this title on my blog. It just doesn't need more publicity, and even though I plan to slog through the last three books at some point, it's not necessary to give them any more attention than they've already received. I don't feel like they are particularly good books in content, underlying message, or writing style, though Meyer does create a somewhat compelling plot in between Bella's whining and pining.

Despite all of that, I would not want to see these books banned. I might not have wanted to see such a prestigious publishing house as Hachette subsidiary Little, Brown, and Company to have produced these seemingly slack-edited volumes, but I don't hate it enough to burn every single copy in existence. In fact, I wouldn't do that to any book, because there are always more reasons to preserve a book than to let it perish forever. I don't even think these books should be removed from most schools; granted, primary school (ages 6-13) might be a bit young, though 12 isn't too terrible to start these with parental discussion available. I do have a problem with the inability of children to bring and trade their own copies to school, as mentioned in the previous link. This is definitely an encroachment on free speech/freedom of information and parental governance.

The link also mentions a concern with children being unable to determine whether the works are fictitious and developing a "wrong grasp on reality." It seems to me that either the children in Australia have been living with too many poisonous animals and therefore have a warped sense of what monsters are real OR the adults in Australia think their children suffer from psychosis until they reach maturity. Even when I was five years old, I had a pretty good idea of what was real and what wasn't, and if I didn't I asked someone. Of course, Australia isn't alone in boneheaded moves, plenty of places in America have banned or challenged these works and while I personally don't care for what these books stand for, I do not have a problem with them being a form of entertainment.

No, the main reason I would want Twilight to be banned is that it has bred a slew of similar works simply because it has made money. I do not mind that Twilight has made money, or that other people would like to make money in a similar manner, but publishing houses are so focused on finding the next Twilight that I am sure they are ignoring other much more important YA books in favor of YA Paranormal Romance/Love triangle/whiny and personality-less heroine type books.

Sigh. But.

I have no say in what publishing companies decide to produce and so I can only go all ragey on the really bad stuff and/or express my disappointment. And so somewhere another publisher is putting another one of these travesties on the market instead of a really amazing YA book about growing up as a gay Mormon** -- a book sure to be banned across the country.

LibsNote: Book first read sometime in 2008 or so, hence the lack of ISBN for this post.
*Banned Graphic provided in part by Barefoot Liam Stock, with permission.
**To my knowledge, this book does not exist on the market. WHERE IS THIS BOOK?



Because I don't like it, dammit!
 And also dirty, dirty married vampire sexin's.

Banned Book Week: The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. ISBN: 9780439023481.

So about a year ago, this book was challenged by a parent in New Hampshire (link under the Banned image). The complaint being that her daughter, in 7th grade at the time, was having nightmares and the children were being exploited, having to fight each other to the death and all for "entertainment" purposes. First of all, congratulations on having a child who isn't desensitized and therefore had a proper response to this novel via nightmares.  Second, while the Hunger Games may have devolved into a form of entertainment for people in the Capital, and a couple of other Sectors, for the most part it was a very political method of keeping an oppressed population in line.

And while I agree that the slaughter, or even exploitation of, children for entertainment is despicable, sweeping it under the rug will not prevent it from happening or negate its existence. All that will do is create an atmosphere, or at least a bubble, of ignorance of the issue. Which, even though I disagree with this approach, is the right of a parent. Parents do have the right to allow their child(ren) to live in ignorance of certain issues up until that child reaches the age of 18... although most children over 13 have figured out how to get into whatever the hell they want to get into anyway and so by that age your only option is to keep them locked in the basement. I think that by 7th grade, children should be aware that bad things happen to young people and could potentially happen to them. I recognize that those are not comforting thoughts for a child, and really uncomfortable thoughts for a parent, but unfortunately we don't live in a world that is safe for everyone. So, even if you live in the suburbs of New Hampshire and your daughter hasn't been exposed to child on child murder/brutality or exploitation of children by adults, it might be best that she is aware that it does in fact happen in the world.

There are several reasons for this: it will allow her to form an opinion about it; it will allow you, the parent, to inform the opinion that she forms about it; addressing the fears causing the nightmare will be much more effective than ignoring or preventing those fears; and perhaps she will become impassioned by the idea of ensuring that the children of the world, our world, aren't subjected to the same fate as fictional children in a land faraway and once upon a time.

Let's be realistic. Raising our children with limited exposure to violence is still a privilege. If it is something that concerns you, as a parent, so much that you don't want your children reading about it -- in a safe and secure situation, nonetheless -- perhaps you can do more to tackle the real life problem rather than addressing its fictional counterpart. Because really, the real violence and exploitation should be far more distressing to you as a moral being than the fact that someone wrote about characters in a book killing each other. Working on it with your child may even help with their nightmares... Just a thought.

LibsNote: Previous read, blog posts can be found here.
*Banned Graphic provided in part by Barefoot Liam Stock, with permission.



because children died for "entertainment" purposes.



