Banned books

[Strelnikov]

Shem- Talk of "professional ethics" in a First Amendment absolutist manner is a cop out. I agree 100% with Joby's post. Once again, she has expressed my thoughts much better than I'm able to do. Amen, sister!

Strelnikov

 

[areenactor]

i agree with joby completely

she said it so well too!
i hope that took her 2 or 3 days to compose, otherwise i feel awfully stupid compared to her, lol.
steve

 

[giggledude]

Where, if anywhere, do people think parental rights should leave off? I agree entirely with the ideal, but setting the ideal as a requirement makes me nervous. My own parents were an alcoholic and an adulterer, only too happy to let me walk to the library and do as I would there. If I could only have read "adult" books under their supervision (I taught myself bridge at age 5 from a book), they either would have been too self-absorbed to bother or would have bartered approval slips for nasty favours. I probably would have survived, but some situations are more dangerous. (What about gay or pre-gay teenagers with religious parents who think it sinful - how can everyone get a fair situation there?) So many people who profess the intention of teaching their children to think for themselves really mean that they intend to teach their children to reach all the conclusions they do and let the thought process fend for itself. This isn't a righty or a lefty thing, by the way. Home schooling makes me nervous for the same reason. I sympathize with the desire to keep young people out of public schools, but I know a dozen people off the top of my head who would teach their children either history that God is a Republican or literature that some person of colour who's written about a dozen poems is the equivalent of or more significant than Shakespeare.

Sorry this was so scattered, but had no time to organize properly.

 

[Daumantas]

Very true, GD. Parental instincts are no guarantee of ANYTHING. If they were, there wouldn't be so many lousy parents out there.

Furthermore, those of us who don't have kids (me and Mrs. Daumantas made a conscious decision long ago not to have any) sometimes find it a little irritating when it's implied to us that since we have no kids, we have no business having opinions on...well, a whole bunch of issues. We live in the same world the rest of you do, and we have much at stake in it also.

Since I don't have kids, for my inexpert opinion I have to rely on what I remember from my own childhood. And what I remember is this: there were kids who were precocious enough to read all sorts of books at an early age. There were kids like me who were kinda sorta precocious, could read certain "adult" books (history) but not others (I read "Catch-22" for the first time at 16 and it blew my mind; I don't think I would have totally "gotten" it at age 10.) And there are former classmates of mine who STILL aren't bright enough to read a complicated novel, or a novel at all for that matter.

My point being that the final determinant of whether a kid is old enough to read a book is in the end going to be the kid, no matter what parents would like to think. If you're old enough to be truly interested in "Catcher in the Rye," you're probably old enough to read it; if you're not old enough to read it, you probably won't be interested anyway (not unless the local school board makes it exciting by attempting to ban it and leading you to believe it's a "dirty" book).

 

[JoBelle]

GD,

If your parent was an alcoholic, you had far more important issues at hand than whether or not you were allowed to read Joyce or Stienbeck in gradeschool.

A child dealing with an extremely difficult home life would not benefit from being forced (by self or otherwise) into yet another intellectual predictament beyond their capacity to understand. Feeling grown-up does not make a child capable of making adult decisions or understanding adult matters. Your very issues stands that you were facing adult problems at too young an age. Having the right to add insult to injury is not always beneficial.

I doubt you'll ever hear anything as a rigid and steady rule in regard to literature as it falls in the category of art. HOWEVER, there is a need for guidelines. Every rule...every law has an exception. The base I'm hoping for would be one that keeps in mind that children should be treated as children.

Joby
BTW...Jim, Steve, Strel...thanks

 

[Shem the Penman]

For what I hope is absolutely the last time: I'm not arguing against parents' rights to control what their kids see. I am arguing that that right does not include the right to have books actually removed from libraries -- which you seem to think it does, Strel.

I hope that what my future children read/see will be determined by my wife and myself, not by some Mrs. Grundy with an axe to grind. And while I realize that they will eventually be exposed to things we disapprove of -- it's an inevitable part of growing up -- I hope we can deal with that experience when it comes up more rationally than by demanding that the offending material be banished.

