Banned Books discussion

1596 views
Why was (insert book here) banned/challenged?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 162) (162 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4

message 1: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Post questions here about why a book was banned or challenged. Anyone can post answers.


message 2: by Lynn (new)

Lynn (Ms_Ortlieb) | 1 comments Winnie the Pooh, by A.A. Milne turns up on lists of banned books. Has anyone found a reference as to why?


message 3: by Gundula (last edited Feb 05, 2010 08:56AM) (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Lynn, Winnie-the-Pooh has been banned in some Muslim countries like Turkey because of the fact that the character of Piglet was supposedly offensive to Muslims. This might also be the reason why both Winnie-the-Pooh and Charlotte's Web have at times been challenged in the United States and Great Britain. Also, Russia has recently banned Winnie-the-Pooh, because it supposedly promoted Nazism (I'm still trying to figure that one out, it makes no sense whatsoever). Does anyone in this group know wether either Winnie-the-Pooh or Charlotte's Web have ever actually been banned in Great Britain, Canada or the United States?


message 4: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
I don't know Gundula. I haven't found any info yet. But this is a great parody:

http://beta.thedailyblank.com/2009/11...

According to the Wall Street Journal, a copy of Winnie the Pooh with Pooh Bear wearing a Swastika was found in an extremist's house. Ergo, Pooh must be extremist, therefore banned. I'd like to sic my college logic prof on them.




message 5: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Kelly wrote: "I don't know Gundula. I haven't found any info yet. But this is a great parody:

http://beta.thedailyblank.com/2009/11...
..."


I just noticed that parody myself. Really funny!! I know that both Charlotte's Web and Winnie-the-Pooh are on the ALA list of banned/challenged books, but they are both not in bold-faced print, which probably means that they were not successfully challenged (but, still, just the thought is frightening).




message 6: by J.P. (new)

J.P. Xox wrote: "ferinheight 451 was challenged by stupid christians.

See this clip. Another proof that christianity is evil, and many of its followers are morons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUq2d2..."


When you qualify your post with words like "stupid" and "morons" you really don't do a lot to back up your opinion.

While I agree it is ridiculous to ban Fahrenheit 451, I think you can find a better way to make your point.




message 7: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Jennie wrote: "Xox wrote: "ferinheight 451 was challenged by stupid christians.

See this clip. Another proof that christianity is evil, and many of its followers are morons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..."


By calling Christians insulting names etc., Xox is acting just like those who want to ban books. This is a forum for thoughtful discussion, not name-calling.


message 8: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments I watched the clip and it made me sick. But, you know, I believe in God (in a very liberal sense, but I do believe in a creator, and in evolution as well, so don't think I'm a creationist), and I have never nor would I ever believe in either banning books or burning books. I'm just saying, don't put all Christians into the same pot, not everyone who's a Christian is a fundamentalist. In fact, I think that many Christians are not fundamentalists. However, those that are fundamentalists, are a loud, obnoxious, and unfortunately a relatively powerful group (especially in the United States), and we (and the government) give them far too much credit and far too much leeway. It is always easy or easier to pigeon-hole people. I have heard and read so many supposedly intelligent people say that "all Muslims are terrorists" "all Italians belong to the Mafia" "all Germans are Nazis" etc. etc. etc. We can do better than that, we don't have to employ the same unenlightened methods that the fundamentalists (both religious and non-religious) do.


message 9: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Well, I"m what you call a theistic evolutionist, so basically both the pure creationists and pure evolutionists despise me, but, so what?? I believe in God and I believe in evolution.


message 10: by Gundula (last edited Feb 22, 2010 06:33PM) (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Xox wrote: "Gundula wrote: "Well, I"m what you call a theistic evolutionist, so basically both the pure creationists and pure evolutionists despise me, but, so what?? I believe in God and I believe in evoluti..."

