Banned books week started on Sept. 24 and you can read all about it here.
[ September 29, 2005, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Most of my favorite YA writers are on that list...Lowry, Dahl, Rowling, L'Engle... Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Some of the books on the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books List amaze me. I can't even think of the possible problems with The Giver , Bridge to Terabithia, The Face on the Milk Carton , and a couple of others.
I love to read banned books. Often I find they're some of the best reading lists that exist. If it's just smut than few will bother with it. If a lot of people go through the effort of banning it, it's probably because it was pretty powerful. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think it's sad that any books are challenged and/or banned. But it's even more depressing to see books like I know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men are in the top ten. (I love Harry Potter too.) Come on people, these are literary classics!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I wonder if the complaints aren't more geared toward elementary-middle school libraries. Yeah, those are literary classics, but I can see (even if I don't necessarily agree with) the logic of holding off until high school (when students are eversoslightly mature enough to handle the content).
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
According to the ALA Website:
quote: Throughout history, more and different kinds of people and groups of all persuasions than you might first suppose, who, for all sorts of reasons, have attempted—and continue to attempt—to suppress anything that conflicts with or anyone who disagrees with their own beliefs.
In his book Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, Nat Hentoff writes that “the lust to suppress can come from any direction.” He quotes Phil Kerby, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, as saying, “Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second.”
According to the The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, Challenges by Initiator, Institution, Type, and Year, parents challenge materials more often than any other group. See Background Information, below.
So, yes probably that is the reason for the challenges. However, the list is assembled from books challenged not just in schools but all libraries across the nations. It makes me sad though. My parents encouraged me to read. There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in, and I think I'm a better, more well rounded person for it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in
Your parents were book banners. The audacity, to tell someone else what they shouldn't read. Who are they to say what are "otherwise inappropriate materials" (Just trying to stoke the fire a little).
As a teenager I wore a shirt that said "Celebrate Freedom, read a a banned book." As a curmudgeonly adult, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that parents are challenging offensive books from being included in public (particularly school) libraries.
I mean someone at a library is in charge of acquisitions, right? And that person or group of people filter what comes into the library, right? There's censorship inherent in the system. The ALA's stance against "banning" books is equivalent to them saying, "We've decided what to ban and what not. Don't disagree with us."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Now I'm all for not banning books but there are certain occurences when I feel like a certain book was a bad choice for the age group and contained scenes (such as rape) that maybe early or pre-teens would be somewhat unsettled by. I know my mother has faced teachers over what she does and does not want my sister to read and I supported her in that particular instance; in this case it was a little like The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, where the teacher seemed to feel he was in the business of putting old heads on young shoulders. So I suppose I support "banning" (removing from being taught in that particualar class) books "unsuited to age group."
There have been other times where I have seen teen books in the children's section and have wanted to move them because I don't feel that they belong there either merely from complexity or because of content.
As a child, I read a lot of what I never would have read had my mother known the content. In fact, until very recently she insisted on getting me Historical Fiction because she thought it was safer (than Sci Fi and Fantasy, which was what I would put on my Christmas lists every year which is totally untrue if you've read much Historical Fiction, especially the adult stuff). I read lots of racy stuff by myself. Not on purpose but because some of the books I picked up from the teen or adult sections had "bits" in. However, I understand that a child or a young teen picking up a book by himself or herself is different from it being taught in school or given by a parent.
Children should not be restricted from these books but in an official position, such as school, they should read books in class that are suited to their age group. There are plenty of complex and challenging books that deal with difficult issues that are not unsuited to younger children.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I just bought a banned book last night - A Clockwork Orange
I agree with the opinion that there is a difference between banning a book and removing it from the curriculum or changing the category it is listed under.
While banning books in a public library should never be allowed, it is unfortunate that there are many people that just aren't capable or mature enough to completely understand what they are reading. The first type of example that comes to my mind is books relating to the promotion of white power and Nazi propaganda. It is obviously unwise to prevent people's opinions from being voiced, but many people are fooled into incorrect thinking because of these types of books. So it's very tough to draw the line between limiting free thinking and protecting the best interests of society.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I won't let my daughter read the Captain Underpants books. And exactly for the reasons given for the banning. But I wouldn't try to ban the books from a library.
The Face on the Milk Carton? What's to ban there?
And I was surprised not to see Nancy Garden's Annie On My Mind on the list. Great book.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: The ALA's stance against "banning" books is equivalent to them saying, "We've decided what to ban and what not. Don't disagree with us."
Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
I don't have a problem with asking a library or the ALA to change which section a book may appear under like moving it from Children to YA etc. It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The list is largely books of literary merit. I don't think that there is any out right smut and pornography on the list.
My public library doesn't have out right smut and pornaography either.
