Every year, there are hundreds of attempts to remove books from schools and libraries. Celebrate YOUR freedom to read and the right to choose your book during the American Library Association's Annual "Banned Books Week," Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, 2007.
Consider these quotes from ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom website:
"Not every book will be right for every person, but the right to choose what we read is a freedom we cannot afford to take for granted." -- Judith Platt, Director of the Association of American Publishers Freedom to Read program
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers." -- Judy Blume, Author
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them." -- Ray Bradbury, Author
Celebrate your freedom to read by posting comments here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I feel like everyone has the freedom to read whatever they want, depending on their maturity level. Some of the books that I read in high school that were banned books, I may have learned something from them. Some of the books I was reading in high school like "Smack", "Go Ask Alice", and others, my parents my have not wanted me to read them, but they didn't know, or probably wouldn't have tried to stop me.
I feel like people just need to be more open-minded, and realize that mostly we learn from everything thing we do or read, thats learning for the good I mean...I honestly didn't realize how many books that were banned, when some of those I read as a child. If people are going to knit-pick, of course you can always find something wrong with a book...and for that one thing you can push it to be banned...kind of rediculous, but what can you do?
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them."-Ray Bradbury
^ Wow, what a sad and true statement that is. And it's one of those statements that seems to become more and more prophetic over time. In the case of Fahrenheit 451 the society has reached the point that books have been banned completely. That premise might seem unrealistic to us right now, but from reading how that society made it to that point, well it doesn't seem too far off at all. Right now, as my current generation is replacing the baby boomers and other more literarily prone generations, it seems that reading has become a past-time of the past. We see can see it in how media is constantly changing how we receive our information. For instance, instead of reading about the evil empire of Nazi Germany, we now simply flip on the boob-tube and relax as long off images from the History Channel fill our brains. Not that this information is incorrect or invalid to us, but the fact that we're too lazy to sit down and read about the facts, and by doing so retaining less information than what could be possible, just proves even more that Bradbury's statement is oh too true. If we're willing to believe all the information that comes from the T.V. is valid, than soon there truly will be no need for books in society. I understand that books can be as misleading as television or movies, but I also feel that when we receive that information in media form as opposed to reading and researching it, we tend be much more likely to take the viewpoints at face value. A personal example of my own is that I watch quite a bit of new coverage like CNN, MSNBC, and the hysterical ramblings of Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. When I watch these news programs and hear their statistics I often take them as well researched facts. But when I read about the war in Iraq or the genocide in Darfur, I see that the data collected can differ quite a bit. By understanding this, I am able to see that though the events are most definitely happening, the data being given on T.V. as well as in the written articles can be misconstrued. So, once again, it's not that getting information from the news is bad, but simply that by reading and researching the data on my own, I gain the perspective that the truth presented to us is a relative truth, not completely factual statements. My second, and even greater concern about the lack of readers in this generation, is that by not reading man people are lacking the critical thinking that it takes to make wise decisions in everyday life. On a personal level, I would not be half as versed in my views on politics and world events had it not been for my critical thinking skills, many of which have come from my desire to read such authors as Bradbury, Dostoevsky, or Orwell. From these readings I have gained a certain intellect that empowers me to decipher the greater truth in subjects like the current political issues of our time. By saying this, I must caution people, "readers" like myself, not to be the typical book snob. Instead of mocking someone for not reading The Brothers Karamazov and instead reading the Harry Potter series, instead of discouraging these readers we should encourage them. One day those readers, with some tasteful help from a more read peer, will soon move from tales of spells and wizards to insightful novels like those of Tolstoy and Nietzsche. Encouragement is the key. With help from other book enthusiasts, possibly this MTV generation will move from novelty reality shows to novels. So let's get at it guys and gals. Let's turn this generation around. Thanks for reading my ramblings. -Nathan J
I am posting in reply to Jessi W.'s blog.
I have to agree with her. I too feel that everyone should have the freedom to read what they please. I also agree that maturity level has a lot to do with what it is we read.
A book I read in highschool was The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton and it can be found on The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000.
A comical note to add here is that I attended a private Christian school from 6th to 12th grade and although our school didn't exactly have a "required" reading list, we certainly did have to read the book, The Outsiders, in order to receive a passing grade for the class.
I guess that just adds more to the sprectrum of when and where and why is it okay to ban a book? Nobody in our class or our entire school had a problem with reading The Outsiders and it had some language that could certainly be deemed inappropriate for school reading along with the gang violence included in its storyline.
I feel like that my school, being labeled a Christian school, allowing us to read banned books was standing up for the issue of Freedom to Read, even if they didn't know it at the time.
-Laurel C.-
Most, if not all, literate people in America have read a book that was banned or at least put on trial. People obviously feel differently about what books should be; some feel literature should strictly be used to highlight the good things in life while others believe the beauty of literature is to explore all aspects of life. Both arguments are good in theory. If Pat Robertson had his way with literature, books would be extremely uplifting and everyone would be happy; except those who would become the victims of ignorance. Allowing writers to write anything they want broadens peoples’ imaginations as well as informs them of the horrors of the world. A minute group of people, however, might eat up some ridiculous propaganda become worse off than they were before. People clearly exaggerate the downsides of situations while speaking in the hypothetical which is why some people are staunch book-banners. Reality has shown us that literary diversity is a good thing. Aside from one nut who believed he was Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye, not many people have done much more than talk smack because of what they read in a book. Most of us better ourselves by learning new information and hearing different perspectives on life and important issues. There is no large-scale benefit to banning books. As Judy Blume said, "It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.” Entire populations become disadvantaged intellectually by the banning of books, while a select few already ‘unstable’ people are ‘saved’ from a books influence.