Post 286: something else

A Diatribe Against the Sanitizing, Political Correction, or Otherwise Censoring  of Books

So, I debated about whether or not I was going to write this or not, but then I decided that this is a good issue for a librarian/historian to tackle, and maybe not everyone has heard the news.  A couple of days ago, I found out that NewSouth Books has decided to remove the word "nigger" from Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer and replace it with the "less offensive" slave and servant.

Let me just start by saying that one of the reasons I did not like reading those books was because that word was so pervasive.  However, removing the word doesn't remove the atrocities that occurred or erase racism.  All it does is try to hide the ugliness under a rug; but then look at the publishing company.  I am in no way surprised or shocked that a company based in Montgomery, Alabama and Louisville, Kentucky are trying to whitewash the two novels that are in many ways the only experience Northerners have with The South.  I just want to say, if you want to remove the word "nigger" from anything, how about starting with the mouths of your high schoolers?  I can't tell you how many times I heard that word bandied about by the Good Ol' Boys who for some reason thought I was a big ol' Yank and ought to go home, despite the fact that the Civil War has been over for nearly 150 years now.  

And if you think the word "nigger" is so offensive, then why for the love of god did we "celebrate" Robert E. Lee day on the same day as Martin Luther King day?  Might that not be considered just a little insensitive given what each was fighting for?  That's about as thoughtful as giving someone with lactose intolerance a cheesecake for their birthday.  I'm not against celebrating Southern history, there is definitely some benefit in studying it and even celebrating the fact that most of the negative stuff is over, at least in the legal sense.  I am all for having a "Thank god, we don't enslave men, women, and children just because they happened to have dark skin" day.  This would be a great thing to celebrate.  There ought to be freakin' hoe downs and dancing by the glow of the bonfire and spiritual orgies of the joyous celebration of freedom.  But revering a hero of the South without recognizing that maybe he was just a little fucked up is disregarding a major fact of history and completely defeats the purpose of studying it all together.

The fact that NewSouth is removing this word from the text is an awful lot like denying a part of history.  In essence, they are no better than the people who denied that the Holocaust ever happened, despite the evidence of survivors, documentation by the Nazis, and the physical camps themselves.  And the reason that Huck Finn is such a powerful book is the friendship between Huck and Jim, despite the fact that everyone else thinks that Jim is an inferior person.  By removing the word "nigger" from the text, we are essentially neutering Huck Finn and removing the potency of the development of that relationship.  In this way, the relationship becomes more about overcoming class than racism and you might as well just turn Jim into an uneducated white farmer.  In the end, the word "nigger" is important to the story and taking it out changes the meaning, making it a different book, and Mark Twain's name ought to be removed.  I highly doubt he would want to be associated with this abomination, and you can bet if he were still alive he'd be working on a hell of a letter to the editor right now.

In response to Alan Gribben's reasoning behind this decision

I understand that you want this work to continue being taught.  I agree that it is extremely distressing that it is being removed from the classroom simply because it contains this particular word.  However, this is not the solution.  The problem is that there are people out there who not only wish to parent their own children, but have taken it upon themselves to prevent other people's children from being exposed to ideas or words they disagree with.  

In the introduction to this work, which is thankfully available for free online, Gribben states, "Consequently in this edition I have translated each usage of the n-word to read 'slave' instead, since the term 'slave' is closest in meaning and implication."  No.  The term slave is not inherently negative in all cultures nor an indication of a necessarily inferior class of people.  Nigger does not equal slave, because a slave can still be seen as a person, one who was subjugated into this brand of servitude regardless of their innate worth or intelligence.  "Niggers" were seen as being inherently inferior and undeserving of respect of body, mind, soul, or family relations.  If you wanted to replace the word nigger, it ought to have been with something that held the same connotations of inferiority and worthlessness that most people in the South showed black Americans at that time; slave just doesn't quite do it.

And now a word from someone else on the matter:

Banned Book Week

I tend to read a lot of banned books.  They're usually worth reading, and nothing like Banned Book Week gets me motivated to actually read the ones that have been sitting on my To-Read list for ages.  While these other posts aren't necessarily of the Banned Book Week variety, I thought they might be an enjoyable look back at some older posts and maybe make you aware of some titles you didn't realize were banned or challenged.  I might not catch all of them since people will ban some pretty tame stuff, but I'll peg the obvious ones for you.  In alphabetical order by title, for your convenience.

Enjoy your freedom to read!

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (by guest blogger, Dan Walker.)
Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger (by guest blogger, Dan Walker.)
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson (posts by myself and guest blogger, Dan Walker.)
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (by guest blogger, Dan Walker.)

On another note, I've decided to take a bit of a break from writing blog posts, so if you see a slew of guest posts in the next couple of days that's why.  If you're interested in being a guest blogger, please contact me at acampb8@kent.edu or check my contact page.

Day 189: Catch-22

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.  ISBN: 978068486513.

Or, the post in which I have a conversation with myself and try to type with a wrist brace so my carpal tunnel doesn't flare up like crazy.