Actually, there were groups, both Christians and non Christians that have tried to get both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien banned (get your facts straight please). And, I am not going to discuss with you anymore, because you obviously live to insult people (just like a fundamentalist Christian)


message 11: by Julie (new)

Julie S. The Bible says nothing about book banning that I am aware of. It is not only religious people who ban books, so Christian does not equal book banner, nor does book banner equal Christian.


message 12: by Old-Barbarossa (last edited Feb 25, 2010 11:28PM) (new)

Old-Barbarossa Anyway...back to the thread topic.
I read in the "red tops"/tabloids here that the reason Winnie-the-Pooh was banned in some places was due to Piglet being a pig and therefore offensive to some groups. Isn't there a pig in Charlotte's Web too?
Whether it actually was banned, or if this was the reason, I don't know. Tabloid newspapers are not known for their fact checking, often making mountains from molehills in order to sell a story.
This could also be an example of a type of self censorship that seems to have crept into society, whereby the fear of offending (however misguided) causes the censorship, and rarely has any connection to the group that may be offended, eg: a school banning a book to avoid offence to some pupils, the pupils (and their families) having little say in the matter. A form of "political correctness".


message 13: by Pandora (new)

Pandora  | 68 comments Ahha good old political correctness. It is now the reason Huckleberry Finn gets into so much trouble. Use to be because it was considred too liberal in its view of religon and black people. Twian must be doing something right since he got both sides against him.

The problem with political correctness is if it suppose to make people more comfortable why does it seem to have the oppostie effect? Such as I'm suppose to say Black or African-American? Indian or Native American? Have people suggest that the Lion King characters are gay or racist. No, they are lions and hyneas.


message 14: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Mar 11, 2010 12:14AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Xox,

This is a forum where everyone should feel safe to express their opinions without harassment. Freedom of speech is one thing. Insulting people is another. Blatant generalizations of groups of people are usually incorrect and offensive. You said Christianity is evil and that is inappropriate and not okay here. I am not censoring you, I did not delete your post, but I ask you to refrain from insulting people by telling them their views are illogical and pathetic. I also ask that you consider the apparently totalitarian regime from which you came and think about what that means. Blanket disregard for an entire group of people because of what they believe (when that has nothing to do with hurting other people) is a form of totalitarianism.

Communism does not accept religion of any sort and Communist China is one of the largest banners of books in history (the cultural revolution) and continue to ban books.(1) While plenty of Christians use their religion to justify the banning of books they do not believe in, keep in mind that 83% of Americans identify as Christian and most of the banning we are talking about occurs in the US.(2)

The reality is, you can't always tell what the belief system is the people who challenge a book have. There are books that are banned because they promote suicide, have racist words or degrade blacks, are demeaning to women, etc. These are parents, African Americans, women, who are offended themselves.(3)

I personally was involved in a women's group in college that was attempting to educate people about the problems with pornography. I wasn't involved in that area but many of the women advocated banning pornography. These were very liberal hippie-chicks, not conservative Christians. Luckily the organization did not believe in banning but in educating. They also required everyone to see the movie they were protesting so they knew what they were talking about.

I am not a Christian but I have great respect for their beliefs. There have been many great and wonderful Christians such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, Bishop Desmund Tutu (who recently appeared with the Dalai Lama in Seattle), Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Al Gore, John F. Kennedy, the leaders of the abolitionist movement(4), and Jesse Jackson just to name a minutiae of the good Christians throughout history.

I understand where you are coming from, but we need you to try to see where others are coming from as well. If you don't, you are acting the way the people who banned books are acting, who only see the world through their own narrow spyglass.

(1) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content...
(2)http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Dai...
(3)http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy...
(4) http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.p...


message 15: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Mar 11, 2010 12:13AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
You asked for references and I provided them. Most of what I said was fact, not opinion.

I have a master's degree in religion and culture so this is my area of expertise. I think you are operating on limited information and going by what you see and hear in mass media. We can disagree, but it disturbs me to hear hatred from anyone. I don't understand how you can disrespect anyone who gives their lives to helping other people and asks for nothing in return. I may not agree with everything Mother Theresa believed in but I am humbled by her.


message 16: by Chris (last edited Mar 11, 2010 06:43AM) (new)

Chris | 28 comments Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Anyway...back to the thread topic.
I read in the "red tops"/tabloids here that the reason Winnie-the-Pooh was banned in some places was due to Piglet being a pig and therefore offensi..."



I know Charlotte's Web was challenged (I'm not sure about a total ban) because Charlotte dies at the end. Pretty much anything sad gets challenged at one point. Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was rejected by a text book comittee because of it.

I also read that at some point in China (maybe it is still current) stories with talking animals were technically banned.

