Banned Book Week: The Giver

Published in 1993, THE GIVER by Lois Lowry is one of the most frequently challenged books in the last two decades. The book climbed to #11 on the ALA’s list in the 1990’s and slipped to #23 during this past decade. Why is this Newbery Medal (1994) winning book so often challenged?

The unfortunate headline in an USA Today article in 2001 kind of says it all: “Suicide Book Challenged in Schools.”

Most of the challenges regarding THE GIVER cite the subjects of suicide and euthanasia as reasons to pull the book from the curriculum or library. [According to the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, a challenge is a formal, written attempt to remove a book from a library or classroom. ] For instance, one parent in the Denver area complained that book was dangerous because of its portrayal of suicide in a neutral to positive light. Parents in Blue Springs, Missouri also attempted to get the book pulled from the eight-grade curriculum in 2003. One parent there said:

“This book is negative. I read it. I don’t see the academic value in it. Everything presented to the kids should be positive or historical, not negative.”

The irony is that THE GIVER is about a society that only presents the positive and keeps everything negative away from its populace.

The world of THE GIVER has eliminated fear, pain, hunger, conflict, and illness. Life flows very efficiently for everyone in the Community. It chooses your parents, job, spouse, and children. Every detail of your life is controlled, down to your choice of words and what you read. And, any child who is too unruly, any elder who is too old, or any rule breaker who's too incorrigible is "released" from the Community.

When Jonas turns 12, he (along with all of his year mates) is assigned his carefully chosen job. Because of his special ability to see "beyond," he’s to be the next Receiver—the one person who carries all of the negative (as well as the positive) collective memories of the Community. (If the Receiver did not hold these memories in his being, they would be released out into the world, and the people of the Community would then have to feel pain and suffering once again.)

The old Receiver becomes the Giver, the one who imparts the memories to his replacement, Jonas. As he starts experiencing both fear and love, Jonas realizes how colorless the Community really is without the full spectrum of emotions and experiences.

He also learns that being "released" actually means being euthanized. He sees his own father "release" an infant because it was a twin. Then Jonas learns that the Receiver candidate before him—the Giver’s own daughter—released herself because she couldn’t handle the world as she saw it through Receiver eyes. Rather than succumb to the same despair, Jonas sets off to free his people—by giving them back their collective memories—good and bad.

The book doesn’t encourage or condone suicide and infanticide. And, I don’t think the parents behind the challenges really think the book does. They--like the people of the Community--want to shelter their children from topics that might disturb them—like kids committing suicide and fathers killing babies. I cannot fault those parents for that, particularly if the child is very young. However, should tweens and teens be protected from negative ideas? The parent from the Denver area thought suicide was a dangerous topic because of his state’s high suicide rate—and because his kid was in the same school district as Columbine High School.

Did this dad (and the other challengers) have a point? Should we protect kids from negative ideas?

Or was Jonas right? Do we owe it to our children and ourselves to let them read (and discuss) both the good and the bad things in life?

BTW, in most cases I found on the ALA site, the schools opted to keep THE GIVER as part of their curriculum or library.

Banned Book Week: The Outsiders

It blows my mind that people want to ban The Outsiders.

Sure, it's set among a bunch of freely smoking, drinking and cussing "greasers." There's fights galore, a casual attitude to petty theft, a murder and and unseen unwed teen pregnancy, but seriously? The Outsiders? All the characters are just so darn nice. They have names like Ponyboy and Soda Pop. They quote Robert Frost at length. They're loyal and heroic. They stand up for their buddies. The whole thing is about innocence and sacrifice and the value of living and being better than you're surroundings. It's downright earnest.

 I swear, the idea of someone wanting to ban The Outsiders is like the idea of someone wanting to kick a puppy.

Ok, to back up, maybe a brief synopsis is in order.