Me:  Banning books is the patriotic duty of every citizen to protect our children from subversive ideas.
Me2: Our entire country was founded on the principle of subversive ideas!  Exactly which ones are you opposed to?
Me: All of them.
Me2: Violence?  Disrespect of authority?  Plotting against the government?
Me: Yes, we should teach our children to be good obedient children who turn the other cheek.  Plotting against the government is treason and should be discouraged no matter what the government does.
Me2: But...the United States would never have come to be if we didn't have a Revolutionary War against the crown of England.
Me: That war was okay, it was patriotic.
Me2: Actually, no it wasn't.  At that time most people still considered themselves citizens of England or other countries that they immigrated from.
Me: Are you calling our founding fathers immigrants?!  How dare you, you cowardly, flag burning heathen.
Me2: What do you call people flooding into countries that are not originally theirs and taking up the resources of the native population?
Me: Mexicans.
Me2:  ...Okay...  Moving on.  What about sex and romance, what's wrong with that?
Me: Everything is wrong with that!  Sex is immoral and romance is even worse.
Me2: How exactly is romance bad?
Me: It leads to sex.
Me2: Is there anything you're not opposed to?
Me: Good family values.
Me2: So...would And Tango Makes Three be okay?
Me: NO!!!  That's Gay!
Me2: Alright... so what does that leave?
Me: Good Christian literature.
Me2: Like the Bible?
Me: Obviously, yes.
Me2: The Bible has war, famine, wrath, vengeance, love, and homosexuality in it, not to mention slavery, rape, and prostitution.  And Jesus was the biggest subversive of his time.
Me: You can't ban the Bible.
Me2: But it has the same problems as all those other books.
Me: But it provides us with a way of finding comfort in our darkest times and gives us a guide on how to be good people.
Me2: Some people find that in other books, like The Giver, Catcher in the Rye, The Scarlet Letter, and Harry Potter.
Me: Harry Potter is banned?
Me2: Yes, fundamentalist Christians think that depicting magic in a positive light somehow detracts from God or encourages experimentation in witchcraft.
Me: But...he's the chosen one destined to save us all from evil.
Me2: I promise not to ban your book, if you won't ban mine.
Me: I still don't like you.
Me2: Ditto.

for calling women whores, curse words, racially insensitive content, and depictions of defying authority.

Banned Book Week: Where the Sidewalk Ends

Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein.  ISBN: 9780060291693.

We're coming to the end of Banned Book Week.  I hope I've given people some things to think about.  I hope I haven't been too harsh or alienated any readers.  This is something that I'm passionate about, and the idea of banning or burning books infuriates me.  I have one more regularly scheduled post tomorrow, and then I'll be listing some posts to other banned books that I've covered in the blog throughout the year in case you just want to keep going.  After that I'll return to the one-a-day post schedule.  Those of you who are behind on your reading will be grateful, I'm sure.

I wanted to do one more post on Shel Silverstein.  Some of his poems are silly, but some seem to hit the nail right on the head.  I love that Silverstein actually seems to talk directly to children through his poems.  He seems to be telling them to be children, to stay children for as long as they can, but when they are no longer children great things will be in store for them.  So I'm going to leave you with this last poem.  It's one that I think we all need to hear from time to time, it tells us, "yes, listen to the naysayers, listen to the people with opposing opinions, but also listen to me and know that it doesn't have to be the only opinion."  This is a lesson the banners will never learn, because they aren't willing to listen to the other side or see the positive in someone else's ideas.

Listen to the MUSN'TS
Listen to the MUSN'TS, child,
Listen to the DON'TS
Listen to the SHOULDN'TS
The IMPOSSIBLES, the WON'TS
Listen to the NEVER HAVES
Then listen close to me--
Anything can happen, child
ANYTHING can be.

Banned for suggestions of drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for legitimate authority, rebellion against parents.

Day 188: Catch-22

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.  ISBN: 978068486513.

I can't help but wonder what Heller would have thought about the Patriot Act.  I bet he would have been mortified by his book-come-to-life in the form of "you're either with us or a terrorist" right wing logic.  Maybe Heller would have taken George W. by the neck and yelled at him, "It was satire you, fool, not a manual!"

I don't know why this country is so afraid of criticism.  Or why people get so incensed about it.  Just because I don't like some of the things that happen in my country doesn't mean I don't love it.  Just because I get pissed off that we treat immigrants like crap and have the crappiest education among First World countries, doesn't mean there aren't things I'm proud of.  When I was a child and all the way up until about 22 I was practically in love with the United States.  But after seeing Obama elected and watching as Republicans absolutely refuse to work with him on anything, I'm pretty much fed up.  I'm also pretty upset that he isn't turning out to be the man I voted for and, while I am more then willing to give him some leeway given how royally fucked up the country was when it was given over to his care, I am not excited about the prospect of having to vote for him again in 2012.  And I want to be excited about voting for him again. 

Ugh, I don't want to talk politics.  Or at least not this specifically.  I'm kind of a big fan of the "it's not polite to talk politics" policy.