Neither does the Library of Congress.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Anyone know why The Giver has been banned? It's one of my favorite books that I've ever read.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Pure BS in my opinion. It is a truly wondeful book. Basically if a book makes kids think outside the box, people want it banned.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Somewhere in Oklahoma (no city given), a parent objected to the novel's use of terms such as "clairvoyance," "transcendent," and "guided imagery," because these are "all occult New Age practices the Bible tells us to avoid."
Wouldn't it be swell to have libraries that only had the Bible on their shelves? Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I've been looking through the list, seeing many familiar titles but some completely unfamiliar.
Some of them are guides/educational books. One of them is for young girls about puberty. What's Happening To My Body? and I found the amazon comments pretty interesting. I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
But my point is these are two different things. "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves. Libraries don't stock 1% of all published material. They're already "banning" most published books from their shelves. I still think that all the ALA is doing is saying with their opposition to book banning is, "don't question what we librarians decide to stock." Or, perhaps more acurately, "we oppose anyone trying to second guess our choice of which books to put on the shelves of your library."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
Pure BS in my opinion. It is a truly wondeful book. Basically if a book makes kids think outside the box, people want it banned.
I don't know. In my town The Giver very much encouraged thinking inside the box. It was given to us and we were supposed to agree with it and that was that. It wasn't until I reread it in college that I realized that it was entirely possible for me to prefer the world that Jonas left. As far as I can tell most people do agree with it, which is fine, but certainly isn't an example of teaching people to think outside the box.
Personally I think that OSC's The Worthing Saga and Ursula K Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" both do a much better job of getting the same point across.
Not that I support it being banned at all, I read it in fifth grade and found it entirely age appropriate. I'm just contesting the "making kids think outside the box" bit.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
You are somewhat misrepresenting the comments. This woman may be overreacting strongly but most of the comments say that some of the books content is a little strong for pre-teens. Yes, I had books with drawings of naked adults as a child but they were pretty mundane and straight forward tales about how babies were made.
I can see that maybe this book is more suitible for ages 12 and 13 or up when things like STDs (hopefully should) actually become an issue. Until then, it's perfectly acceptable to want your child to percieve sex as something that adults do.
I'm not saying that sex should be a mystery and that adolescence should be either, just that perhaps this particular book is geared towards slightly older girls.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Shrug. I saw a lot of positive comments from people who read it when they were 9-10 and thought it useful and appropriate for them.
Most of the comments say that it's a great book for the age range (the avg being 4 stars I think).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Somewhere in Oklahoma (no city given), a parent objected to the novel's use of terms such as "clairvoyance," "transcendent," and "guided imagery," because these are "all occult New Age practices the Bible tells us to avoid."
Wouldn't it be swell to have libraries that only had the Bible on their shelves?
Ah, but which Bibles. Can I ban the treifer sefer?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote: I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
You are somewhat misrepresenting the comments. This woman may be overreacting strongly but most of the comments say that some of the books content is a little strong for pre-teens. Yes, I had books with drawings of naked adults as a child but they were pretty mundane and straight forward tales about how babies were made.
I can see that maybe this book is more suitible for ages 12 and 13 or up when things like STDs (hopefully should) actually become an issue. Until then, it's perfectly acceptable to want your child to percieve sex as something that adults do.
I'm not saying that sex should be a mystery and that adolescence should be either, just that perhaps this particular book is geared towards slightly older girls.
It isn't censorship when a parent decides what their child can read.
Lisa
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Shrug. I saw a lot of positive comments from people who read it when they were 9-10 and thought it useful and appropriate for them.
Most of the comments say that it's a great book for the age range (the avg being 4 stars I think).
Define "it".
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: I'm going by the average child here. I'm sure there are some kids who would be fine with it. I could have. I know lots of other people who would have not been. Others would not. But for an age guideline, I'm not sure 9 is appropriate.
Anyway, starLisa's right, this isn't about censorship, this is about parental decision.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
it = the book we're talking about.
censorship = not a word I mentioned.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: it = the book we're talking about.
Aren't we talking about several books?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves.
The outcome is the same for that particular book, though.
I am for families or people monitoring themselves. If a child is so young that the parent doesn't want them exposed to certain literature, then the answer is easy, just don't checkout the book for them. Don't buy it for them.
If you're worried about your child getting the book on their own behind your back, then you're screwed. Unless you ban the book everywhere, she's going to get it.
While I understand that some things make some people uncomfortable, the belief that exposure to certain things 'before the time is right' can corrupt children, I question this logic.
It's either through experience or strict conditioning that people understand whether something is right or wrong. If someone never has the experience that tells them that something is wrong, then when will they ever?
If it is proposed that more time to condition a child to automatically see something as right or wrong is what's needed, I wonder what age people think children will believe without question what they have been taught? If the parent is a good teacher, what is the age? If the parent is a cursory or bad teacher, will they ever? What about genetics? Isn't it true that some people are just naturally more rebellious and curious than others, and therefore all the social conditioning in the world isn't going to work? I think so.