The Outsiders follows the Curtis brothers (Ponyboy, Soda Pop and Darry) and their friends. We're in Oklahoma in 1965. The brothers have lost their parents and are living on their own, doing the best they can. Darry is the oldest, a hardworking roofer. Soda Pop works at a gas station. Ponyboy is the sensitive dreamy one. The smart one. The Curtis brothers and their friends are part of a group (calling them a gang seems like a bit of a stretch to me) of lower class kids called greasers, for their long greasy hair. Some of the greasers are criminals, some are pretty rough, but the book makes it clear that Ponyboy and his brothers aren't like that. They know criminals, but they aren't criminals.

The greasers are eternally at war with the Socs, the madras wearing rich kids from across town.  One day, Pony Boy and his friend Johnny Cade get jumped and nearly killed by a pack of drunk socs. In a effort to save Pony Boy's life Johnny stabs one of the Socs and kills him. The rest of the story follows their time as fugitives and what happens when they return to town to face up to what they did.

Why do people try to ban it? Oh, the usual reasons. Language. "Immoral" behavior. Drinking. Smoking. Surface things, you know? The veneer that rests over the book, not anything the book is saying or advocating. Not it's content.

Funny how often it seems like would be censors are obsessed with surfaces over content.  Like with To Kill a Mockingbird or the Harry Potter books or so many others, The Outsiders carries absolutely unimpeachable moral lessons, but because they contain some bad words or a veneer of bad behavior it becomes suspect. As if to merely depict these things is to endorse them.

Maybe it's a function of how rare it is for censors to actually read the thing they want to censor. If people did actually read this book I think they'd find it has a great and well written cast of characters and has great things to say about friendship and hope and how to live well in rough circumstances. I think the book also has interesting things to say about the struggles between the classes, something we don't get alot of in American books, especially written realistically in a book for teens. (Sidenote: is it possible that the frank discussion of class also makes censors uneasy? My guess is a big yes)

Oh, and I would also be remiss if I didn't note that the movie made from this book is absolutely fantastic. And I say that without a trace of irony.  It keeps very close to the book and features a stellar cast of actors and beautiful golden hued direction by Francis Ford Coppola.

So get out there everybody and read a banned book this week. Send a statement to to the censors that these books have value and a vital place in the lives of teens and adults alike.

Do it for Johnny!

Jeff Hirsch

The Eleventh Plague

Coming from Scholastic, Fall 2011

Find me at jeff-hirsch.com and @jeff_hirsch

Banned Books' Week - The Handmaid's Tale

Where do I start?

Banned Books Week.
Wow.


Just the fact that there is such a thing boggles my mind. Life is full of choices and in America we are blessed with freedom of choice. Even in schools (where choice can be limited by rules), if parents don’t want their child to read a certain book, it is my understanding that teachers will accommodate that by providing alternate reading materials.
That said... this week the banned book I’m looking at is The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.

Let’s take a gander at two of the main reasons it has been banned (here is a detailed list ) The funny thing about this list is that you could practically read the entire book based on the excerpts that this person has pulled - all out of context. Anyway, back to the two main reasons...

Sexually explicit - pornographic
Anti-Christian

Okay. Now - what is the book really about?

It’s speculative fiction about a future where the U.S. Government has been overthrown by a fundamental Christian sect called the ‘Sons of Jacob.’ (Although, in the book, citizens are told that the President and all members of Congress were assassinated by Muslim terrorists. How interesting is that?!)

These ‘Sons of Jacob’ systematically remove any rights that women have, in the name of “protecting” them. Women, including those who were part of the ‘Sons of Jacob,’ soon discover that their freedoms are non-existent and they are relegated to whatever role the new society deems appropriate for them based on their ability to have children. Handmaids are just as in the Bible - slaves who are forced to bear children for men whose wives are barren. (Most people in the new Gilead are barren due to radiation and other chemical warfare.)

The purpose of Atwood’s cautionary tale is to wake people up to what is going on around them. To make people aware of how easy it is to give up rights in the face of fear and the reassurance that they will be “taken care of” and/or “it’s for your own good.”