Speaking of policies, the Loyalty Oath cracked me up, mostly because I associate the Pledge of Allegiance with some of the same time wasting activities that the Loyalty Oath led to.  In school we already wasted so much time with superfluous activities from the daily morning announcements, home room period (which we didn't do anything for usually...), watching Channel One, plus all the time it took to switch classes AND get students to settle down to actually start teaching them, not to mention the fact that the last 10 minutes were a waste as everyone packed up and got ready to bolt to their lockers in another building before going to their class in yet another building without being late.  And none of that covers the award ceremonies, the pep rallies, the special announcements, fire drills, tornado drills, false bomb threats, and whatever the hell fundraiser was going on that week (some of which included students delivering items or messages to classrooms...yeah, that's not distracting).

Did I really need my high school principal to read me the lunch menu for the day and remind me that there was football game I wasn't going to go to tonight?  Fuck no, that was plastered all over the hallways.  What I could have used was 2 more minutes between classes to go to my locker.  Instead, I ended up carrying around every book I needed because there was no way I could swap out books and get to class on time.*  I could have used an extra 15 minutes of class time to ask the teacher more questions about that math problem I didn't get.  I could have used an extra 8 minutes to fully explain my character analysis of "Holden Caulfield is a douchebag" to my classmates instead of having to listen to people who didn't even read the book talk about how much they loved the Cliffs Notes or Wikipedia page of it.

A lot of library school felt like some of the same waste of time to me.  I already had so much reference experience by the time I took my Reference and Instruction class that it felt like a total waste of time to me.  We did go over some resources that might be useful in the future, but having worked in a live reference situation before, there's almost no point in knowing about reference materials you don't have.  And there was no class on "How to Familiarize Yourself with Your Own Collection."  Even the Collection Development class was somewhat lacking because they didn't provide lists of collection development tools (i.e. stuff like Developing an Outstanding Core Collection).  In fact, I don't recall them even mentioning it.

Let's not even mention the whole process of trying to find a paid position so that I can actually practice my profession.  The sad thing is, I would do it for free.  That's how much I love being a librarian.  I sort of wonder what the world would look like if we stopped working for money and just did what we loved to do.  I guess I'm sort of doing that now, but if I didn't have to worry about my car insurance or my cell phone bill, etc.?  I could accomplish so much more, and be so much happier doing it.

*The only buildings we were allowed in during lunch time were the cafeteria and the library.  I usually snuck in to go to my locker anyway because it was the most asinine rule I've ever heard of.

for calling women whores, curse words, racially insensitive content, and depictions of defying authority.

Banned Book Week: Strega Nona

Strega Nona: Her Story by Tomie dePaola.  ISBN: 9780399228186.

This one was banned because it presents magic as being good, and even a desirable profession.  I wonder how many people realize that this is set in Italy where the medicinal knowledge of old women roaming the countryside was revered even as the Roman Catholic God was worshipped.  Once again, children are missing out on an opportunity to learn about another culture and another way of life.

I'm half surprised that the "We speak American here" people didn't throw a hissy fit.  There are plenty of Italian words sprinkled throughout the text, but I guess since it isn't Spanish or Arabic it hasn't been targeted.  But I've noticed those also seem to be the people with misspelled signs, so maybe they haven't picked up a book in awhile.

The thing I don't get about the magic is that children think everything is magic. That's part of what makes them children.  And if you're against the magic of Strega Nona, are you still telling them about the magic of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, babies coming from the stork?  If Jesus and God are the only ones allowed to perform miracles, what about all the magic they see in the cartoons?  Do you still take them to see Disney movies and allow them to play pretend? 

Children are drawn to magic, they live in it in those first few precious years.  They see the world in a way that adults never will again, they may be able to glimpse it through their own children, or brief encounters of awe inspired by nature or pure love or religious experience...or drugs for some people.  If you want to protect children...wouldn't you want to protect the thing that makes them children?  And shouldn't that include their sense of wonder and their need to believe in the magic of the world around them, whether that magic stems from God, witch and wizards, or the love of their parents?

Because the magic is hurting our childrens.

Banned Book Week: In the Night Kitchen

In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak.  ISBN: 9780060254902.

Oh no, this book is so dangerous.  It shows a little naked boy.  And we are talking little.  This kid looks like he's maybe 3 tops.  And yeah, there's full frontal, but it's not like he's hip thrusting throughout the book, no one is looking at the penis in the book, and no one is touching it.  When I was a kid I barely even noticed the penis.  Then again I grew up with a twin brother and it wasn't until after I was five that I had my own bedroom, so I pretty much knew what naked little boys looked like and never would have thought it was a big deal to see it in a book.  I wasn't abused or anything, but naked just seems to happen with young children.

And you know what, I would rather that my daughter see her first penis in a book, even at the age of two or three or four than to have her first experience be a potentially degrading, "playing doctor" with an older neighborhood boy or an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" incident.  And trust me, little boys will not be shocked about their own gender's nudity on the page.