Banning books, therefore, seems to me to be impractical and unworkable.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
starLisa: my first post in this thread was talking about a specific book I found on the challenges list, with a link to Amazon. Teshi and I were discussing comments that parents have made with regards to that book.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves.
The outcome is the same for that particular book, though.
No, it's not in my opinion. If the government removed all avenues of acess for a book, then it would be a first amendment violation. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that a citizen shall have free access to whatever literature they want at a public library.
If a library chooses to stock or not stock a book, it shouldn't be referred to as "banning." It's just a choice about what's in the library; one which librarians want to have exclusive control over.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
When my kids were in junior high, I had read The Giver and loved it, and asked the school librarian about getting it for the school (I offered to purchase it for the school).
She exploded on me and said, "That is a horrible book! I will never have it in my library as long as I'm here!"
Totally shocked and confused me, because I wasn't expecting that reaction, and at the time could not understand why anyone would not like that book.
:shrug
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The point of Banned Books week, at least to my understanding is this.
Some of the most repressive dictatorships in the worlds history had the policy of banning books. Two examples within the last century are the Nazi party in Germany who actually burned the books they didn't want people reading, and the government of South Africa prior to the fall of apartheid who banned books, music, television shows and anything else they thought might give the people they governed the idea that there might be a better system.
Freedom to read books, any books is a freedom that should always be cherished. One of the reasons that I find banning books so appalling is that essentially we are asking for the removal of our freedoms when we do it. Any historian will tell you that once you give up a freedom or liberty it is much harder to get it back.
Parents absolutely have the right to determine what their children should be allowed to read, but only their children. One set of parents may have a completely different idea of what is appropriate from another. Rather than asking libraries to take certain works off the shelves, parents should take an active roll in what their children are reading. Go with them to the public library, and if the local school has books in its library that you don't want your child reading, ask the school if there couldn't be a way for parents to make a list of books that their child not be allowed to take out. Most school libraries are computerized now so it shouldn't be too hard to incorporate that into the database. That way the books are available to children whose parents don't object but children whose parents disapprove of them can continue to make that determination.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: No, it's not in my opinion. If the government removed all avenues of acess for a book, then it would be a first amendment violation. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that a citizen shall have free access to whatever literature they want at a public library.
Pardon, I should have said for that particular book at that particular library for that particular community.
However...
quote: If a library chooses to stock or not stock a book, it shouldn't be referred to as "banning." It's just a choice about what's in the library; one which librarians want to have exclusive control over.
They're just going to get the idea on their own, eh? Let's be honest, if it's 'not stocked at one library', chances are excellent it's not going to be stocked at other libraries or other bookstores because the same groups are going to have the same concerns regardless of where it's stocked.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
But my point is these are two different things. "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves. Libraries don't stock 1% of all published material. They're already "banning" most published books from their shelves. I still think that all the ALA is doing is saying with their opposition to book banning is, "don't question what we librarians decide to stock." Or, perhaps more acurately, "we oppose anyone trying to second guess our choice of which books to put on the shelves of your library."
You're corrupting the language to make your point. "Banning" is not the same as deciding what you will order and stock on the shelves when there are limits to the amount of shelf space and resources for buying books. "Banning" a book would not mean just not stocking it in the first place, but also refusing to stock it even when requested, or pushing to make it unavailable even to those who do want this.
Additionally, I'm fairly certain the ALA doesn't tell librarians what they can and can't stock. They probably do give guidance, but that is also probably based on book popularity and critical acclaim more than some bizzare attempt to control public access to specific books.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My hometown of Spanish Fork has a fairly small library that contains what I consider to be a thin selection of the books I like to read. The libraries in Provo and Orem, and the BYU library, all have a much better selection of books. I would say that the Spanish Fork library does tend to be pretty conservative in the books they select, but overall I think it's mainly a matter of space and budget.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The point of Banned Books week, at least to my understanding is this.
Some of the most repressive dictatorships in the worlds history had the policy of banning books. Two examples within the last century are the Nazi party in Germany who actually burned the books they didn't want people reading, and the government of South Africa prior to the fall of apartheid who banned books, music, television shows and anything else they thought might give the people they governed the idea that there might be a better system.
You missed the Soviet Union and Communist China, both significantly more dedicated to censorship than either Nazi Germany or Apartheid SA, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Rather than asking libraries to take certain works off the shelves, parents should take an active roll in what their children are reading.