Has anyone else read The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn which goes into great detail about the effect extremes on the right and left have on U.S. school reading and testing material?


message 17: by J.P. (new)

J.P. Unfortunately I'm not willing to be a part of a group with a member so blatantly disrespectful and insulting. Sorry. I am a Christian, not fundamental, not stupid, not a book banner, an educator, and one who believes in tolerance. There are enough other groups on this site and on the internet and in my community where I don't have to read/listen to someone being so insulting.

It's been interesting conversation thus far, but the truth is I have no patience for the insults and blanket generalizations of a poster like Xox and my free time is far too valuable to have to sort through the babble.

Adios.

PS Mother Teresa was pretty FREAKING amazing. It's a shame you are blinded by your hatred for that which you don't understand. In that way, you are sadly similar to people who ban books.


message 18: by Gundula (last edited Mar 11, 2010 08:33AM) (new)

Gundula | 380 comments I am also considering dropping out of this group if Xox does not tone down his rhetoric. And, by the way Xox, you are actually very much akin (if not exactly the same) to fanatical Christian fundamentalists in your use of hateful words and vitriolic tirades (all extreme fundamentals are basically the same, wether they be Christian or not). I have no respect for individuals, both Christian and non Christian who cannot discuss issues without being insulting and rude. Hatred is always wrong, is always inhumane and Xox is certainly displaying the former. He is, just as Jennie has stated so eloquently, very very similar to those who would ban books, to those who would condemn others just because they are of a different race, religion or creed.


message 19: by Pandora (new)

Pandora  | 68 comments I think the majority in this group would agree that Xox is too offensive. Jennie and Gundula don't drop the group becasue of Xox. If anyone should leave it should be Xox. I am for one tried of having good groups and good discussions going and then along comes a jerk who just wants to use the site as their own soapbox to blast away with hate. Unfortnately if you quit Xox wins and hate scores another victory.

I am a member of the religous left which is group I doubt Xox would acknowledge exists.

The best way to deal with Xox though is to ignore him. He just blasting away to get a response. Just treat him as one town did with the KKK. Don't listen and don't respond. As for me that is what I have been trying to do but, getting two people to quit the group is too much.


message 20: by Lindor16 (new)

Lindor16 | 15 comments I thought this was about why certain books got banned not our personal beliefs.
Anyway, subject that star this all. I know that Slaughterhouse Five was banned also. I believe it was for language and war violence. As a parent I would let my teenager read this. I read it. It was a harsh, but clear picture of war. It wasn't "glittered" up or dumbed down to a younger level. On the other hand I would not present it to my younger child knowing that she would not understand the material.
I feel as a parent, I should be the one deciding if my children are at an age to understand what they are reading, not someone else. Whom ever that someone else may be.


message 21: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Pandora Kat wrote: "I think the majority in this group would agree that Xox is too offensive. Jennie and Gundula don't drop the group becasue of Xox. If anyone should leave it should be Xox. I am for one tried of h..."

Thanks for your vote of confidence, and I was just frustrated. I don't think that I will actually quit the group, but people like Xox really do get me angry. I will definitely try to ignore him, even though that sometimes is rather difficult.


message 22: by Pandora (new)

Pandora  | 68 comments Gundula glad you are still with us. :)

Lindor16 your post open up an intresting topic. True Slaughterhouse Five is for older teenage readers. Still, I know as a librarian I do have to keep it in my head that my response to a book may not be the same as a child. Example love The Outsiders as a teen especially Sodapop. As an adult though I became more aware of how many boys ended up dead.

Currently I'm dealing with the love affair people are having with Diary of a Wimpy Kid. I hated the book but, I know it is because I'm seeing it as adult.


message 23: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Mar 12, 2010 05:09AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Xox wrote: "The top changelled book in 2008 was And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson, Peter Parnell. The American Library Association reports that And Tango Makes Three was the most challenged book of 20..."

I know plenty of atheist homophobes. I know plenty of religious people who love that book.

Xox, your lack of understanding of my post makes it clear to me you hear what you want and ignore what doesn't fit your world view. That is very disturbing to me.

You need to stop being rude. In this forum we respect freedom of speech. You can say anything you want but the way you say it is relevant. You do not have the right to make others feel uncomfortable. I have had members of this group message me privately and say they are leaving because you cannot be civil. That is unacceptable to me.