What good does it do to instill shame about naked bodies to children?  Especially their own?  It prevents them from being able to talk about their bodies with you.  God forbid that anyone's child be touched inappropriately or molested as these are things that are hard enough to talk about, but adding the stigma that their bodies are dirty or shameful to begin with just increases the chance that they will not tell you if this happens.

Maybe some people are comfortable with idea of knowing they will never have to hear their child say, "Uncle Billy touched me," but I would rather know than to continue to allow Uncle Billy or any other sick bastard anywhere near my child.  If that means my child gets to look at line drawings of a naked three-year-old, I am more than okay with that.  And hopefully in the meantime that child will enjoy the story of Mickey and his adventures In the Night Kitchen.

Because penis is always bad.

Day 186: Gerald's Game

Gerald's Game by Stephen King.  ISBN: 9780670846504.

There are some books that don't belong in school libraries.  I will agree with that.  If any book didn't belong in a school library, even a high school library, it was probably Gerald's Game.  I am not saying I'm for banning.  I'm saying that this particular book probably should never have been purchased for the school it was banned from to begin with.  I'm sure some seniors could tackle it and handle a lot of the psychological issues presented very well...

Most of the eighteen-year-olds that I knew probably would have giggled so much over the idea of a woman being handcuffed to the bed for sexcapades and then kicking her husband in the balls that they wouldn't have gotten much further than that once they realized he dies and she stayed tied up for most of the book (this is not a spoiler, it happens in the first 20 pages).

Would I keep this in the public library?  Yes.  Definitely.  I would even allow high school students to check it out.  But high school libraries should carry materials more targeted towards the enrichment of minds, or at the very least fiction about issues that teens are likely to face.  This one was probably more an issue of poor collection development rather than outright censorship.  Although, it's entirely likely that this book had been sitting on the shelves for all of 10 years before some kid in 2002 picked it up because s/he had read all of the previous Stephen King books in the collection.  Or maybe it was recently donated and because of all the tax cuts (or lack of tax raises) that I'm sure Texas has voted for, they didn't even have a school librarian or anyone even vaguely familiar with popular literature.  This book might have been thrown on the shelves by someone who only had experience shelving without a thought to its place in the collection.

Yes, librarians do technically censor in their collection development.  Not because we want to, but because we have to.  There is no way we can house every single piece of literature published in the last 50 years, even though pretty much every librarian I know would love to work in the library that did just that and more.  So we have to make selections about what best fits our collection, what is likely to circulate, what has circulated, and where the collection is weak.  A good librarian, or possibly one who is less overworked than this person may have been, would have looked at this title and realized it was inappropriate for the collection and rejected it as a donation or not have ordered it in the first place.

I do hope that this book was offered to the public library rather than being trashed.  Just because I thought it was terrible, doesn't mean I want to see it stop circulating; I would just rather see high school students have easier access to the classics during school than this particular work.  If they're bored enough to read during school, they're bored enough to read Catcher in the Rye, The Scarlet Letter, The Three Musketeers, Frankenstein, or Pride and Prejudice.  Those are the books that need to be on the shelves of the high school library, or better yet, flying off of them.

Banned for sex, violence, horror, incest...basically for being a book written by Stephen King book.

Banned Book Week: Sylvester and the Magic Pebble

Sylvester and the Magic Pebble by William Steig.  ISBN: 9781416902065.

 I loved this book as a kid.  I loved it so much.  I still love it.  Who wouldn't love the idea of finding a special pebble that would grant you wishes?  And who wouldn't love the idea that once your misadventures are over you find that you don't need to make any wishes, because you have everything you want?

Pigs.  That's who.

Yeah, I'm calling you pigs, but not because you're police.  Because you're acting like pigs.  Who the hell gets upset over this (the one on the right)?

 
Apparently policemen in the 1970's across 11 states had giant bacon-induced coronaries over this particular picture.  They did not take into account that neighbors and other "people" in the book were depicted as pigs.  They just saw these two sympathetic looking porkers with a couple who have lost their child.  Maybe they should have paid more attention to the text above the piggy heads, "The police could not find their child."

Maybe they couldn't find the child because they were too busy trying to get a book banned because they were depicted as dirty, filthy, ignorant humans.  This kind of behavior from people who are supposed to protect us from crime bugs the hell out of me.  Especially since as a child, the pigs were the last thing I was focused on.  If you're worried about your reputation in literature, focus more on being a model citizen and a model policeman.  Protect the people you are supposed to serve to the best of your ability.  We know you're short on funds and overstaffed, and it's hard to take shit from the civilians, but you're supposed to be the best of us.  Act like it.

Banning books just makes we want to say two things: "oink, oink."

for representing the police as pigs.

Day 185: Gerald's Game

Gerald's Game by Stephen King.  ISBN: 9780670846504.

This book and I have some history.  In fact, this is the first and only book that I have ever, in my life, been prevented from reading.  And even then, it wasn't so much a prevention as a suggestion from my mother telling me I "probably wasn't quite ready for this one yet, here, read Pet Sematary instead."