Of course, I could do both. The point is that in requesting the library remove a book from its shelves, I'm not infringing on your right to read it. Go to a bookstore and buy it. Borrow it from a friend. Go to another library that does stock it. You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
The whole issue of "banning" books is rhetoric, meant to elicit a knee-jerk comparison with Nazi Germany. Asking a library to remove a book is essentially nothing like state-sponsored book burning. The one is a violation of freedom of speech. The other isn't.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: Of course, I could do both. The point is that in requesting the library remove a book from its shelves, I'm not infringing on your right to read it. Go to a bookstore and buy it. Borrow it from a friend. Go to another library that does stock it. You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
No, you're right, but I do have the right to read that book. In telling me to go and buy it, you are assuming that I have enough money to do so. Perhaps, I am someone who can't afford to purchase books, and I utilize the library as my only outlet. Maybe none of my friends own the book so I can't borrow it. And just maybe the only other library is far enough away that I can't get to it. Maybe it requires three bus transfers and I don't have the money.
In addition, the vast majority of public libraries are funded by their local governments which means that by asking to have a book banned you are asking a branch of the government to take away a civil liberty and violate the First Amendment. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: "Banning" a book would not mean just not stocking it in the first place, but also refusing to stock it even when requested, or pushing to make it unavailable even to those who do want this.
Alright. But how many requests should I be allowed to ignore before I'm forced to order it? I mean, obviously the library can't service every request. Furthermore, why is it that once a decision is made, that's the end. Maybe it was a mistake and the shelf space could be better used with something else. If I ask a book to be removed to make room for another, is that "banning?"
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Additionally, I'm fairly certain the ALA doesn't tell librarians what they can and can't stock. They probably do give guidance, but that is also probably based on book popularity and critical acclaim more than some bizzare attempt to control public access to specific books.
I didn't mean to imply this. I'm not picturing the ALA as some powerful cabal. I just figure it's librarians treating public libraries as if they belong to them, much like the librarian in Farmgirl's response stating "Not in my library." It's not their library any more than it's my library, and when it comes to content I should have a voice.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to wonder what a library would be like after every group that had a beef with certain subjects or themes got through with it. No OSC, because he's dirty. No Jews, Catholics, or negroes because the white supremacists and other groups don't like them. No Harry Potter because it's satanic. No books on evolution. No Mormon books. No pro-gay or anti-gay books. No pro-capitalism books or anti-capitalism books. No pink books. No pro-Christianity books. No anti-Christianity books. No pro/anti Muslim books....
See, SenojRetep, if you go with the idea that a library should bow to the will of anyone who has a problem with a book, what's left? You say that some books should be left on the shelves? Well, who are you to say what a library should stock? You have no gauranteed right to be able to checkout a book from the library.
How does a library decide what's on the shelves when everyone is against something?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: See, SenojRetep, if you go with the idea that a library should bow to the will of anyone who has a problem with a book, what's left? You say that some books should be left on the shelves? Well, who are you to say what a library should stock? You have no gauranteed right to be able to checkout a book from the library.
How does a library decide what's on the shelves when everyone is against something.
I'm not arguing that I should have a veto. I'm saying that it's hysterical to elevate a parental or patron complaint into something equated with Nazism. I've never said that because I find a book offensive it should be removed. All I've said is that librarians should not have a monopoly on deciding what's stocked and what's not.
Who am I to say what a library should stock? I'm as good as the next guy. Aren't you? I think so.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
But I have just as much rightas anyone else does, as an individual, to request that a specific book be available to me in my public library since I pay as much for all the books as anyone else does.
It may not be unconstitutional to request a book be removed from library shelves, but it is censorship. You are specifically making it harder for others to read something that you, personally, do not like. I have no problem with people policing their own reading habit or those of their children. However, I think it is dispicable to attempt to remove other people's access to a work you, yourself, object to. If you feel so strongly that a work should not be read, write a review of it and tell people why they shouldn't read it. I'd support the idea of taking a wall in every library for people to post reviews of books they want to warn other people about.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Senoj:
quote:If I ask a book to be removed to make room for another, is that "banning?"
Yes, if your motive is the removal of a specific book. If your motive is genuinely making space for a book to add then you have no interest in which other book gets bumped. In such a case, a wise librarian would keep a list of least checked out books and see which ones of those are least likely to have archival value for the community that the library services.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I do have the right to read that book.
I don't think you do have the right to read that book. That book has a right to be read. That's free speech. But the state has no obligation to connect you with your preferred reading material.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: In addition, the vast majority of public libraries are funded by their local governments which means that by asking to have a book banned you are asking a branch of the government to take away a civil liberty and violate the First Amendment.
If I went to my municipality and requested that no copies of "The Chocolate War" be allowed in city limits, and if they complied, they would be in violation of the First Amendment. Availability of a particular title at a library is not a civil liberty.
If I write a book, and I think the library should stock it, and they say no, are they violating my civil liberties? No, that's absurd. Maybe the book sucks. But, if I write a book and the government says to me, "you can't distribute that" then my civil liberties are infringed.
