To know what? How to murder someone? A whole barrage of swear words? How to get drunk? Get high? Don't throw the bird out the window before it knows how to fly. Children need to be taught to fight before you can put them in the battle.
Not only that, but the "sheltering" is often a thin vernier over a particular political-social-religious agenda. For example, many school libraries banned the Harry Potter books because certain Christian groups felt it was unhealthy to portray magic and witchcraft as acceptable, or even heroic, activities. Likewise, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is considered heresy by some Creationist groups.
This is all too subjective, as one can tell by simply taking a look at the banned books list. This is the government removing material based on content, and there should be no praise for it.
These are all things they're more likely to encounter in real life long, long before they come across them in books. We're not talking about handing a 6 year old a copy of American Psycho and sending them on their way. This is about access to legitimately important ideas being denied the people who really most need to be exposed to them for mostly petty, irrelevant or subjective reasons. Banning books, like any other form of censorship, leads to the insularity and ignorance that "free" countries like to say they fight against.
I'm a recent high school graduate and current college student. And believe me, children need no help with any of the above. My peers need no book to tell them how to smoke pot, pound down shots or cuss like a sailor. I won't address murder because, quite simply, thinking anyone murders somebody solely on the basis of literature is ridiculous. Banning books will not prevent idiots from drinking, smoking or what-have-you. It will simply stifle those inquisitive minds that perhaps only want to educate themselves.
There used to be a book called The Anarchist's Cookbook. Undoubtedly it is still floating around. I can understand a ban on it, because it contained diagrams, instructions, and ingredient lists for homemade weapons, bombs, drugs, and poisons. Some of the "recipes" were dangerously incomplete or otherwise flawed, and could be fatal to the poor sap who tries to follow them. But the book is obsolete anyway. We have the Internet.
There are exceptions to every rule. Simple ideological statements are not to be suppressed in my mind. Actual recipes for bombs? Suppress away.
I was writing specifically about young children, and elementary school libraries. The sort of library specifically geared towards kids from age 6 to about age 13. Though I know that some 13 years olds have seen a lot of things, others haven't. If books are taken out of a school library because the content is not deemed appropriate for the kids, that's great. The 13 year olds may complain, but it's the younger children that need to be taken into consideration. Besides, most 13 year olds are mature enough to check the book out of the local library if they really want to read it. As for the rest of the libraries, I really don't see how any single book should be banned. The shelves are already filled with every topic imaginable, so a controversial book won't be anything new. I just speak for all the young children. As a child, I was exposed to things that haunted my mind for years. If it was possible to erase memories, I would have done it. Though I now understand the things I saw, I didn't then, and the images followed me around wherever I went. Children should be allowed to be children. To be carefree, to play, to have that innocence. How many of us have wished to go back to that time? A time when we didn't have to carry all that emotional baggage. To take away someone's childhood seems like one of the cruelest things you could do. As they grow older, we can prepare them for the things that may run into in life. Teach them how to handle it step by step.
That's exactly how I look at it- a book laying out the ideology of a terrorist, however distasteful, should not be censored in my opinion. On the other hand, a book detailing the best way to pull off a terrorist attack probably should. As for groups that try to have books banned by claiming it's for the children... I don't want other people deciding what I, or my family, should think or read.
With all due respect, how is choosing not to censor something taking away childhood? It seems to me that if a kid's reading something that he/she finds traumatic, the kid can put the book down him/herself. May I ask what it was that you read that haunted you so badly? If it's still a sensitive/personal issue to you then I understand, but if not, I'd like to know. Personally, I've always thought it would do worse damage to try to keep kids in perfect bubbles forever. Kids are aware of gritty issues before their parents know they are, kids aren't some ultra-delicate paper figurines who know nothing and who will drop dead at hearing a curse word or reading a fight scene.
I think censorship is utter trickery used to keep the public ignorant and intolerant. Being offended is just part of life and shielding our children does not only inhibit there ability to think for themselves but you also underestimate and insult their intelligence. I think we should be creating beings capable of willing great good as well as great evil. This sort of totalitarian trait only perpetuates good and evil on a basis of sheer stupidity. Parents teach your children rather than domesticate them and don't depend on institutions or the state to raise them. Having said that, I now step down off my soap box and retreat to my writing.