Here's the story.

I was in the library one day in the kids' room and I decided that I was getting too grown up for kid books, and besides it was an awfully small room and I had read everything of interest.  In those days my interest was mostly high page count because I tended to zip through books and I wanted to make sure I had plenty of reading material between library visits.  So, I walked over to the adult section, and, remembering that my mother read a lot of Stephen King, found the K's, the King's, and finally King, Stephen.  I browsed the selection and picked one up that seemed to have the least amount of wear and tear.  It may have even been displayed.  Whatever it was that drew my attention, I grabbed that one and didn't think anything of it.  I even started to read a little bit.

At some point I got decided I would go ahead and check out the book by myself.  I had my own library card at this point, or at the very least they allowed me to check out materials under my parents' account after looking up my phone number, whatever they did in the pre-internet days.  The librarian glanced at me, and then at the book, and then at me, kind of fidgeted and said,

"Are you with your parents today?"
"Yes, they're looking at videos right now."
"I think maybe we should wait to see if it's okay with your mom before we check this out to you."

I nodded and went to go find my mom.  She and the librarian conferred and my mom took me aside.

"Amy, I'll let you read this if you really want, but I think there are a lot of things you won't understand and won't enjoy in the book.  If you really want to read a Stephen King book, we can find something that's a little more appropriate.*"

I nodded again and we traded out the book and thanked the librarian.  I was almost glad because it seemed like a very boring book anyway.  What interesting things could possibly happen to a lady died up to a bed with a dead man on the floor?**  Grown-ups find the strangest things scary.

Did you catch the part where I said the book looked new?  That's right, this book was published in 1992.  I was seven, maybe eight at the oldest as we moved to Oklahoma after my 8th birthday and I remember this being in California, and my mother was going to allow me to read this book, "if I really wanted to."  The only thing that prevented me from reading Gerald's Game was my mother's advice and the advice of the librarian.  If she had absolutely refused to let me read it, I probably would have found a way to get my hands on it.  I likely would have even saved my allowance and bought it myself.  If I had decided to go ahead with my reading choice, I'm sure I would have gone to my mother and asked her countless questions about what was going on and why it was happening and what it all meant.  This is the way to "ban" books.

The librarian did the right thing by, not preventing my reading, but raising the concern to my mother.  Maybe some people would see that as a violation of my rights, but the librarian did not insist, she politely asked to see my mother.  I half wonder if she would have allowed me to check out the material if I had affirmed that my mother let me read things like that all the time, but at seven I was not yet so good at lying.  I actually have the greatest amount of respect for the librarian who tackled this tough situation in such a diplomatic and fair manner.  Rather than denying me the book outright, she turned the decision over to the person it belonged to, my parent, who did not prevent me from reading it or similar materials, but suggested alternatives.

*Given my age at the time I'm not sure what the hell an "appropriate" Stephen King is, but I damn well took one home that day and read it.
**I was pretty astute about reading materials at that age.  If it weren't for this incident I probably would have put the book down 40 pages in and never thought about it again, but I've always wanted to tackle it again because of this memory.

Banned for sex, violence, horror, incest...basically for being a book written by Stephen King book.

Banned Book Week: And Tango Makes Three

And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, illustrated by Henry Cole.  ISBN: 9780689878459.

First of all, I didn't actually like this book.  I didn't think it was really all that interesting or captivating text-wise.  I did find the illustrations somewhat charming.  It was okay, but not what I would call good, so really the banning is what makes it exceptional, as well as it being a first.  Not really all that special when it comes down to it.

There's actually very little homosexuality in the book.  The greatest leap is when the zookeeper notices that Silo and Roy were engaging in paired behavior and stated, "They must be in love" in the book.  Apparently Silo and Roy were never actually seen engaging in sex.  Other than that all we see the penguins do is bow, sing, and nest together.  Scandalizing.

What are the banners really upset about with this one?  That the penguins are cute and that their children will want to be...gay penguins?  Or maybe they want more warning about the content of the book before they sit down for bedtime?  But really...it's all of 20 pages long and could easily be read in a matter of seconds.  Somehow I doubt plastering on the cover, "Here there be gay penguins" would be satisfactory to the people who object to homosexuality in the book.  Just imagine putting it on the outside.

Maybe we should all go around with giant stickers and slap them on all the books that even mention homosexuality regardless of the context.  But seriously, there is no sex in this book and they are animals.  It would be like complaining about Full House because all the men are acting as a family unit, or how about Tom Selleck's forgettable 3 Men and a Baby?  If parents wanted to, they could easily spin this short and not very extensive tale any way they wanted to rather than outright refusing to let kids read it.  They could always say, "Oh the zookeeper was mistaken.  See, Silo and Roy were just practicing, Silo later paired with a female penguin named Scrappy."  This of course would require parents to not only be engaged with the material, but also *gasp* their children.