There is room here for everyone's views. If you choose to denigrate others' viewpoints you are trying to censor them by belittling them. Insults work the same way as censorship in that they are designed to get people to stop talking and make them feel bad about their beliefs. That is not okay here.

You need to tone it down now or risk being banned from this group. I am not saying you cannot speak your opinions, I am saying you do not have the right to disallow other people their opinions which is what you are doing.

For your edification, I will explain my footnotes since you didn't understand them.

1. is not a link to china but about china, an athiest-based country that is full of censorship. It was an anti-Chinese methods comment. Why would China publish that? Why would you dismiss it as being irrelevant?

2. the link was about the percentage of Americans who call themselves Christian. Since only 15% don't and far more than that are against censorship, your argument is illogical and fallible.

3. I did the search myself which is why I included the link. That page comments on African Americans and women who want to ban books because they are offended personally, having nothing to do with religion. I didn't say there aren't any Christians who want to ban books, I said that there are others as well.

4. The leaders of the abolitionist movement were very egalitarian, supporting freedom for all people and they were very Christian. That paragraph said that there are many great Christians. I was giving examples and citing references that the leaders of the abolitionist movement were Christians. I think they were great.

You are very narrow-minded and do not read others' posts completely. If you are going to respond to comments, make sure you understand what they are saying before you argue with it.

By the way, I only mentioned my degree to point out that I am educated on the subject of religion and know a lot about what Christians and others believe despite being virtually an atheist myself. I am someone who knows about the subject who does not have a personal stake in it.

Also, neither of your sources is legitimate because one is a blog, not a legitimate news source, and the other, Slate, has an agenda. I love Slate but they can hardly be considered to be unbiased. You must quote legitimate sources if you are going to make an unbiased point.


message 24: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Since you think Christianity is evil, you must think being an atheistic Christian is also evil and calling me and referring to "people like" me is rude. Can you not see that? By ending with that, you're also not leaving the topic alone.

I also don't understand how you can read my post in its entirety and think you got my first post. I don't think you're actually reading them. I contradicted your interpretations of what I said. You are not open-minded if you blatantly disregard all people of any belief system.

I don't think you understand what Michel Onfray means by atheist Christianity or you haven't really heard what I said. It refers to someone who holds Christian values, including Christian evangelicalism as the highest virtue. I do not in any way believe that. I think there are good and bad people of all religious faiths. I think that fundamentalists of all faiths tend to be narrow-minded and it makes me sad. I am not saying that all Christian values are good nor are they all bad. For you to lump them all together means you don't really understand what Christianity is. Whether you or he like it or not, the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our entire system of laws is based on them.

Onfray's treatise has a lot of historical inaccuracies and there is a lot of criticism about it from scholars. It's important to read books on multiple sides of an issue if you want to argue it. I really hope you haven't taken his arguments as an atheist gospel because those kinds of thoughts are the foundation of communism which has done as many atrocities as Christians in the short time it's existed. Atheists do not have a corner on good and just behavior. They have also done unspeakable things throughout history. I also have some close friends who are atheists just as I have close friends who are Christian.

I am not an atheist because to be one is to define oneself in reference to a god or gods. I am non-theist. I am a devout Unitarian Universalist. We believe that all religion holds value and that the spiritual path is one that must be taken individually. There are many secular humanists, pagans, Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who are Unitarian. We hold freedom of the people, democracy and social justice to be our highest tenets.

My initial point stands: please refrain from direct insults or insulting personal belief systems.


message 25: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Kelly wrote: "Since you think Christianity is evil, you must think being an atheistic Christian is also evil and calling me and referring to "people like" me is rude. Can you not see that? By ending with that, y..."

I cannot add anything to this post, it speaks to me and speaks from me, from my soul.

But, just to also point out that it is so true that both Christians and atheists can and have been evil. One of the most evil men imaginable, Adolf Hitler, was an atheist and Nazism was officially an atheist system (many Christians were also harassed and punished by the Nazis, they did not limit their atrocities to Jews).

I have also met both Christians and atheists who have been homophobic and racist and I was physically and verbally attacked at school by a self-proclaimed atheist who hated me simply because I was German.

