With the popular success of "Fifty Shades of Grey,"
I would have thought the issues of banned books were a problem of the past. Not so.
Did you know Suzanne Collins's popular "Hunger Games" trilogy was
challenged last year? Why? Reasons: anti-ethnic; anti-family;
insensitivity; offensive language; occult/satanic; violence. Though I haven't read it, yet, I've loaded
the book on my Kindle, and recently saw the movie. And, unless the book is hugely different from
the movie, I don't recall any occult or Satan worship taking place. Violence?
Yeah, okay, maybe.
In 2010 Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" was
challenged. Why? Reasons: religious viewpoint and violence. Well, the story does involve vampires, which
are fictional creatures of the night who, according to some legends, have been
abandoned by God, so perhaps some readers might take exception to the subject
matter. But why ban the book?
"A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed
with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of
content or appropriateness. It is an
attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person
or group. A banning is the removal of those materials."
"Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point
of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or
library, thereby restricting the access of others. As such, they are a threat
to freedom of speech and choice."
I fully support the need to protect the innocence of
children, which is admittedly difficult in today's culture where nothing is
considered "off limits" or "private." Not even the Duchess of Cambridge's attempt
to sunbathe privately. So, perhaps
certain books should only be made available to young, inquisitive minds with
their parents' permission. I'm not
certain how best to handle the problem, I just know that book banning to me
equates to the book burning that took place in the novel "Fahrenheit 451". An activity I consider criminally offensive.
I write sexy, spicy and erotic books, so I am not a proponent of
censorship in any form. Even so, I wouldn't
want anyone under 18 picking up and reading one of my books if their parents
didn't approve. If the person is
eighteen or older, I consider them old-enough to make their own decisions as to
what they like to read.
So, what I personally intend to do is read at least one of
the banned books in protest. And I
sincerely hope you do the same.
For more information on Banned Book Week, please visit:
Banning books is a direct violation of free speech, as far as I'm concerned, but somehow, it keeps happening here and there throughout the country. When I read some of the classics of literature, I am often amazed at the political incorrectness shown therein. But you know what? That was appropriate for the time, and being exposed to it is not going to make a child become evil. It will make him/her think. It can open a discussion among classmates and with parents. This is a valuable outcome. Thank you for pointing out Banned Books Week, Kathryn.
ReplyDeleteTrish, thanks so much for commenting. Yes, as an example both Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn would definitely be considered politically incorrect today, which is primarily why they are still on the list of banned books. However, Mark Twain's humor was intended to point out the inequality occurring in our society, not promote it.
DeleteAs you said, reading alone would never turn a child to evil, and these books could promote discussions with teachers, classmates and parents, but not if parents strongly object to the book's content. Then all the child sees is their parents' disgust as the adults engage in a battle of wills.
However, where there's a will, there's a way (Ooh, write that down--bet no one's ever thought of that before). And the quickest way to get a child to do something is to forbid it. Banning a book gives it the allure of prohibition, and we all know how well that turned out.
I'm with you 100%. Banning books is a form of censorship, which is intended to limit free speech for the protection of others. Unfortunately, such limitations give an imperfect or warped window into reality. Just like we all know that husbands and wives sleep in separate twin beds while always keeping one foot on the floor. Right. Yet, that's what television's standards and practices (the censors) insisted on back in the 50s.
If we ban something, we are blocking our minds and thoughts to different perspectives. In short, we are going through life wearing blinders. Unfortunate, but not a crime. The crime occurs when we insist others do the same. And I, for one, refuse to wear blinders.
I may choose to don a pair of rose colored glasses occasionally, but I would never insist you do the same. Simply put, I don't have that right.
Thanks for posting.