<edited for readability>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree with Karled.
quote: I'm not arguing that I should have a veto. I'm saying that it's hysterical to elevate a parental or patron complaint into something equated with Nazism. I've never said that because I find a book offensive it should be removed. All I've said is that librarians should not have a monopoly on deciding what's stocked and what's not.
I agree with you that librarians should not have exclusive say about what is stocked. They should stock what people request. On the other hand, they shouldn't remove books from the shelves for the reasons that I've given.
quote: Who am I to say what a library should stock? I'm as good as the next guy. Aren't you? I think so.
So, again, you're left with a library that offends no one--an empty library, basically.
Senoj, you haven't really addressed my points from a previous post. The bottom line is, why can't you police what you and your child read yourself without involving the library and having a book removed from the shelf? Why do you need to?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Some might say that it's for the same reason that a gay person shouldn't be openly gay. It allows the public to see something that they don't want accepted as normal.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am absolutely for the policing of what should be read being done by the parents - in other words, if I don't want my kids reading Harry Potter, I'll tell them so and I don't think it's right for me to make that decision for every other parent by forcing a school to remove the books from the library.
I do however, think there are times when a parent should speak up if they think inappropriate material is made required reading by the teachers. I would speak up if an assigned book contained explicit sexual content I don't want my young child reading. However, that doesn't mean I don't think the book should be removed from the library, there's a big difference between not wanting your child to be forced to read something and not wanting your child (or anyone else's child) to have access to something.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Senoj:
quote:I just figure it's librarians treating public libraries as if they belong to them, much like the librarian in Farmgirl's response stating "Not in my library." It's not their library any more than it's my library, and when it comes to content I should have a voice.
This perfectly illustrates why it is wrong to ask for a book to be removed. After all, why should you have any more ability to prevent others from reading something than the theoretical "my library" librarian you mention. The civilized answer isn't that you have just as much right to ban books as the librarian. It's that no one has the right to ban books. Books should be made available to the community based on what the community wants to read within the budget of the library, not what certain members of the community want other people not to read.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: In such a case, a wise librarian would keep a list of least checked out books and see which ones of those are least likely to have archival value for the community that the library services.
The benevolent dictator. How Platonic
Why should how many are checked out be the metric (or the librarians sense of "archival value")? What makes that decision choice theoretically better than say the book that is in the worst shape, or the one most people find offensive, or any other criteria or mix of criteria.
I'm fighting harder than I want to. I'll quit soon, and you can all chalk me up as a fascist. Can I question the First Amendment soundness of Public libraries in the first place? Maybe that will reinvigorate things Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What about deciding whether a particular book should be purchased in the first place? Should the community have a say in which books get purchased using community resources?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Often the local library does have "sales" on books they have gleaned off the shelves in order to make room for new ones (that's how I got my copy of Wyrms).
So how DO they decide what to glean??
I can't believe it would be by "least checked out" -- because your stupid romance novels will be MOST checked out, and some reference books will be least checked out, yet they have more validity than the prior.
FG
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just talked to my wife on the phone. She said she can see both sides. Then she said, "If the library had a book I didn't like, I'd just steal it. They never replace stolen books."
It was much funnier on the phone.
*DISCLAIMER: The poster is not advocating theft*
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think it kind of depends on how you would define a library.
Is it a repository of human knowledge or is merely a service that provides books to people that can't afford to purchase them?
I suspect it's kind of both, but which is its primary function?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
First I want to say that I agree very much with Belle's second paragraph above. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Senoj:
quote:The benevolent dictator. How Platonic
Surely you aren't making a serious comparison between what I wrote and a "benevolent dictator".
quote:Why should how many are checked out be the metric (or the librarians sense of "archival value")? What makes that decision choice theoretically better than say the book that is in the worst shape, or the one most people find offensive, or any other criteria or mix of criteria.
Because there is no loss in tossing a book that isn't being read anyway. I put in the part about "archival value" to recognize the possibility that there are some "classics" (by whatever definition you choose) or other works that might be missed in the future even if they haven't been checked out in 20 years. For instance, I'd toss a 1972 edition of Writer's Market before I'd toss an un-read copy of Mein Kampf, or Catcher in the Rye, or The Bible. However, I never said such determination was the sole provenance of the librarian. I'd support a community elected library committee that would make such determinations.
As for a book in bad shape, well, if it's in bad shape it's likely it is popular and therefore in high demand. (If no longer, then it falls into the "not checked out" category), but you're too smart to not really see why how often a book is checked out is a better indicator of its value to the community than whether it is in bad shape.
quote:I'm fighting harder than I want to.