On the other hand, they could also recognize that yes, homosexuality does exist and then explain their beliefs to their child.  Right or wrong, people have every right to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and to use whatever tools they want, including books about gay penguins.  Unfortunately the knee jerk reaction is to not have their children read or learn about it at all, because maybe if they have time to think about it, their children might come to realize that homosexuality isn't such a bad thing.  Terrible.  Children thinking for themselves.  Next thing you know they'll want to move out of your basement, and they're only 32 years old and so precious at that age.

Banned for "gay sugar-coated penguins."  Delicious.

Day 184: The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.  ISBN: 9780375838309.

I'm actually kind of surprised that the supernatural element of this book wasn't taken up more during the banning.  Nowhere did I see any objections to the presence of the daemon.  Then again, since they were presented as being human souls, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to object to their presence, even in "daemonic" form.

What should be upsetting is the supposed ability of people to live on without their souls and their connection to original sin.  I apologize if the following is news, but I assume that since this book is more than 10 years old, most people have read it or at least watched the movie.  I'll try to be vague enough that there won't be too many spoilers, but I have to be able to talk freely about the intellectual content here.  So basically souls and Dust (which we later find is "original sin") are connected, and of course the Church wants to free children and future generations from original sin, but in doing so it means separating them from their daemons (i.e. SOULS).

I like the idea that souls and original sin are connected.  I am a firm believer that knowledge not only gives us more power and control over our lives, but that it actively enriches our lives.  Without the original sin, we would still be as innocent and unaware as children.  Maybe that appeals to some people, but it makes sense to me that we would have to have that awareness in order to even have souls to begin with.  Why do you need a soul if you are God's perfect creation and incapable of sin?  The soul is theoretically what gets us to Heaven and as long as it follows the will of God it is good.

But then I've always had a problem with the idea of blind faith.  God threw challenges at just about everyone in the Bible, including his own son.  Jesus was allowed and even provoked into questioning his faith in God, so why wouldn't that be considered a good thing in your search for truth and meaning?  If you return to God, doesn't it mean that your faith is that much stronger than someone who has never asked why?  Or someone who has never even thought about what it might like not to have the love and strength of God, or at the very least explore other ideas about God/other Gods?  Regardless of your belief system, I don't understand the desire to limit knowledge when knowing about other cultures and beliefs can only help you in relating to your fellow human.  Jesus had to navigate dozens of different cultures, the Middle East being central to trade during that time.  If the goal of being a Christian is to be more Christlike...why attempt to isolate yourself and everyone else from different view points rather than learn to live with each other in respect and peace?

Banned for negative representation of Catholic Church/Christian organizations, use of alcohol by minors, and because the author is a declared and unabashed atheist.

Banned Book Week: Dan Walker (guest blogger)

The Giver by Lois Lowry.  ISBN: 9780440237686.

So the main plot involves Jonas approaching the beginning of his Twelfth year, and the accompanying ceremony, in which he'll be given his Assignment, a post that he'll train in for a few years before working in the job the rest of his life.  The Assignments are made by the Elders who've watched the children, carefully recording what their strengths are.

Boy do I wish someone would do this for me.  Yes, choice in Jonas' society has been removed, to keep people from making mistakes, and that's part of the point: making decisions, even bad ones, is part of what makes us human.  Amy can sure tell you that I am severely hung up about needing to do things correctly, to the point of not trying if I don't think something can be done right.  But it has always seemed to me that everyone else in the world has always known what they want to do with their life, except for me.

See, I've got all these talents -- little things, mostly, like my penchant for making voices -- and I have no idea what can be done with them.  Something tells me I could be making a living doing something, but I don't know what that something could possibly be.  I may be missing my calling, for crying out loud, and not even know it.

For instance, I didn't discover my talent with languages until I took German in college, and that was after four years of high school Spanish.  I've bounced around from language to language, picking up bits and pieces of Swahili, Chinese, Russian, and French, to name a few.  And while I feel like each experience is helping me move toward some greater fundamental understanding of language as a whole, I can't exactly do anything with what I've already learned.  Unless there were, say, someone out there who just needs a little knowledge of a lot of languages.

Speaking of which, I didn't discover linguistics, now my passion, until my third or fourth year of college.  I could have been working toward a degree in that from a much earlier time if I'd known it even existed as a field.  Instead, I feel like I've wasted the last eleven or so years, and in some ways, I have.  A lack of direction in my early life plagues me now.  Maybe if someone had been there to say, "Hey, you're good at doing this, maybe you should try this," I would have at least been able to work towards a real life goal.

Dan Walker (pseudonym) is a writer from Northeast Ohio, who would be teaching ESL if he wasn't unemployed. He received a BA in Creative Writing from Wright State University in 2004 and a Masters in Teaching English as a Second Language from Kent State University in 2009. He will make some lucky librarian a wonderful husband someday. 

for description of drug use by children, lethal injections of babies and the elderly, suicide, and other reasons.

Day 183: The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.  ISBN: 9780375838309.