The sexuality in this book is not meant to be titillating or pornographic (altho' there is pornography mentioned in the book.) It is used for procreation. And, for pleasure in the whorehouses to which the government turns a blind eye. There is no sex as an expression of love - except for the main character's attempt at a caring relationship and her remembrance of the loving relationship she had with her husband.

As far as the anti-Christian part of it... well, honestly, so much horrible stuff has been done in the name of religion (every religion, bar none) that I have no issue with people being reminded that that can, and still does, happen. And, when people try to force everyone to come to their way of thinking about a higher power (or not) “or else” - well, no. Just plain old NO.

Now - I'm not going to do a full-fledged book review. I guess I’m going to rant for a second... or more.

I wonder when so many people (i.e. book banners) in this country are going to quit being afraid? And, what is it that they’re afraid of? Ideas! Discussion! Different Points of View!

I think that fear comes because deep down inside, those who try to ban books are terrified of the ideas in those books. Perhaps their fears are not so much that children’s minds will be tainted by these “filthy” books - but that those same children might have some new thoughts, might not be content to live life exactly as their book-banning parents would wish them to. And, maybe even more so, those book banners are afraid that their own thoughts won’t be able to stand against new ideas. Maybe they really don’t have enough blind faith to withstand a little new light being cast on it.

I have no patience with small-minded people who think that forcing their ideals and morals on others is a good or right thing. It is a scourge that threatens our very freedoms. If we become complacent and allow others to "fight the good fight" - we may find ourselves like Atwood’s main character, Offred. A woman without her own identity - a slave to a totalitarian government that does things “for your own good” - and one who is ritualistically raped in the hopes that there will be children born to carry on the ideals of the system.

While we may not find ourselves in the actual position of physical rape, we can be ritualistically, and repeatedly, frightened, bullied, and inundated with falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies. If we stay quiet against those lies, beware.

Our future, the future of our children and their children may well be a banned book away.

End of rant.

Buy banned books. Read banned books. Don’t let anyone tell you what is right for you or your children - make those (informed, please!) decisions yourself.

Even if you don’t agree with ideas expressed in a book - defend to the death the author’s right to write them!

Banned Book Week: To Kill a Mockingbird

All this week, the Leaguers are going to be celebrating banned books--not celebrating that books are banned, but celebrating reading banned books.

A little background: Banned Book Week is organized by ALA, and according to them:

Banned Books Week (BBW) is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States.

There's been a lot of controversy recently over banned books--spurring several book bloggers to have challenges to read a banned book, and new author Miriam Forster to create a Read a Banned Book website here, which includes essays by authors on the topic. And here at the League, we're going to celebrate by highlighting some of our favorite banned books this week.

I'm starting off with a classic:

This novel--the first and only one from Harper Lee--describes an unfair trial where a man is accused of a crime that he didn't commit based solely on his race. It's about a lot of other things, too--growing up, accepting others, not judging a book by its cover, learning about death and honor and pain.

It's a masterpiece.

And it's been banned in schools across the country.

Why? Language--there's a fair amount of use of the "n-word" (although this is coming from the racist accusers, not from the more civilized and fair people, drawing a contrast between ignorant hate and judicious citizens). The trial is based on rape, although rape isn't seen (and didn't actually happen).

But you know what? None of that is a reason for the book to be banned. Those are just excuses not reasons. The reason for the book to be banned is quite simply because some people didn't like it, and felt that should mean no one should read it.

Now, it may seem like this is an odd choice of a banned book for a dystopian/sci fi/spec fic nerd. But, you're forgetting about:

Pleasantville is an odd little movie. Two teens, brother and sister, get sucked into the fictional TV show Pleasantville, and old black and white classic where everything is--always--pleasant. But then things start to change...some of the people are colored.