I feel this is the case in several of your posts, (and you only have 33 at this count). It would be more helpful to meaningful dialog if you would, for instance, explore some of your ideas (like which metric would be best) rather than just throwing half-formed rebuttals. (Note: I'm not saying all your posts are half-formed, sometime they really make me think. But your post I'm quoting in this post doesn't seem to have given my post proper consideration. It's like you read it just long enough to come up with a zinger or two. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Senoj, your wife sounds pretty cool. Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
88. "Where’s Waldo? by Martin Hanford" Ha! Where indeed! In the fire, perhaps?
Speaking of which, I'm concerned that Farenheit 451 isn't on that list.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I'm fighting harder than I want to.
I feel this is the case in several of your posts, (and you only have 33 at this count). It's like you read it just long enough to come up with a zinger or two.
I edited out the nice parts; I appreciate you trying to soften the blow (even if it did sound condescending).
I'm sorry you feel that way Karl, I certainly never intended to be flippant or half-baked or to zing anyone, during any part of the thread. Sorry if it read that way. I'll try to be fully-baked in the future.
Would the same principle hold (back to the discussion) if I told the librarian that I don't feel she should order a particular book. Let's say HP7 is coming out; should I be able to say to my local librarian, "I think the library shouldn't order HP. It's a lousy book, and we can better spend money and space on more OSC." And should the librarian listen to me (not to the exclusion of others).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I'm fighting harder than I want to.
I feel this is the case in several of your posts, (and you only have 33 at this count). It would be more helpful to meaningful dialog if you would, for instance, explore some of your ideas (like which metric would be best) rather than just throwing half-formed rebuttals. (Note: I'm not saying all your posts are half-formed, sometime they really make me think. But your post I'm quoting in this post doesn't seem to have given my post proper consideration. It's like you read it just long enough to come up with a zinger or two.
Karl, that was pretty contemptuous and condescending at the same time. I'm sorry if you feel my arguments are half-formed, but I did try to read each post thoughtfully and thoroughly and respond appropriately. I certainly tried to be respectful, and never intended to zing anyone. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I will try to be more sensitive in the future.
Back to the discussion, should I be able to suggest to my librarian prior to acquisition that certain books are not appropriate for our library. Let's take number three on the list of most challenged books, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture." This is widely panned as sloppily researched, inaccurately reported, and poorly written (*Disclaimer: I have never read it). Would I be justified in saying to the librarian, "Don't purchase Arming America. It's supposed to be a poor quality book. Our library should spend it's money and space on more OSC instead?"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:In such a case, a wise librarian would keep a list of least checked out books and see which ones of those are least likely to have archival value for the community that the library services.
Libraries do this to prioritize shelf space. In fact, the reason many libraries don't want you to put books back on the shelf by yourself is so that they can log how often books are looked at, even if they aren't checked out.
There is a physical limit to the size of the library, so when space is short, they get rid of books that no one has read. I have a hard time with anyone who calls this process censorship.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Originally posted by andi330: I do have the right to read that book.I don't think you do have the right to read that book. That book has a right to be read. That's free speech. But the state has no obligation to connect you with your preferred reading material.
Actually, as an adult (and I realize that probably none of you has ever met me so yes, I am an adult) I have the right to read whatever I would like. You have the right not to read books that you don't like and/or police the books that your children read. You also have the right to tell me that you don't think that I should read a book and give reasons for why you think I shouldn't.
I have the absolute right not to take your advice. If I read a book that you think is inappropriate or that I shouldn't read then, as an adult, I have no one to blame but myself if I don't like it and/or find it to have the inappropriate content that you told me it would.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Speaking of which, I'm concerned that Farenheit 451 isn't on that list.
I remember being forced to read that in Junior High School.
I recall is struck me as being very trite and forgettable. Not one of Bradbury's better works.
Then we were forced to watch a weird, vaguely European film adaptation of it. Featured thousands of scenes where lead characters looked at their reflections in the mirror, touching themselves like they were in the early stages of masturbation.
It grossed the entire class out.
We only liked it when the old lady set herself on fire.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Karl, that was pretty contemptuous and condescending at the same time. I'm sorry if you feel my arguments are half-formed, but I did try to read each post thoughtfully and thoroughly and respond appropriately. I certainly tried to be respectful, and never intended to zing anyone. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I will try to be more sensitive in the future.
I can see where I came across as condescending, but that was probably born of trying not to sound contemptuous, which I certainly don't feel. And in reading back just now in order to form this reply, I believe I was (uncharacteristically, I hope) condescending. My response was a bit harsh, too, considering the presumed (on my part) degree of offense. I appologize. I suppose I didn't give your " " proper weight, too. Anyway, I do read your posts more carefully than some other posts, largely because you come across as well considered and knowledgeable, even if I disagree with you at times. I try not to be flippant, so I'm probably a bit quick to take offense when I perceive someone else being flippant, especially someone who appears to use language precisely.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Back to the discussion, should I be able to suggest to my librarian prior to acquisition that certain books are not appropriate for our library. Let's take number three on the list of most challenged books, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture." This is widely panned as sloppily researched, inaccurately reported, and poorly written (*Disclaimer: I have never read it). Would I be justified in saying to the librarian, "Don't purchase Arming America. It's supposed to be a poor quality book. Our library should spend it's money and space on more OSC instead?"