Oh, I do believe I might get my ass chewed out for this one.  Lucky for me, I have very little ass, so people should get bored with it pretty quickly and maybe find some fat to chew elsewhere.  The thing that pisses me off most about banning books for religious reasons is that it completely denies any of the good things about the book.  The religious zealots get so fixated on the "THEY KILLED JESUS" aspect that they completely blind themselves to any other (possibly) positive message, or the fact that maybe the "killing God" is meant as a symbol of something else and not actually, ya know, killing God per se.

But some of that comes up later in the series and I haven't read that far.  So let me share with some of you what our precious, precious children who must have their souls protected at every cost, might be missing out on.  The major thing this book teaches to our children, the main thing that I think adults should be terrified and upset about, is not the religious debate, it's the message that sometimes adults do not have the best interests of children in mind, and that they are willing to manipulate and use and even harm children to get what they want, and therefore sometimes it is up to the child to protect herself and her friends.

Oh Shit.  How did you miss that one?  It's because Pullman pulled one over on you and blinded you with your Kryptonite, which also happens to be your self-proclaimed Spinach.  Popeye the Superman...I just made myself die a little there.

I'm not even implying that you should be pissed off that Pullman wrote it.  If you were reasonable people you would be pissed off that it needed to be written.  If you're pissed off that Pullman presented the Catholic Church (which, to begin with, is in an alternate universe anyway) as an organization that has done terrible things to children and is trying to hide it...uh, maybe you should be less pissed off about that happening in fiction and more pissed off about the real occurrences?  It would be hard for Pullman's work to be so inflammatory if there wasn't some grain of truth. Otherwise it would be easy enough to just read it and say, "Meh, that's not true, but this is an alternate universe and therefore he must be talking about some other Catholic Church."

I don't see what the problem is with this novel.  I really don't.  A novelist can't kill God.  Or rather, he can kill God as many times as he wants: God is first and foremost and idea and the only way you can kill ideas is to stop thinking.  So if you want God dead, please keep banning books, because that is surely a good way to get people to stop thinking.

You know, I think there was a group of people who did that back in the Dark Ages.  They only allowed the clergy to be able to read and only held services in Latin so that the masses had to rely solely on the word of their priests.  Hmm...which group was that again...?

I just find it incredibly ironic and sad that Pullman is promoting self-preservation in children against adults wanting to do them harm, and all the book banners can see is the negative message against the Church.  (Note, I say the Church because I have yet to actually see anything about about Christians or Christianity as a belief system.  I am willing to believe that it shows up in the sequels, but I have yet to see it in The Golden Compass.)

Banned for negative representation of Catholic Church/Christian organizations, use of alcohol by minors, and because the author is a declared and unabashed atheist.

Banned Book Week: Dan Walker (guest blogger)

The Giver by Lois Lowry.  ISBN: 9780440237686.

After he's been named the new Receiver of Memory, Jonas is given a (distinctly brief) pamphlet like the others receiving their Assignments, with instructions for his first day of training.  It tells him, among other things, not to discuss his training with anyone, and gives him leave to break a number of societal norms, including being able to tell lies and be rude.

I sure wish I had access to that last one.  I'm constantly afraid that someone is going to take some little thing I do or say as being rude.  This is especially true when I'm at work, I'm always finishing with customers and wondering, "Was I somehow rude...?"  I'm constantly concerned that I might have said something wrong, or said it a certain way.  Maybe I didn't wait long enough for something to happen.  Maybe my body language was improper.  There's nothing in my actions that stands out as having been rude, but I wonder if it might have been taken that way.  I just wouldn't know if it happened.

Of course, people are free to take offense at pretty much anything, for pretty much any reason.  Being offended is a choice, after all, but most people don't realize that.  (Think about it: if it wasn't a choice, then how could there individuals who are not easily offended by things like taboo words? racist jokes? dead baby jokes?  ...Are you?)  If it's easier to get your way by being offended all the time, why wouldn't you let that thong ride up your ass*?  After all, if people didn't choose to take offense, we wouldn't be 'celebrating' Banned Book Week now, would we?

That said, a license to be rude would be awesome for a different reason.  So many people in this world need to be set straight about their behaviors.  They need to be told that they're being obnoxious, selfish assholes.  They need to be told that it is not acceptable to be so demanding, especially when those demands infringe on the rights of others.  They need to be told when they're being rude, even though that is, paradoxically, rude in itself.  So a lot of the self-absorbed, self-entitled, customer-is-always-righties in the world get to go on about their merry way without anyone checking their behavior.  Forget a license to kill, I just want a license to say "STFU and GTFO".

Dan Walker (pseudonym) is a writer from Northeast Ohio, who would be teaching ESL if he wasn't unemployed. He received a BA in Creative Writing from Wright State University in 2004 and a Masters in Teaching English as a Second Language from Kent State University in 2009. He will make some lucky librarian a wonderful husband someday. 

*Phrasing generously loaned by Amy L. Campbell.

for description of drug use by children, lethal injections of babies and the elderly, suicide, and other reasons.