Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Henry | January 15, 2009 at 9:42 am

   If parts of the book are so bad that they cannot be printed in the local newspaper, the book should not be assigned to students. I think teachers are wrong when they expose children to vice in order to help them to grow. That’s not the point of literature.

   Reading Huck Finn in the 20th century is a lot different from reading Huck Finn in the 21st century.
2. heatherfroeschl | January 15, 2009 at 10:42 am

   Who though, is to decide if parts of a book are “so bad”? I do not believe that it is up to a group of parents that band together in protest of a book at their child’s school to try to ban a particular book from every student at that school. They likely wouldn’t want me trying to stop their child from having access to a particular book that I feel is offensive. I am thankful that the ALA steps in and keeps track of such books so that those who want us to have free choice are aware.

   What IS the point of literature? Who is to decide what any one person gains from a book? I do not believe that the reason my teachers assigned such books to me and my classmates was to expose us to vice so that we can grow but rather to witness the classic authors of our time. Other than that, what we gained from the experience was an individual thing.

   Absolutely, reading Huck Finn is different today than it was when it was published. And that is precisely the reason (I feel) to read it. It is a prime example of how things have changed in society, thankfully. There are other reasons to read the book, all just as valid, such as a study in writing style, being exposed to the (I feel) great writer, and much more.

   Thanks for the comment Henry. I love a lively conversation.
3. faydawy | January 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm

   This is simply the government telling people what to think! In a free society ALL points of view should be heard. In today’s society there is racism, homosexuality, sexual explicitness from teenagers – just look at MTv for that! At least if the kids are reading they are using their minds, not just glued to a passive information transmitter!
4. Dana | January 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm

   I see both sides. There is definitely a need to stock books in the school library based on age group. For example, your elementery school is definitely going to have different books than a middle school and a high school. And as a parent, there are probably some books I would rather my child not read. However, I’m not sure who should make that decision for the whole school system or how strigent they should be. For the most part, I believe our children are a lot smarter than we give them credit and they can handle more than we know.

   I would support a school not carrying certain books, but I would not support an outright ban. For example, if a teacher wants a report, but doesn’t assign a particular book, then the student should be free to pick any book even if it’s not in their school library.

   There are millions of excellent books out there, and we can read only so many. My concern wouldn’t be that they weren’t reading certain books, but that the students are learning from the books that they do read. If you never change the cirrculim… then you could be missing other great writings. It is not a necessity to stick to the ‘old dead white guy canon’.
5. HCS | January 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm

   I am with Heather on this one. You can take away so many different things from a book that I hate that the youth in our culture are actually banned from reading certain ones (in school that is).

   I for one would be thrilled if my child showed enthusiasm to read great books even if there might be some “adult content”…of course if she’s in the 3rd grade, maybe not. But middle and high school?? It’s not gonna be anything she hasn’t already heard.
6. Annie | January 16, 2009 at 9:22 am

   Readers are born free and ought to remain free! Nabokov via Azar Nafisi, author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, which all potential censors should read.

   While I absolutely support of the right of anyone to read anything (even children do all right reading widely, even if it is junk sometimes), I am dismayed by how often schools are not teaching the great works of literature, but instead ephemeral popular reads. Looks like from the initial post that they might not even be reading Jurrasic Park now.

   Reality and Fiction will only survive if we read widely — again I’m paraphrasing Nafisi.
   Conrad wrote, Death to the brutes. I think we will have a hard time identifying the brutes if we don’t read sensitive and complex works of literature.
   This list of banned books doesn’t encompass the real issue b/c these are topical books about ephemeral subjects. The real issue is that no one is really reading Huck Finn and libraries are turning into the movie rental/internet providers.

   Thanks for the interesting read.
7. Emma | January 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm

   Interesting that Shakespeare is the only work she’s been specifically assigned. I mean, talk about dirty! The only reason Shakespeare isn’t more frequently challenged is that people can’t easily glance through one of his plays looking for words that offend them. That’s my problem with Henry’s argument: works of literature must be evaluated as wholes. A sex scene that might be inappropriate printed on its own in the newspaper might be essential in the context of a given novel/play/memoir. Of course I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings contains sexually explicit material–it’s (in part) about rape!

   Are there books that are inappropriate for students? Clearly. I have a friend who read Portnoy’s Complaint in the seventh grade (we’re both undergrads now.) That probably wasn’t the best choice for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds, not because it’s sexually explicit (it is) but because the vast majority of tweens are too young to grasp the subject matter.

   But that’s a pedagogical question, not a moral one.
8. TJ | January 16, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   “If parts of the book are so bad that they cannot be printed in the local newspaper, the book should not be assigned to students.”

   The “bad” parts of Lee Smith’s Fair and Tender Ladies were, in fact, printed in a regional newspaper, and the book was banned in one county (and kept in another).

   I agree with Emma that literature must be examined holistically. One county in which I’ve taught has what I feel is a great system for novel challenges: the parent must prove that he or she has actually read the book before making the case for a ban. Interestingly enough, zero challenges had ever been brought to the board, because this step was a lot more difficult than mindlessly highlighting cuss words and raising hell about moral corruption.
9. Jessica | January 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm

   What I find so strange about book banning is that the majority of time it is over sexuality. 8 out of 10 books on that list had at least part of their banning due to sexual content. What exactly are we trying to protect the children and YA from?

   Their own bodies?

   Good luck.
10. HCS | January 22, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Indeed. Let’s face it, there is no way a 6 year old would ever pick up any of these banned or controversial books on their own and I don’t see a 3rd grade teacher assigning them to read either, it’s much too big with little words and no pictures…a kid that would be reading any of these would be at least in middle school and let’s face it while they might not be mature enough to grasp the importance of the “bad” part of the book and maybe they will even giggle, but ban the book?? I’m not convinced…
11. heatherfroeschl | January 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    From a speech “Literacy and Education in a 21st-Century Economy”
    by Barack Obama, in June 2005,”When political groups try to censor great works of literature, you’re (librarians) the ones putting Huck Finn and Catcher in the Rye back on the shelves, making sure that our right to free thought and free information is protected. And ever since we’ve had to worry about our own government looking over our shoulders in the library, you’ve been there to stand up and speak out on privacy issues. You’re full-time defenders of the most fundamental American liberties, and for that, you deserve America’s deepest gratitude.”