This is partly why I home educate - other peoples children get shielded at the expense of what I want for my children. If a child knows that Mum and Dad are there for answering questions, teaching, hugs etc then the experiences they go through aren't going to scar them for life. Also it is for each parent to judge each child. None of my kids have any real bother beyond burying their head in fear with Dr Who, they watch the news with me etc - however they do struggle with Finding Nemo etc where the parent and child become seperated. Not sure how having a realistic view of the world around you hampers imagination or prevents play. Children in some of the most horrific world situations manage well, many children functioned amazingly during WW2 and the blitz - my Aunt and Uncle still played and had great imaginations as adults both could tell fantastic stories. My gran and her sisters had fond memories of childhood despite poverty and issues I could never imagine happening in their everyday. I think I coped better with the traumas in my life because I hadn't been shielded I knew they happened. I have no great desire to go back to the powerlessness of childhood - much prefer being an adult. I like growing older.
I agree to an extent. Although, not to be pedantic, one cannot say "why not?" and "you're an idiot" in the same breath. It would just come out as "you're why an not idiot"
That covers a little bit of what my opinion is on the matter. I know there is a lot of head butting going on because of it, so I'll just leave it at that. If you want to talk to me further about it, you can PM me.
Evelyanin, You made an excellent point regarding the role of the parents. It's far easier to shout about the importance of independence of kids if, when things go wrong, they have a loving, stable home life in which to fall back on. I was fortunate enough as a child to have felt extremely safe, both in my home life and my small rural community. This is perhaps why, as a child, I was so confident and able to seek material that was strictly speaking out of my age bracket. Unlike you, I don't feel like I experienced anything terribly traumatic during my childhood and I respect that your opinions are informed by the fact that you feel differently about your own experience. I suppose we're getting off the topic of banned books though. My view of the banned books list is that it has little to do with the protection of children and more to do with biased political and conservative prejudice.
The list is of books that have been banned in the past, in one place or another. I think that's a detail worth including. Quote from aarp.org Never the less, I agree on the general feeling of outrage against book banning. It almost always conjures up images of nazi book pyres, and literature/history teachers not being "essential workers". In the same vein, I think Political Correctness is just a new and more subtle label for censorship, but one with a much more far reaching consequence: self-censorship. In a culture of all-encompassing niceness there's no room from critical thoughts and questioning of other people's values.
This is exactly true. Many are afraid to approach certain issues, whether political or otherwise, for fear of not being "politically correct." This is where the left brings down the hammer of censorship more than the right. Whereas the right tends to invoke it for "moral" reasons (often related to religion) to address sexual material and the like.
Note to all: Tone down the political rhetoric. I won't hesitate to close this thread if there is an increase in cultural finger-pointing. This is a flame free zone.
What's ironic is that I've read about half of those for school. Is it only certain schools or states? A lot of those reasons don't really sound like they would matter in anyway, the story overrides that sort of stuff.
Very interesting list, thanks alot! Now I know what to read... While I agree that the banning of books is ridiculous (though I might muster some comprehension for banning pornographic books where children are bound to get them) I do miss one title I expected there: Wetlands by Charlotte Roche Especially the "Irreligious" bannings do shock me, especially in a country that brags about freedom. Since when are the United States church states? I thought there was a separation. I agree. I knew the meaning of all the swear words by age 11. Now all kids gotta do is google a word and find things way more graphic than "oral stimulation of the genitals"...
There are a lot of parents out there who want to keep their kids watching Teletubbies and listening to the Wiggles soundtrack, in a special bubble in a room with flowered walls, until they're college-aged. It's ridiculous to me. Also, the "irreligious" ban surprises me as well considering that religion is always being bashed in schools. We've all heard the cases where a kid gets in trouble for reading a Bible or praying at school. It's not the place of the government to stifle or push a religion, just to get out of people's personal exercisement of their beliefs.
This is a tough question, and one that people seem to feel strongly about. On one hand, we as writers want all books out there to be available to the masses, especially some of the really legendary ones on this list. On the other hand, there's a lot of stuff out there that I wouldn't want my 7 year old reading. And while there is very little danger of him deciding to read "Ulysses", I would prefer to wait a few more years before having to explain some of the things in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". That said I am in complete opposition to any wholesale banning of books - by public libraries or by governments banning the import of certain books, for example.
