September 29 - October 6, 2007 is Banned Books Week, during which "thousands of libraries and bookstores throughout the nation will celebrate a democratic society's most basic freedom - the freedom to read."
This year's theme is Ahoy! Treasure Your Freedom to Read and Get Hooked on a Banned Book!
Learn how you can celebrate Banned Books Week here, or find events in your local area here.
Of course, this issue hits rather close to home for me, because I can easily envision a day when the parent of one of our kid's friends complains about a book in the school library, solely because it recognizes the existence of families that look like ours.
But beyond the personal, what's the big deal?
Why are so many books challenged by those who would like to see them removed from the shelves of our libraries?
And why is it so important for us all to fight against these challenges - even when the book being challenge isn't one of which we personally approve?
Often, the very aspects of a book that make it interesting or provocative or significant are things that make some people uncomfortable.
And that's okay. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to read something that you don't find appealing.
And of course, it's okay to not allow your children to read things that you don't find appropriate.
That's called parenting.
However, when one take it upon oneself to "protect" others (or, often, other people's children) from one's own discomfort, by restricting their access to these books (or music or movies or information or . . . .) then, some of the very foundations of our democracy are threatened - the freedom of expression, the freedom to share information, the freedom to educate oneself as one chooses.
That is called censorship. And that is most decidedly not okay with me.
It may be cliche, but knowledge truly is power, and controlling access to knowledge and the spread of knowledge can be a quite effect method of maintaining power.
(This was, of course, the idea behind making it illegal for slaves to learn to read.)
If opposing viewpoints are never heard, the theory goes, then the status quo will not be questioned.
Well, the status quo needs to be questioned. It may or may not need to be changed, at any given time, (I certainly feel that large parts of it do, right now) but it always needs to be questioned.
The banning of books suggests that if one is not exposed to (sex, "bad" words, political subversion, homosexuality, non-nuclear families, witchcraft, violence, drugs, your-biggest-fear-here), then these things will just go away.
On the contrary, "these things" are part of our world and, whether one thinks they are right or wrong, denying their existence is no more logical than denying that the sun will rise tomorrow.
There are, of course, differences in what's appropriate reading for a five year old, a fifteen year old or a fifty year old, but that's a decision to be made by that child's parents - or by that adult - and no one else. Certainly not by some self-appointed arbiter of taste or morality.
Some people seem to forget that for any of us to be free, we must all be free.
This means that we must respect and protect not just our freedoms to live and behave as we choose, but also to say and to learn what we choose, as well.
When Shrike and I have a child, there are certainly toys that we will not allow them to own - guns and Bratz dolls come to mind immediately.
But I know that their friends will have these toys and that there's no way we can stop our child from knowing they exist. Nor should we.
We must acknowledge that these things (violence and women who dress as though they have no self-respect) are around and then explain to them that, yes, their friends might have these toys, and that doesn't make them bad people, but we don't approve and in our family, we don't play with them.
After all, isn't it better to know that "guns are dangerous, and people can hurt each other with them" or "those girls don't dress or behave very nicely" (how does one explain "She's a hoochy Mama" to a four year old?) than to try to keep them from ever seeing them, or just telling them "This is bad, because I said so."
The same goes for information. There are lots of things that we'd rather our child not know about at a young age. We'll do our best to protect our them, but it's neither our job nor our right to "protect" other people or their children.
Shielding kids from things that we don't like won't make them go away. At best, it's just delaying the discussions that will inevitably come. (Granted, sometimes that delay is a good thing.)
At worst, it's denying them the opportunity to deal with these things in an age-appropriate manner, or making them seem all the more appealing, by virtue of being taboo.
Which is all just the very long way around to say that I am 100% behind this celebration of the freedom to read, and that I encourage everyone to speak out whenever or wherever this freedom is challenged.
In case you're wondering what all the fuss is about, here are some lists of books that have been challenged most frequently in recent years.
(Challenges are defined as formal, written complaints filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.)
Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2006
- And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for
homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;
- Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;
- Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language;
- Beloved, by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group;
- The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
- The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence;
- The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age
group;
- Gossip Girls, series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;
- The Perks of Being a Wallflower," by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
- Scary Stories series, by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity.
Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books of the 21st Century
(2001 - 2005) - Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
- The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
- Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
- Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
- I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
- Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
- It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
- Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz
- Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey
- Forever by Judy Blume
100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, 1990 - 2000
(View the list at the American Library Association's website.)
How many of these books have you and your kids read?
What are
your favorite banned books?
Both our pups are pretty original. They are mutts, so they don't look just like every other dog that you see every day.