There are good and bad people in all groups. And, while I can certainly understand people not agreeing with my belief system (which is a bit in turmoil right now and a combination of both religion and non religion), I should be able to expect intelligent conversation devoid of insults and hatred.


message 26: by Lindor16 (new)

Lindor16 | 15 comments Well, this has taken a turn again from the original subject. Pandora Kat- I enjoyed The Outsiders because as sad as it was it was a real view into life, not sugar coated.
One of my favorite authors has had the majority of his work challenged over time. My favorite book of his is the Sledding Hill in which it talks about censorship with an humorous twist in that the book they are talking about banning is his own. Oh, sorry that would be Chris Crutcher. Especially, since there isn't as much young adult literature out there for boys.
By the way I have to say I have read the Wimpy kid series and enjoy the childish humor. I also enjoyed the David Lubar Weinie series for the same reason. Sometimes I just like a book to make me laugh.


message 27: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Lindor16 wrote: "Well, this has taken a turn again from the original subject. Pandora Kat- I enjoyed The Outsiders because as sad as it was it was a real view into life, not sugar coated.
One of my favorite autho..."


It would never have taken this turn, if Xox had not insisted on being insulting and hateful. I certainly think it is more than ridiculous to challenge and or ban books and Fahrenheit 451 should never have been challenged or banned, just like The Golden Compass should never have been challenged or banned. What I and others objected to was the bit about "stupid" Christians, as if most, if not all Christians are like that.


message 28: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
I really want to read The Sledding Hill and other Cutcher books. I'm hoping one of them will be selected for our children's choice one of these months. You've brought up an interesting topic: the fact that so much literature is written for girls. But the ones that seem to garner the most attention nowadays are the ones with male protagonists, the Harry Potter series and the Percy Jackson series as examples. I, too, like books that make me laugh.

Gundula, I also had a problem with him referring to your position as "pathetic" and "illogical." There's no call for that.


message 29: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Kelly wrote: "I really want to read The Sledding Hill and other Cutcher books. I'm hoping one of them will be selected for our children's choice one of these months. You've brought up an interesting topic: the f..."

I know; I'm glad I don't have to teach or verbally argue with someone this rigid and fundamental (religious fanatics or atheist fanatics, like two peas in a pod). Being a theistic evolutionist does seem to get the extremists on both sides of the evolution/creation debate livid, but it works for me.


message 30: by Lindor16 (new)

Lindor16 | 15 comments I agree with the Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. I have read both and love them. I ment slightly older and with real life situations. There are so many with relationship situations for girls. One of my all time faves is Judy Blumes Forever. Which by the way I read in sixth grade. Maybe not age appropriate, but a realistic view. And frequently challenged book over the years.
Another challenged book, but should be read is Speak by Anderson. Maybe not for everyone, but shows sadly somethings that go on in high school everyday, but are not always known about.
I believe that a large portion of Dr. Suess was banned/challenge over the years also. Many for political views.


message 31: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
I think it's an interesting observation Lindor because I hear of a lot more girls who are avid readers than boys. So is this why there are more books geared towards them? The boys I know who read a lot read comic books. I don't have a problem with the genre at all and I think that it's great that they're reading but the mainstream comic books aren't great literature and I don't think they expand vocabulary, reading ability, and imagination in quite the same way a good quality straight text novel does. There are some amazing graphic novels but those aren't the ones I see kids reading. It may just be the kids I know. They aren't the most successful kids in society. I hope my impression is wrong.


message 32: by Pandora (new)

Pandora  | 68 comments Lindor16 I do love The Outsiders. I did my term paper on it for library school on defending it against banners. What I was trying to point out is that adults and children often don't see things the same way. So as an adult recommending and selecting literature for children I do have to be careful of not letting my adult views censor books.

For example we did resist the idea of buying the Olsen twin books but, finally had to bow under pressure and get them.

As for Diary of a Wimpy Kid I know I'm in the minority in my opinion. I also realized my negativity to the book is because of my own experiences. I knew of a kid like Greg's freind and I can't stand how Greg uses his freind. So, that is why I hate the book. As a librarian though I know I can't censor the book. So, I just smile and show people where it is.

I might also like I do with Goosebumps though point other books that are like it but, I feel do a better job. One of my jobs has been to find scary books for the kids that are not goosebumbs. It has been a challenge but, I did mangage to do it.