Sure, you can suggest anything you like. For myself, I'd ask if I were making such a suggestion because I really felt better things were being overlooked or if my primary motive was censorship. If the latter, I think it is largely wrong to pursue the matter. But no one knows your motive but yourself and I certainly don't think anyone should be prohibited from suggesting that a certain book might not be as beneficial or valuable to the library or the community as some other book.
But if I were a librarian, I'd take such suggestions with a grain of salt. I doubt even .01 percent of library patrons have any idea how the budget is being spent and what funds are available to purchase new books. I'm guessing that almost all requests in the form of "please don't stock this book" are motivated by desires to censor. That is a prejudice on my part, sure, but I think it's valid. Were I a librarian, my prejudice might change as I would be working more from facts than suppositions.
But let's take your specific examples. Were I a librarian and you asked me to not stock HP7, I'd see that we had 5 copies each of HP1-6 and they were all checked out at the moment and some even on reserve. I'd probably decide from that that HP7 will be a book in high demand and well liked by people other than yourself and I'd probably stock it anyway.
As for Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, I'd check to see if it had been requested by anyone else. I'd ask you if you knew of any good book on the same subject that might serve as counterpoint to the arguements in Arming America, and I'd probably make sure both books were on the purchase list. Then I'd make a display poster putting the two titles side by side and inviting patrons to read both books and decide for themselves. Nothing spurrs a desire to read like a good controversy. But I'd also take note of your desire to see more OSC and I'd see if there was anything we didn't have and if room could be made on the budget to accomodate those books. But even if the arguement were overwhelming that we needed more OSC, I doubt I'd bump Arming America specifically on your request alone. (Of course any library I was in charge of would probably have all the OSC books already, with most of them on a "Recommended Reading" shelf. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I have the right to read whatever I would like. You have the right not to read books that you don't like and/or police the books that your children read. You also have the right to tell me that you don't think that I should read a book and give reasons for why you think I shouldn't.
I have the absolute right not to take your advice. If I read a book that you think is inappropriate or that I shouldn't read then, as an adult, I have no one to blame but myself if I don't like it and/or find it to have the inappropriate content that you told me it would.
I agree with everything you've said here. My only contention is that the library is not intended, nor should it be viewed, as fulfilling the right of its patrons to read any specific book. Maybe Camus was right that the heart of this debate is about the nature of the library.
My view of a public library is a collection of the best books available, as determined collectively by the community. Books so important that the citizens of a municipality got together and bought a collective copy. A library shouldn't serve the desire of an individual for a book; it should reflect the sensibilities of its community in collecting the best books and making them available to all. Just because you want to read a book, doesn't mean the library should buy it for you, or shelve it for you. I just don't think that's what libraries are for.
So when you say I have no right to prevent you from reading a book, I agree. But I also have no obligation to provide you with that book, and neither does the library.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Speaking of which, I'm concerned that Farenheit 451 isn't on that list.
I remember being forced to read that in Junior High School.
I recall is struck me as being very trite and forgettable. Not one of Bradbury's better works.
I found it much more interesting and much more meaningful the second time through. The first time I read it, it seemed much to obvious an allegory.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
#3 on the 1990-2000 list is "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings"
I would submit that an even better form of censorship is pure denial. My mother (who has a Master's degree in education) had never heard of Maya Angelou before yesterday (much to my shock). However she loves #96, which is "How to Eat Fried Worms"
AJ
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: you can suggest anything you like. For myself, I'd ask if I were making such a suggestion because I really felt better things were being overlooked or if my primary motive was censorship. If the latter, I think it is largely wrong to pursue the matter. But no one knows your motive but yourself and I certainly don't think anyone should be prohibited from suggesting that a certain book might not be as beneficial or valuable to the library or the community as some other book.
But this is my whole deal. The ALA says, once a book is on the shelf we oppose any effort to take it off. To me the librarians are saying we will not reconsider our choices, regardless of what any patron or set of patrons might think of them. And that just seems wrong to me.
Your scenario of creating a competitive readership by placing two opposing books side by side is interesting; I'll have to think about it some. Initially my reaction is that there are books worth reading and books not worth reading. Why should a library encourage its patrons to read something vapid and pointless? There are good books about gun control and gun culture (presumably); why spend resources promoting ones that aren't good?
