2007-12-10 14:28:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Because it was inapropriate for 7th graders to read that vulgarity... and be exposed to the harshness of the times which Steinbeck wrote about..I had to read it in 7th grade, I still think he is a marginal writer and his vulgarity was a popular way to rebel in the 60's and 70's...
I think older teens might be better suited to deal with it's realities... "Here comes ****** Jim" was and is a much better book to expose children of that age to, but because of the title, it's not allowed... Clemens, an avid civil rights supporter and abolishionist might have done better to call it "Here comes ***** Jim". But that would have been dishonest...
2007-12-10 14:31:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book...if so, considering the time and politics within publishing/media conglomorites...YES, absolutely...to some degree.
A Catcher in the Rye was far more dangerous...and that got out on paper.
2007-12-10 22:32:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. So was Tom Sawyer, and I think To kill a mockingbird was also. Why should any book be censored, if you find one that you don't like, then don't read it.
2007-12-10 22:32:02 · answer #3 · answered by johN p. aka-Hey you. 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Profanity. Also maybe the way Lenny is killed at the end.
2007-12-10 22:30:56 · answer #4 · answered by Silly Sally 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cuz a black had sex wit a white chick
2007-12-10 22:31:32 · answer #5 · answered by Dave 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