Banning Reality

The ALA lists of frequently challenged books fascinate me—as do the reasons people cite in their objections. Take the Top 10 Challenged Books for 2010:

1. And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson; 
2. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie; 
3. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley; 
4. Crank, by Ellen Hopkins; 
5. The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins;  
6. Lush, by Natasha Friend; 
7. What My Mother Doesn't Know, by Sonya Sones; 
8. Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich; 
9. Revolutionary Voices, edited by Amy Sonnie; 
10. Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer

Most of these have been challenged for violence, language, drug references, or sexuality. [ALA has graphs of challenges by year, reason, initiator, etc. for the last twenty years.]

However, the one that really surprised me was #8: Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. This book is nonfiction—and about real life experiences of the working poor.  The author spends a year doing a series of minimum-to-low wage jobs. She starts from scratch with each experience, not using any of her own comfortably middle-class resources. Morgan Spurlock did the same thing on his show 30 Days—for 30 days. Ehrenreich did it for a year, and she worked in different areas of the country and at different types of jobs. She waited tables, cleaned hotel rooms, emptied bedpans at a nursing home, and worked at Walmart.   Nickel and Dimed is the story of her experience—and those of the people she meets along the way.

Many schools use this book in personal finance / getting ready for the real world kind of courses. So why has this been challenged? How could one object to the lives of waitresses and Walmart cashiers? Well, one of the challenges cited "book's profanity, offensive references to Christianity, and biased portrayal of capitalism."  Another complained that the book promoted socialism.  [Marshall University libraries did a nice breakdown of challenges for each book.]

I can understand objecting to profanity. (This book was intended for an adult audience, after all.) I don’t remember if/how she criticized Christianity in the book, so I can’t comment on that.  But a biased portrayal of capitalism? Promoting socialism?

What Nickel and Dimed promotes is empathy. The author finds out, for instance, that it’s nearly impossible on a diner waitress’ salary to save up enough for first and last month’s rent plus a security deposit (not to mention utilities). This is why most of her co-workers lived in a motel, something which she didn’t think made economic sense until she was in that situation.  Or, as the author writes on her blog:

A Florida woman wrote to tell me that, before reading it, she’d always been annoyed at the poor for what she saw as their self-inflicted obesity. Now she understood that a healthy diet wasn’t always an option.

This is one of those books (imho) that everyone should read, regardless of political viewpoint or economic status. Or age.

What do you guys think? Are political and/or economic viewpoints valid reasons for challenging books? [Not that I think any reasons are truly valid. Maybe reasonable is the right word. Maybe.]

Banned Book Week: A Wrinkle In Time

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I didn't read this book until last summer. I know, I know. Don't throw Coke cans. I had no idea it was one of the most challenged books from 1990 - 2000. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why.

So I did some research. Here's what I found:

“Wrinkle in Time” by Madeleine L’Engle, winner of a Newbery Award, was challenged at a Polk City, Florida elementary school (1985) by a parent who believed that the story “promotes witchcraft, crystal balls and demons.” It was challenged in the Anniston, Alabama schools (1990) because of the book’s listing the name of Jesus Christ together with the names of great artists, philosophers, scientists and religious leaders when referring to those who defend earth against evil. It has been challenged for “sending a mixed signal about good and evil.”

This fascinates me. I'll admit that I rarely read for more than pleasure, and I actually enjoy books that make me examine my own views about good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I believe books can provide a safe place for such exploratory thoughts to begin.

A few words about censorship of books. I do believe that parents have the right to shield their children from anything they believe their child isn't ready to see/read/hear/taste. I work with 800 different kids on a weekly basis. Some of them can handle what others cannot. Parents have the right to screen the entertainment their children are exposed to, including books.

That said, I do not believe those same parents should be able to tell me what my children can or cannot be exposed to. I should get to make that decision myself, using my own belief system, my own set of values.

And that's where the line blurs.

I read A Wrinkle in Time and loved it. The crystal balls that are supposed to signify witchcraft. The time travel. The mixing of the name of Jesus Christ in with artists. I didn't even give it a second thought.

It's a great story. I passed it along to my 12-year-old. He read it. I don't think it shook his religious foundation. I don't think it made him question the line between good and evil.

But if it did, wouldn't that be a great way for us to have a conversation about what we believe? About what we believe to be wrong and what we believe to be right?

And anything that can get kids talking to their parents is a win in my book. And to me, that's what banned book week is about: The courage to have hard, gut-wrenching conversations with your children. Or within yourself.

The great thing about using books to do this is the situation feels removed. It's not something that happened to you, or to them. It could. But it didn't. And that allows for conversation, reflection, and evaluation of one's life.

That's why I celebrate banned book week.

What about you? Have you read a book that opened up a conversation with someone? What book? Have you read something that made you stop and examine something in your life? A belief?

And aren't those good things?

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 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!