I don't believe reading anything can harm children. Some extreme litterature may make them uncomfortable, or even scared, but even then, they're just temporary feelings. I think censoring for children is mostly about fighting the ideas certain literature stands for, or about saving the parents from being asked embarrassing questions.
I agree Islander. Think I was about 7 when I read Huck Finn it was great lol at that age anything that needs explaining usually goes over your head. I read Jane Eyre at 9 didn't see why bigamy was the problem. I read allsorts to my daughter she read the Harry Potter series with me at 4. Narnia about the same stage. My only regret is following Jane Eyre with Wuthering Heights whilst watching the cartoon Heathcliff the cat - just isn't the same when your image of Heathcliff is a big orange cat. Even at 34 I can't take the story seriously lol
Seriously, if a kid is scared or uncomfortable by something he or she reads.... Guess what.... The kid can put the book down on his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I swear, people baby their kids more and more. One day, we'll get to the point where kids can't read The Giver because the "releasing" stuff refers to death, and they won't be able to read Bridge to Terabithia because they "won't be able to handle it," and they won't be able to read Nancy Drew because "Nancy gets in dangerous situations and it sets a bad example." Goosebumps and Scooby Doo will be banned for being "Too Scary." Ugh, I can only imagine where things will be in 10 years. It only seems to be getting worse. Okay, reading a book like The Color Purple aloud to a 4-year-old is probably not a good idea. But if a kid is old enough to read an upper-level book on their own (and by "old enough" I mean mentally developed enough to read that well, not "old enough" as in someone deeming they're old enough to have permission), they're old enough to handle whatever content they may find, or decide to stop reading on their own if they don't like it. Not trying to come across as inflammatory to anyone. I just feel strongly. This trend that I described above leads to one thing........Dumbing Down!
Let's imagine a child whose does not sit down for a family meal at the end of the school day with empathetic and intelligent parents. A child who does not discuss what they've been up to; does not discuss what's troubling them. An (emotionally) isolated child. I know this is a bit of a stretch in our enlightened times but go with it. The child picks up a book which has breezy prose and is rather fun but which contains very dodgy ideas about race and female sexuality. Naturally, the child's thoughts about race and sexuality are inchoate, barely formed. The ideas in the book are not jarring, not clashing with a substantial system of beliefs. Will the ideas in the book cause the child unease? Will they cause the child to put this otherwise rather jolly book down? If the child continues to read the book, is he the better for it or the worse?
I think the child may be affected, but since he/she is subjected to society's values through school, TV, friends and other sources a large part of his/her day, I think the book will only play a small role for his/her final outlook.
I don't think anyone would argue that the situation you've described is not in the child's best interests. The question is who is responsible for the child? Should an entire group be denied access to the book due to the negligence of those parents, or does the responsibility for their child's access to such materials lie with them? I guess the position boils down to: If you're a parent, be a parent.
Oh yes, I get all that. Yet there seemed to be an idea surfacing in this thread that children, acting autonomously, will never harm themselves - however slightly - through reading.
I think what is being suggested is that children have the same options as adults to reject material they find disturbing or let it disturb them. We all have that option to close a book and not continue reading.
Yes, you're right, I think that's what is being a suggested. And I'm wondering whether there are certain things which will not disturb the child but which are nevertheless harmful.
This I disagree with. As an adult, you've developed a critical capacity to understand when and how you are being influenced by something you are reading. You can think carefully about it before mindlessly absorbing it, you can choose to reject it. As a child, that capacity is far, far from developed, and they may be unaware of how they are being affected by what they are reading. Obviously if it is something they understand to be disturbing or scary, they may choose to stop (although I don't believe that every child would always make that choice), but it is probable that what they are reading is influencing them in ways they may not even be aware of.
not sure really - if a child doesn't have dialogue with a parent or adult in their lives they need to go someplace. A parent can cause just as much harm with silly throw away phrases even a loving parent can do that. Fact is the old adage words can never hurt me is not true they can often cause more pain and damage than fists. However if an adult is not being responsible for a child then they have to take that upon themselves sadly and choices fall to them.
Oh, I agree that books may give children dangerous ideas. But the ideas are dangerous to society, not to themselves. For example, if a book gives a child a slightly racist outlook, it won't make the child unhappy or unable to function socially. We ban racist books for children because we are afraid what will happen if racism becomes widespread in society. We don't ban them because we believe being a racist is harmful to oneself. Assuming the book really is racist in the first place... in many cases, books seem to be censored not because they express the "wrong" opinions, but because they dare mention the issue at all.
Hey Islander I see you seeing my oh and raise it! Oh, oh, oh, I very much disagree with you! That which harms society will of course, at some point, impact deleteriously on the individual.. but to more specifically meet your point: You think a person is not harmed by hardening his heart - without good cause - to a good number of those around him? You think he is not harmed by being the incessant prey of illogical fears and suspicions? You think a man doesn't lose a lot by regarding women as sexual objects? Will he ever enjoy a meaningful, warm, truly loving relationship?
At which point is this the choice of the individual to act that way rather than the fault of the material?
In the example with the kid being harmed by a book because he or she has negligent parents who never spend time with him or talk to him about values...then THAT neglect is going to cause harm, and it's not the book causing the problems.