Now, the show makes a play on black and white vs. color TV, but the implication is the same--you can see that as the black and white residents of Pleasantville start hanging "No Coloreds" signs up in their shop windows. And there's a trial, much like the trial in To Kill a Mockingbird, where the "coloreds" are forced to watch from the balcony while the black and whites get to sit on the ground.

In the movie, the way the black and white people become colored is by experiencing new things. It can be a sexual awakening, or standing up for what you believe in, or reaching for a dream, or discovering art. It comes from longing--longing for something beyond the expected norm, even if it isn't pleasant.

And, in the end, that's what Banned Book Week is about. There are books I don't like that have been banned--but I don't think they should be banned, nevertheless. I'm not Muslim, but I don't think the Qur'ran should be burned. I don't approve of hate, but I'm also not going to burn Thomas Dixon's The Clansman.

My attitude on Banned Books can be summed up best by Voltaire's words:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

In Pleasantville, the solution to prevent more "coloreds" is to take away the things that cause them to think outside the box--including books. In To Kill a Mockingbird, it is the ignorant that are the ones most filled with hate.

And that's a lesson for anyone, living in Pleasantville, the American South, Tatooine, Mars, or anywhere else.

I Wish...

Okay, for the record, I'm not the most patient person on the planet when it comes to driving. I want to go faster. I loathe the time I spend in the car, trying to get from one place to another. So I really wish someone would invent the whole transporter thing they use in Star Trek.

I mean, to be able to simply say your destination and be beamed there, purse and all? How awesome would that be? AWESOME.

Not to mention it would make my life so much easier. It would make so many things better. No oil, no gas, no car repairs, nothing along those lines.

I'm not much into hovercars (who needs a car when you can transport??) or anything like that. But some kind of teleporter/transporter? YES. I wish that technology existed today.

What do you wish we had now? How would it make your life easier? How would it change life as we know it?

It's thinking about this kind of stuff, and what kind of life/society it might produce that leads to amazing science fiction and dystopian works--like those super sweet transporters on Star Trek.

Genius.

Humanity and Technology: An Interview with ODYSSEY's Elizabeth Lindstrom

This month's issue of ODYSSEY, a science and science fiction magazine for tweens and teens, has a decidedly dystopian flavor. The theme is "Am I a Borg, Yet?" The short story for the issue is about "cyborgs with dangerous agendas." (How can you not love that?)

Elizabeth Lindstrom, the editor of ODYSSEY, has graciously allowed me to pick her brains about what she looks for in a story and what her readers like. I've had the pleasure of working with Beth on many occasions. In fact, my novel, MEMENTO NORA, grew out of a short story of the same name published in ODYSSEY several years ago.


So, first a little about Beth.

Elizabeth Lindstrom is a senior editor at Cobblestone Publishing, where she edits the award-winning children’s science magazine ODYSSEY. After graduating from University of New Hampshire with a master’s degree in English, she worked as a newspaper reporter and features writer. She is the recipient of the New England Press Association award for investigative reporting, the New Hampshire Press Association award for social services writing, and numerous Educational Press Association and Parents’ Choice awards. Before coming to Cobblestone, she taught non-fiction writing at Saint Anselm College.


Welcome, Beth. Tell us a little about ODYSSEY. Who are your readers?

ODYSSEY is a science and technology magazine aimed at kids 10 to 16 years old. It has an edgy tone and an artsy look. In reality, some precocious 8-year-olds read it, and I know a lot of adults who enjoy it too. But when planning the issue, I target a bright 12-year-old whose parents want him/her to be exposed to the real world. The magazine includes articles, activities, and interviews for science junkies, but it also includes soft science pieces, beautiful art, and fiction to lure those kids who might not otherwise pick up a science magazine. Our monthly fiction feature is only several years old, but it is very popular with readers.

What's your role?

I pretty much determine what you’re going to see and read in the pages of ODYSSEY each month and what will be on its cover. I select the theme each month, assign and edit the articles, do the photo research, and select the illustrators. I work with Jim Fletcher, a very talented designer.

What do you look for in a story?