As to reguards the boy's literature. I do not work much with YA literature but, I do know of some writers that are good for sixth and seventh grade boys. There is Darren Shan, Neal Shusterman, William Sleator, and a suprise discovery the boys love Jack London. As for comic book readers there is always The Invention of Hugo Cabert. Actually in my library I do see the graphic novels go.

As a librarian I often will use whatever I can to get kids into the reading habit. Choose Your Own Adventage type books, really good book talks, storytelling, storytelling tapes, and my father. I explain that he got out of living in a log cabin and became a success because he was a reader.

I do know though I'm running aganist the clock because if they leave the Children's floor without being a reader chances are very good they never will become one. Biggest challage is keeping the young ones (under six) off the computers and into the books. Unfortuntely there is only so much a librarian can do. The real push has got to come from the parnets. Does drive you crazy though my something comes along like Harry Potter and someone wants to ban it.

As for Speak that is a great book but, definately YA.

PS Kelly nice to know there is another Unitarian Universalist in the group. :). Gundula I am German American myself and I loved it when I was over there on vacation. :).


message 33: by Julie (new)

Julie S. What about Roald Dahl for middle schoolers? I loved his books when I was in elementary school/middle school.


message 34: by Lindor16 (new)

Lindor16 | 15 comments Pandora Kat,I can see your point on Wimpy Kid. I, myself have to grin and bear it when people ask me for Twilight. I did not like it. It was not up to what I saw as a good love story even. Anyway.
Hugo Caberet was fantastic.
Roald Dahl is good. Also, someone who has been challenged over the years. The hard part is the tweens to find books for that a parent isn't going to come back screaming in your face about.
Another one I loved (won a National book award)The true story of a part-time Indian. Was a great story. Banned/challenged because he talks about masterbation. Seriously, do parents think there kid doesn't know what that is? Then they should be telling them.


message 35: by Gundula (last edited Mar 13, 2010 02:43PM) (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Judy Blume's novel, Deenie has also periodically been challenged because masturbation is mentioned. The frustrating thing is that it is such a tiny, tiny part of the story and some parents want to ban the book and deprive their children (and sometimes everyone) the pleasure (and opportunity) of reading a wonderful story, with a great message. And, what is so problematic about masturbation, anyhow? It's natural and won't turn a person into a raving lunatic or a pornographer.


message 36: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
They don't even use the word masturbation in it. She just touches herself in her special place. In high school, my friend and I argued about whether it was really masturbation.


message 37: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Kelly wrote: "They don't even use the word masturbation in it. She just touches herself in her special place. In high school, my friend and I argued about whether it was really masturbation."

You're right. I wondered about that myself.


message 38: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
I wanted to let everyone know that Xox has been formally removed from the group. He posted additional inflammatory rhetoric that did not contribute to the discussion and included hateful comments about all Christians. These posts have been deleted. I do not believe in censorship but I also do not believe in hate speech. There are other forums where his hate speech can be heard and I defend his right to talk in those places. This is not one of them. He is welcome to start another discussion group if Goodreads will allow it, where he can talk all he wants about his views. Our members have the right to feel safe from personal insults.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact me. I am willing to listen to all opinions about this action.


message 39: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments I am in absolute and complete agreement with Xox being formally removed from this group. He only has himself to blame. Good call, Kelly!!


message 40: by Lindor16 (new)

Lindor16 | 15 comments thank you Kelly. Now we can get back to talking about books. Yeah!


message 41: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Great! Note that we will be discussing Slaughterhouse Five next month so get reading folks!


message 42: by Tatjana (new)

Tatjana (AntoniaBird) Kelly wrote: "Great! Note that we will be discussing Slaughterhouse Five next month so get reading folks!"

I'm very excited about this month's selection since I'm currently moving to Dresden!!!
WOW. Thanks for this opportunity to chat about it.


message 43: by Freight245 (new)

Freight245 | 3 comments I am new to this group discussion thing so please hang with me. I apologize if this post seems a little scattered.