You legislate on the basis that all parents are highly adept and that all teenagers pay especial heed to them? You think that children will never be damaged by encountering material when the parents have afforded them - as good parents should - scope to follow their own desires and whims? I think that art, that books, can move people, can make them feel and think differently. And, as somebody who perhaps someday wants to write some stuff, I think it would be peculiar if I felt differently about that. This means that from time to time, I must accept that people will be moved unhelpfully and that they will be prodded in directions which are unproductive for them and society: in short, that they will be harmed. I do think that children (and others), given unfettered access to books, will sometimes read stuff that does not immediately disturb them but which might ultimately prove unhelpful in their development. But there is a flipside to the coin: art can prod people in fruitful directions; a free-flow of ideas is essential for a healthy society. I happen to think that the good outweighs the bad, and that while a lack of censorship damages some, society as a whole, and most of the individuals within it, are better off for that lack. But to argue that ideas can not and do not damage, seems an odd position for a creative person to hold.
Well, of course it might affect them, I"m not saying it won't. I'm saying that parents shouldn't go around forbidding their kids from reading certain books. If a kid feels inclined to read a book, he should read it and learn from it what he may, whether he learns about something good or bad.
This might be an overly simplistic addition, but there is still something to be said for letting children be children, even as they do everything they can to grow up too fast. There's a time to allow our children to be exposed to the "truths" of the real world, but what is the rush?
Yes, it's good to "let" children be children, key word being *let,* and I agree that it's bad to rush. Rush implies force. If a teenager wants to climb trees and not wear makeup and has no interest in dating or partying, don't force them to stop their kid-like ways. Let them enjoy their youth. Now, if a kid *wants* to read a more mature book like 1984 or Anne Frank or whatever, and they actively seek out the book, but a parent forbids them from reading the book they're after....now that doesn't sound like "letting kids be kids." Kids slowly grow up. They can't stay in padded rooms with no knowledge of anything bad, then wake up one day and learn it all at some pre-set age when the parent determines they're ready.
Kids do grow up slowly but they try very hard to accelerate the process. In theory I agree with what you are saying, but there are not a lot of kids actively seeking out Anne Frank or 1984. For those that are, fantastic. But what if kids are actively seeking out erotica novels? Do you think those should be available in elementary school libraries?
Don't see why not I was about ten when I got my hands on a bodice ripper - Mum was a little shocked when she read it after me lol Think the book had done the rounds of my class before she did read it. However Erotica Novels have an age on them - they are not banned just not deemed suitable for those under eighteen which is a bit bizarre when age of consent here is sixteen. It is different just not stocking a book that is not within your remit or unsuitable for your audience and going out of your way to ban it. But then I have taught mine about sex in basic ways since they were babies. My daughter is seven and unlike her peers not remotely interested in makeup or wearing mini skirts etc, she plays with My Little Pony and Littlest Petship etc My son is four and plays with the usual trucks and climbs trees. I don't turn the news off they listen to it on the radio and watch it on TV and we talk about it.
"Do you think erotica novels should be available in elementary school libraries?" Well, no. An elementary school library isn't like a full city library, it's a small-ish room full of books that have been ordered by the school system (at least mine was). So, stocking books not applicable to elementary kids wouldn't be a good idea or very practical, and no one in their right mind would get erotica placed in a library that's in an elementary school where only little kids will be anyways. By "erotica" btw, I'm assuming we mean Playboy and stuff, not just books including sex scene. What I do have issues with is the people who think that non-porn, literary books with mature themes should be restricted from kids...for example, if a teen walks into a library and tries to check out a book that's been deemed "violent" or "upsetting" by some bureaucrat and so they have to get a parental permission note to read it. And if there happens to be a sex scene in a book, I personally think "so what." Okay, limiting flat-out porn (if that's what it is, and not just a book with one racy scene or two -- like I mean actual Playboy mags and what not) to adults-only is fine. But limiting books deemed too mature, no. Any good classical book that I can think of deals with sex or violence or mature scenes in one way or another, so setting guidelines for what kids can and can't read will just block out a bunch of really great upper-level books. Or people who try to prevent their own kids from reading certain books (and I'm not talking about porn). I knew one woman who forbade her kid from reading books like Goosebumps (which is specifically for kids, I read them when I was 6-ish) because she thought the kid would get scared. I think maybe we're just on different pages? Elgaisma, rock on.
Thanks Mallory - I am just not sure how teaching children about the world about them and letting them explore at their own pace, giving them information to live their lives is denying them a childhood. Personally i hated the frustration and powerlessness of being a child not something I am ever desperate to return to. No good reason for it but it is frustrating when people make bad choices on your behalf and you have no means to stop it.
Banning books is just silly. I happy to live in a country that dont have that tendencis the last 60 years. Unless we talking about really young children, I think the most important thing isn't that the children just read the books with the sort of ideology you agree with with ever that might be, but that that they read a lot of different things showing them different aspects of society. I think you people need to read books with a sexist views, racist views, violent books, books expressing controversial ideologies, books with bad langauge, books handling taboo topic, pornography as well as pink and flully romanticized images of sex etc to face and understand the world, as long as those sides of out society exist. As well as books where books where all individuals regardless of sex is allowed to show traits seen as traditionally feminin or masculine, where racism don't exist, when perfect utopians are described, where the good of mankind is shown etc. Empathy as well as critical thinking is about realizing that people have very different views of the world. If I got a kid my biggest concern about their reading would be that they once they grown old enough to learn sarcasm had a varied reading list.