I’ll list my criteria:

• Believable characters who are memorable and approachable even if they aren’t supposed to be likeable.
• Dialogue that really has a voice, one that is suitable for our readers.
• Threads of good science that anchor the story.
• A consistent setting – one that doesn’t leap into the future and then sound retro because of its details.
• A plot that is neither too light nor too dark.
  
• A meaning that lingers with a reader after they read the last line.

What have been some of the most popular themes, articles, and/or stories? In other words, what do your readers really love?

Well, the theme of our most popular issue of all time was “Poop – What a Waste!” I guess that’s not surprising because kids love yucky things. “Is It Science or Art” was also a very popular theme, which seems to counter what I just said. Issues on crime scene science, killer viruses, and extreme science are also winners. Einstein, Feynman, and Goodall were popular biographical-themed issues. I don’t have a sense of a particular story being especially popular. I get letters from readers saying they love to read the story in each issue and see how it is connected to the science in the same issue. I think that is great because it shows readers that there is a link between science and art.

What can we expect in the September (aka, Am I a Borg, Yet?) issue?

The issue is out. You can sample it on our Web site odysseymagazine.com. It includes both bionics for restoration and bionics for enhancement, and deals with the many ethical issues of a world filled with hybrid humans — when we are part flesh and part steel. How soon will it happen? Should it happen? The issue includes the story “Afterman” by Zareh MacPherson Artinian, which explores a dystopian world filled with cyborgs with dangerous agendas.

Why this theme?

As I said in my editor’s note for the issue, humanity and technology are right now, and will continue in readers’ lifetimes, forging a powerful new relationship. It is important that we consider this exciting leap very carefully. We can’t let being a cyborg seem too romantic. An article in the issue called “The Human Enhancement Revolution!” looks at what has been called “the most important controversy in science and society this new century.” "Am I Borg, Yet?" is definitely a good theme for ODYSSEY.


Thanks, Beth!

You can order an issue or a subscription of ODYSSEY here. If you're interested in writing for Odyssey, check out the submission guidelines.

Do You Concentrate on Your Strengths or Weaknesses?

I'm a fan of the Lee Child series of Jack Reacher books. For anyone who doesn't know them, they follow Jack Reacher, ex-military police officer and now a rootless drifter. In each book Jack comes to a town and gets embroiled in some intrigue. Jack is the smartest and toughest guy in the room. Stuff blows up. Women swoon. Jack moves on in the end. They are well written and reliably entertaining books.

Repetitive? Not as much as you'd think. Child makes it work. His prose is strong, the characters are involving, he clearly knows his main character and his world very well, and he is a master of creating constantly unfolding suspense. Reading Child's books, I think "here's someone who really knows himself as a writer." He knows his strengths and he plays to them extraordinarily well.

This got me thinking about my strengths and weaknesses as a writer. What are they? Well, I'm still figuring that out but if I had to say right now I'd say... I think I'm good at dealing with characters in depth and I'm pretty good at writing action scenes and have a bit of a descriptive flair. I think I'm good with tone. On the minus side? Well, despite my theatre background, long dialog scenes frustrate me. I feel like I write action better. I find that dealing with too many characters at once confuses me so I keep casts small. Also, whenever I've tried to be overly smart or clever in my writing I fail. I'm better at simplicity.

So let's say that's a fair assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. What do I do with this info? How should it affect what I do on a daily basis? Do I be like Lee Child and stick with what I know I do well? Or should I at some point write a dialog heavy, complex novel of ideas with a sprawling cast  because I should be challenging myself and trying to expand my horizons? Some mix of these things?

It seems to me that there is honor in either choice. Being resolutely who you are or pushing yourself into uncomfortable territory to try and grow.

What do you guys think? First, I'd love to know what you all feel are your strengths and weaknesses and then where you fall on the continuum of A) know yourself and do what you do consistently well or B) purposefully throw yourself into your weaknesses in an attempt to grow, even if you fail?