-Chris P
I certainly agree with Jessi W. that people should have the freedom to read whatever they want, depending on their maturity level. Certain books are not for everyone and some are simply inappropriate for the average fifth grader. The Color Purple was banned in a middle school because it was being offered in an advanced reader’s class. It would be wrong of me to say that no middle school child is capable of reading a book that contains rape, incest, and homosexuality; but it is fair to say that VERY few children of that age are capable of reading the book maturely and understanding its message. Personally, I am for censoring books in that cause because it is simply not the right time for them to read such books. If they want to read the book on their free time or in a high school class, that is fine with me, but I do believe people’s maturity levels need to be taken into consideration before requiring them to read risqué books.
-Chris P
I like what Nathan J. had to say about Ray Bradbury’s quote. Reading is not nearly as popular as it used to be, and will never be that popular again. New forms of media have nearly completely replaced books. Movies have obviously beaten out books when it comes to entertainment. People are suckers for movies with substance-less plots and lots of unnecessary explosions. When people want to get their news fix, they watch networks like MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. Those stations have more power in people’s lives than most are willing to admit. Banning is not even necessary to silence books anymore. Few people are reading them, and a bad review on Hannity’s America will sadly prevent a portion of that group from reading the book. Our literary culture is quickly decaying even without the banning of books.
-Chris Peters
I have always been drawn to books that have been banned in the past. I suppose I've always favored the dangerous or edgy things in life. And books are no exception. In middle school and high school I loved reading teen drama novels centered around drug use, sex, or counter-culture. First The Catcher in the Rye creeped into my soul and carved out a nook. It was followed by books such as Cherry, Go Ask Alice, and American Skin. All of which could understandably be banned. So, it was such a shock when I heard that Judy Blume's Hello God, It's Me Margaret had been banned during it's original publication. Blume does push the boundaries in young adult fiction, but Hello God... was and is not one of those books. The story, which focuses on a pubescent girl, explores the natural changes a girl's body goes through during puberty and the confusion that comes with it. Nothing in this book is overly sexual, and it is all very appropriate for the intended audience. Compared to her Summer Sisters, this Blume book is absolutely sinless. What this book did, though, was tell the truth. It was probably the first piece of American literature that blatantly discussed menstruation in women, and the maturing thoughts of a young girl. I find this so sad, that a whole slew of generations had to live through these growing-up experiences with hardly any guidance. I think literature is a great tool for women, and I am pleased to look back on the historic books that have come from women using their voices. Kate Chopin, Maya Angelou, Amy Tan, and many others have helped pave the way for women by reaching one reader at a time. I hope we will eventually learn as a culture not to be so uptight. To open ourselves up to reality.
-Kinsey C.
I'm posting a reply to Natan J.'s blog.
My chronic pessimism extends to this topic as well. I love how your blog is so full of hope that this generation could turn around. I believe technology has progressed too far for this to happen, and our society is too comfortable for it to happen. Only several generations ago did the lower class occupants of our society only have newspapers, or books. Maybe they were lucky enough to have a radio. But today, even the poorest households often have a television. I go over to a friend's house and I'm often filled with shame. A massive flat screen television monitor is mounted against the wall (reminiscent of Farenheit 451) and everyone's eyes are glued to the screen as Halo characters run through craters and delapidated buildings. I am living in a time when my peers would rather sit on a couch with a controller in their hands than get up and live. Go outside, read a book, excercise, do something people! I see all these anti-marijuana advertisements claiming that smoking pot will take away your will to make decisions, and that it will consume you until you become fat and boring. In my opinion, television has more power to control you and suck away your desire to experience things. But maybe you are right and once again society will be able to articulate and conduct themselves in a polite manner. But my guess is it's down-hill from here.
-Kinsey C
I am responding to Laurel's response: Just something she said in her response about the book "The Outsiders" made me remember this. When I was in the fourth grade, yes the fourth grade, we had a few books to choose to read and "The Outsiders" was one of them, and I chose that book. The reason that I chose that book, was because it was the smallest out of all of them. The teacher knew that was the reason I chose it too. I dont even remember reading it, so maybe I didnt. So yes everyone has the freedom to read, but I was in the fourth grade and we were reading that?? I dont really know what to think of that...I kind of wish I did read it then, but I just can't remember...
Thanks,
Jessi W.
In response to Nathan J. I think that when children read the Harry Potter series they are rekindling a much needed thirst for reading among our youth. While I dislike the Harry Potter books and would equate their literary value to watered down dog vomit, I will say that there is a purpose to reading bad books. The bad books we read help us decide which books are good books. It is the fundamental thirst for reading that is beneficial to the young not necessarily the content. The real down fall of books will come from skull numbing television like "Rock of Love" and pretty much anything involving Paris Hilton or reality television. The future described in Fahrenheit 451 doesn't seem very far fetched considering the amount of moronic television programing that floods the airwaves today. Nowadays flipping through the channels with the prospect of finding something educational and interesting is like trying to find a Hindu in a slaughter house. (slaughter house five<-theres a good book...too bad nobody is going to read it because they'll be too busy tuning into programs brimming with idiotic dialog and ass crack jokes) Yes sir, the time is nigh for us to bring back programs that don't leave us with heads full of dead insects. Speaking of nigh, how about Bill Nye the Science Guy?
In response to Joe Herner's recent post--although I probably wouldn't use terms like "dog vomit" to describe the Harry Potter books--I do appreciate the point that there is a value to reading even "bad" books (whatever we take bad books to be). What I get from your post is that there's a big difference between reading bad books and watching bad TV, in that reading even bad books helps to develop a thirst for reading, whereas watching bad TV doesn't do much of anything beyond anesthetizing us (as in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451).
Post a Comment