I came upon this site after reading a Yahoo news story regarding the Twilight series and started checking out what books where currently being banned or challenged according to the ALA. I unfortunately was not an avid reader during my high school and college campaigns so a number of the books that are on that list I have not had the pleasure of reading. I have read To Kill a Mockingbird and a few others on the classics list. It amazes me that books like Winnie the Pooh or the Oz series by Baum would be banned for any reason but it is understandable that some people based on their personal views could be offended by almost anything. Those ideas and or beliefs have been around for quite some time and we have to do our best as readers and parents to guide ourselves and those around us to be more understanding of all the viewpoints involved, not just our own. If you don't think a book is appropriate reading material for yourself or your children you are entitled to that opinion, but please don't try to place your beliefs on others by having books banned. There views might not align with yours.

Secondly, I am also going to go to my local library to see if I can find Vonnegut. It seems like all my friends have read that book except for me and I feel like I've been left out of some kind of club when it comes to books. I need to catch up.


message 44: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
Welcome, Freight. I hope you'll like Vonnegut. Slaughterhouse-5 is one of his best but it's not his most accessible, meaning others are more enjoyable. I loved Cat's Cradle when I read it in college.


message 45: by Ronyell (new)

Ronyell (Rabbitearsblog) | 93 comments Here are some children's books that were banned and the reasons:

1. In the Night Kitchen - because of nude images of the boy
2. The Lorax - some people believed that the book was trying to say that industrialization is bad
3. Sylvester and the Magic Pebble - some people were offended that the police were portrayed as pigs
4. A Light in the Attic - For the poem that encourages kids to break the dishes so that way they won't wash them.
5. Blubber - all the characters curse and the ringleader is never punished.
6. Harriet, the Spy - some people think that the book was teaching children to lie, spy, talk back and curse.
7. The Giving Tree - some people thought it was sexist


message 46: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Ronyell wrote: "Here are some children's books that were banned and the reasons:

1. In the Night Kitchen - because of nude images of the boy
2. The Lorax - some people believed that the book was trying to say tha..."


Thanks for the information, Ronyell. Do you know if these books were actually ever banned, or were they just challenged? Being challenged is bad enough, but it would have been worse if any of these excellent books were ever actually banned.


message 47: by Ronyell (last edited Apr 19, 2010 12:47PM) (new)

Ronyell (Rabbitearsblog) | 93 comments Gundula wrote: "Ronyell wrote: "Here are some children's books that were banned and the reasons:

1. In the Night Kitchen - because of nude images of the boy
2. The Lorax - some people believed that the book was t..."


No, these books weren't banned thank goodness!! In fact, our library still have these books like Sylvester and the Magic Pebble and The Lorax. I would say that many people had challenged them more in the past then now.


message 48: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (Maybedog) | 621 comments Mod
The book WAS saying industrialization isn't fabulous. :)


message 49: by Gundula (last edited Apr 20, 2010 09:17AM) (new)

Gundula | 380 comments Actually, the Laytonville California School District did ban The Lorax in 1989 because it supposedly criminalises the foresting industry.

Also, Black Beauty was banned in South Africa during the apartheid era because it used the words "black" and "beauty" in the title. The racist and obviously woefully stupid censor, who had not read the novel, assumed from the title that it was some kind of black rights novel, when in reality, the novel was written in 1865 and tells the autobiography of a horse.

And, I also cannot believe that in 1983, four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for a ban of Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl because the book "is a real downer." Does anyone know wether these unenlightened "persons" were successful in their misguided quest?


message 50: by Ronyell (last edited Apr 21, 2010 10:22AM) (new)

Ronyell (Rabbitearsblog) | 93 comments Gundula wrote: "Actually, the Laytonville California School District did ban The Lorax in 1989 because it supposedly criminalises the foresting industry.

Also, Black Beauty was banned in S..."


I thought it was silly that they banned "Black Beauty" because it had the word "black" in the title, even though the book was obviously about a horse, but the book banning that really angered me was "Sylvester and the Magic Pebble." I mean, why would they ban a book just because the police were pigs? So, if the person who banned "Sylvester and the Magic Pebble" read the book "The Amazing Bone," would they have banned this book because the main character is a pig? Some of the reasons why they banned certain books are just silly.


« previous 1 3 4
back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

Charlotte's Web (other topics)
Winnie-the-Pooh (other topics)
The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (other topics)
The Diary of a Young Girl (other topics)
Deenie (other topics)
More...

Authors mentioned in this topic

Roald Dahl (other topics)
A.A. Milne (other topics)