P.S.- I appreciate the concillitory tone of your last post. I'm sorry if I got huffy. I appreciate the nice things you said about my posts. I also find your responses generally thought-provoking and well written, which may be why I took offense. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I see your points about vapid and pointless books, but my point is that such designations are either entirely subjective, or even if correct nearly always offered by less than authoritative sources. In other words, you can tell a librarian that you think the book should not be there since it is vapid and pointless. That is your opinion. It might be the general consensus, it might not. A librarian, though, can't really be expected to be an expert judge in all fields. Or in any particular field for that matter outside of Library Science. I know I wouldn't want my local librarian to be the sole judge of what is vapid and pointless or worth me reading. I wouldn't want my librarian to take the word of every Joe Reader who may or may not have an axe to grind as to what is and isn't OK to stock. On the other hand, I might appreciate a librarian who told me the book I was checking out (or looking for) was generally found to be shoddily researched and I might find better information in <book>.
My policy would be to err on the side of freedom of access to and dissemination of ideas from all sides and let the interested parties decide for themselves what they will and won't read, but not what others can and can't access via the library. (Within the confines of budget and shelf-space, of course.)
In my experience, nearly every attempt to silence dissent (even stupid dissent) only leads to an atmosphere where the truth is more obscured rather than revealed.
On a related issue, how do you feel about inter-library loans? Most states I've lived in have a policy of moving books from one library to another within the state (and some even do this interstate) by patron request. If you feel you have the right to ask a library to remove a book from its shelf, do you also have the right to ask the librarian to keep it from being available via inter-library loan?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If you feel you have the right to ask a library to remove a book from its shelf, do you also have the right to ask the librarian to keep it from being available via inter-library loan?
No, I would not claim to have that right. I think this goes to the heart of my feelings about what purpose public libraries serve. The books on the shelves should be books deemed so important, we as a cummunity purchase a copy so everyone can access them. Another community will (and probably should) have a different list of important books. Public libraries should be a reflection of the community's standards and values.
If some other library has deemed a book essential, and purchased a copy, I have no problem with my local library distributing it, regardless of content.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The problem is, in most cases, the way a book becomes "banned" is that a challenge is taken to the local library board/council for the county/city/municipality by a large group of people. If it becomes enough of an issue, the library board/council will probably hold hearings to determine if the book should be removed. If a challenge is taken that far by a group of people and the library board/council determines that the book in question should be removed from the shelves, they aren't going to remove it from just the one branch. They'll have it removed from all the branches under their jurisdiction.
So, it's not simply a matter of asking your local librarian to remove a specific title from your branch's shelves. To actually have a book banned it will be removed from every branch in your area.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The above then does become governemental censorship of a written work. This is because a board of people either elected or (in many cases) appointed has made the decision to remove said written work from their shelves thereby restricting access to it. Yes it can still be purchased if someone wants to read it, but the government has still deliberately restricted access to it, not simply not had the book available because there weren't enough funds and/or shelf space to stock the book.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just want to clarify: Does anybody think that we should apply the establishment clause to library book selection?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I just want to clarify: Does anybody think that we should apply the establishment clause to library book selection?
Well, I'm not really sure how that would work, exactly. What do you think would be right/wrong or useful/troublesome about doing that?
Not to sidestep the question, Dag, but as far as an informed opinion goes, I'm much more interested in your opinion on that than in my own.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think it should be utterly irrelevant. That is, any type of religious material should be available in the public library, even material of a purely proselytizing nature.
But I don't think it should receive any preference in the selection process, either. Certainly the Bible in various translations, the Koran, and the core scriptures (or analog) for most religions should be present, just on an informational basis. But I think a real analysis based on both popularity and usefulness as a reference would arrive at that conclusion.
For other types of religious works, the same type of decision should be made as for any other type of work: how many people will read it, does it contain important reference information, does it ensure a particular topic is at least covered by the library materials, etc.
I'm just having flashbacks to a forum I participated in as an undergraduate on the NEA and censorship. One of the participants said refusing to fund art based on content was censorship and that certain anti-religious works should have been funded. But in response to a question from me, he said that religious works of art should not be because of separation of church and state.
That attitude scares me. I didn't pick up on it here, but I wanted to broach the subject.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well I agree with everything you wrote there.
As for the NEA, well, you certainly can't have it both ways. If you can't censor art because of content you shouldn't be able to censor it for religious content, either.
Personally, I think money corrupts artistic expression, especially in a field where notoriety has come to be the more common measure of success than say, creativity or artistic merit.
I'd much rather see NEA grants used to bolster community art education programs and art centers rather than individual artists. That's probably been debated at Hatrack before, though I don't recall a recent discussion. New thread?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
My parents encouraged me to read. There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in, and I think I'm a better, more well rounded person for it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Just trying to stoke the fire a little).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)