Banned Books?

Question

I personnally don't understand banned books in public schools, with the exception of books like Madonna's "Sex". Books like the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye are considered great literary works but are often challenged. Others like the Bridge to Terabithia and the Harry Potter series help with increasing not only imagination but the interest of reading. Without books being allowed to explore fantasy people can't learn to "think outside the box." I don't believe books should be banned execpt for sexual content or explicit language (in which case banned only from elementary and middle schools). What do you think?

Books the books that i have mentioned mainly Huck Finn and Catcher in the Rye are still being challenged to this day... so it is no longer a question of the times, we should be above the prejudice and the censorship considering what is seen on the news these days.

for more info on the most challenged books visit http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/top100challenged.htm

Answer 1

If people are going to read, then it is almost certain they will eventually encounter thoughts which "challenge" their world-view. [d-0H!]

Experiencing this in a school-setting can make the experience less upsetting, in that people can come to realize that other people/students are going thru the same sort of thing, and that this is 'part of life'.

If anything, this can be exceptionally good preparation for "life in the world". ((and where else are you going to live ? LOLOL ))

In that sense, I feel it's good to challenge students. The "world" will challenge them whether they are prepared or not.

Answer 2

Some of the book bannings are really ridiculous, I was looking at a list of some banned picture books the other day. I think at the elementary level, it's acceptable to censor some things, but I think people have gone way overboard there. And I don't think that there are very many books meant for children that need to be censored, so as long as a teacher isn't letting their kids read trashy romance novels or mein kampf before they're old enough to seperate these things from their own minds, they're probably going to be fine.

I think by high school, really, you shouldn't be censoring books. High school kids are at an age where they should be able to think objectively and form their own opinions. Often, the books that are censored are censored for getting a little too close to the truth-- for instance, some historic books are banned for racist content, but you can't pretend that racism hasn't been present throughout history.

And books like the Catcher in the Rye and The Bell jar are getting banned because people are afraid the students will identify with the main characters-- honestly, if you can't seperate yourself from the characters in a book, you're probably not any too stable in the first place. And denying that people are ever going to be self absorbed and self destructive like the characters in these books only makes you seem niave and unrealistic.

Answer 3

It's important in this kind of discussion to carefully define your terms. Many people automatically say "books should NOT be banned, that' censorship.... what about the first amendment?' Those are all valid concerns, but they are not necessarily what's going on whenever someone raises the "that's censorship!" cry. Suppose we're talking about (for example): a) the decision of a school library to purchase a particular book (and therefore NOT another, since budgets require them to pick and choose) or b) a teacher's decision to require the reading of a particular book for 8th grade English If a number of parents object to the contents and 'message' of this particular book and express their concerns, and the decision is subsequently made NOT to buy this book, or not to make it required reading... is that actually "banning" the book? (And it is certainly not book BURNING, as one answer seems to suggest.) Now, let's suppose a public school class made the Bible (not just a chapter of two but the whole, or let's say, the entire New Testament) required reading? If some people raised some objections to this would you call THAT "banning" the Bible? Probably not (I'm sure the ACLU, great champions of freedom that they are, would fight for the Bible-readers.. don't you think? Not!) Consider that a) the first amendment right to free EXPRESSION, does not carry with it a requirement on anyone to purchase or read your work! (If a publisher decides not to print a particular book is that "book banning"? Maybe it's a reasonable business decision!) b) that choosing NOT to read, stock or require a book is not automatically "censorship". Even more than that NOT choosing the book.... need not be censorship. (I wrote it that way deliberately -- in some instances we specifically choose that we will not do something, in others we simply don't make the choice for it, perhaps because we chose something else instead) c) that "censoring" a book or MOVIE (R-rated, X-rated), let's see --that is, deciding not to make it easily available, esp. to minors, is not quite the same as completely "banning" it, much less removing someone's "free expression" rights I have a strong suspicion, most who have answered this question do not yet have children.... they may find themselves thinking this all through a bit more thoroughly in a few years. . . --------------------- I'm afraid your second question is not at all clear. I'll guess that you are asking something like -- doesn't SOMEONE have to read them first to even talk about 'banning' them? The obvious answer is yes... though if the kind of "banning" we're talking about is something like what I described above, it would NOT be an 'absolute ban' on the book, etc. So there really isn't a problem. But perhaps you are thinking about the problem of someone's objecting to a book being used in their children's school, though THEY have not read the book. Of course, in that case, it is quite possible wrong ideas about the book will spread, and it will be evaluated unfairly. That's a legitimate concern, and we should certainly seek to have such decisions be well-informed... but do consider: a) not EVERY person must read a WHOLE book to have some idea whether it will be suitable for, e.g., a junior high English class b) we can not and do not stock EVERY book printed (your public school library is no the Library of Congress!). And so we have to evaluate and make decisions about which books to buy, and which not to. That usually means a book has to EARN the right to be considered. IOW, there must be good reasons for GETTING it. (Some complaints about "banning" assume that a book should automatically be bought, etc., UNLESS there are clear strong objections to it. That MAY very well apply to restricting someone's freedom of expression, but it is NOT how we want to choose what WE will buy, give to our children, etc.)

Answer 4

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but surely you can understand the reasoning behind banning literature. Although Huckelberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye seem appropriate for our times they weren't appropriate for the times they were written in; which is exactly why we consider them great books, because they were "written before their times". Presently we would accept such books but in the past, individuals thought Finn and Catcher not only would set a bad example for children of that time period but were too sexual for the children. It's the same reason why you don't see individuals wearing bikinis in the 1800s or people wearing tuxes during the 1600s, it simply wasn't appropriate for the norms of the time period.

Books like Harry Potter defy what religious fundamentalists promote such as how HP believes in witchcraft etc. etc. I'm not advocating any of this (I certainly believe it's wrong) but you can surely understand that different people have different ideals and norms and when other people invade their norms they block out foreign opinions. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of what individuals are comfortable and exposed to in the first place.

Answer 5

I think you are right on target. I think that we should protect our children, and keep them rom things that do not benefit them. I feel that there is absolutely no reason why a sexually explicit book is in any pre-12th grade classroom in this country. I do not believe in banning books however, just because a message hits too close to home. I think that once we start determining what art is, we have some serious problems.

Answer 6

I agree with you 100%.

I hated reading until i read harry potter and now i love reading! Banning books is wrong. If a kid wants to read instead of video games then incourage it!!

Answer 7

The people who ban these books have narrow, prejudiced minds. Unfortunately they sometimes get to be in charge

Answer 8

I agree but there are a lot of people with stupid opinions out there and people listen to them and feed them. I find it quite ridiculous because most of them are works of fiction and for fun, just like movies.

Answer 9

i agree with whole heartedly u make a great point

Answer 10

totally ,your on the ball