The question of how much, if any, influence a librarian should exert over what patrons see is a major ethical question for the profession. For adult patrons, the ideal is as little as possible. For young patrons, we try to defer to the parents' judgment while erring on the side of caution. It's possible for parents to make mistakes, after all. And it's difficult to make hard and fast rules because kids mature at different rates.

And incidentally: part of a librarian's responsibility to the community is to build as good a collection as possible, given the limits of space and funding. Please look back over the list I posted. Many of them are classics, and most of them are challenging and thought-provoking. None of them are sensationalistic, contentless crap that have no redeeming social value. In light of that, I'd say it's not unrealistic to put the burden of proving that they should be removed on those who want them removed, rather than forcing the librarian to prove that the books should remain.

Further, school libraries include high school libraries -- and most of the books on the list are ones aimed at a young adult (i.e. early teens and up) audience, so are most likely to be found there. I seriously doubt many elementary school librarians waste money buying copies of Of Mice and Men, after all. Shouldn't young adults be given more freedom to read than children?

 

[JoBelle]

Furthermore, those of us who don't have kids (me and Mrs. Daumantas made a conscious decision long ago not to have any) sometimes find it a little irritating when it's implied to us that since we have no kids, we have no business having opinions on...well, a whole bunch of issues. We live in the same world the rest of you do, and we have much at stake in it also.

Daumantas,

I doubt any parent would belittle your opinion. You're entitled to it, no question. It is indeed your world and you do have as much interest in the children of today turning into well adjusted and educated leaders of tomorrow.

I think parents who hold sick children in hospital emergency rooms, who kiss bumped foreheads, who explain why Grampa died, and have to make the monsters and pain of life go away on a daily basis...yes daily, as in the lives of parents, even a lost toy is a traumatic thing....well....THOSE people often feel they have more of a right to make decisions on issues regarding children than people who don't have them.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but it is my opinion. I do agree that there are a number of poor parents in the world, but most parents are more concerned with their children than you might think. As a parent I get a little irritated by the smugness that non-parents have when they act as if they have a clue as to what raising a child actually involves. It goes way beyond books.

I'd like the people who make the guidelines for surgery and operating room procedures be educated physicians with years of experience behind them as opposed to the fellow who sweeps the floors at the local gas station. In the same vein, the people who make decisions about children and children's issues should primarily be those who have them. I'm not saying we parents all agree, but please understand the passion that you hear comes from a desire to protect the innocent...not to limit choice and education. THAT was the primary reason for bringing the parent/non-parent issue into the conversation.

Children will indeed be the ones deciding that an adult book might look good. Adults are the ones who should be making the final decision though. Why don't we just let kids see any movie, own any object, spend time with whomever they please? Becuase they are children. It's our job as adults to see to it that they learn what being a kid is about before they worry about being an adult.

You can disagree, but I think experience not opinion makes people qualified for different positions in life.

Joby
I realize that this is a soap box issue with me. I'm unbending on it. I don't mean to sound rude or harsh. I just have a base belief that kids should kids. I'm curious if the people saying kids shouldn't be moderated would let those same children come to the TMF???

 

[BigJim]

In the end, if you allow a child to have material meant for an adult and you aren't there to help explain the things that only life experience will teach them....then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Joby

That last paragraph was the most "to the point" part of the whole argument. Giving kids freedom to leanr is a great thing, because some parents might have been too narrow-minded to accept some things, but would'nt stop their child from learning about it. Keeping someone in ignorance is a sure fire way of turning your kid into a narrow minded adult. However, you have to believe that with the best will in the world; some concepts will just be out of reach of a childs intelect to fully understand. Screening a kid from something until they can 100% comprehend it isn't the same as refusing them access to what you consider "immoral" literature. I sure as hell wouldn't want an 11 year old child of mine reading Fanny Hill, but I wouldn't object to a 16 or 17 year old reading it in high school.

In the end, when we reach pension age and our children are fully grown adults, we'll all look back and think that there some things we could have done better with them. None of us will ever be perfect parents even in our own eyes. Such a status is impossible to attain. All we can do is keep our minds clear while we're bringing them up and hope that we manage to get as much right as we can. If we've honestly done the best we can in an open minded way, then we can hold our heads high.

 

[BellaRisa]

What if they still bring it home?

My oldest child won't even start school 'til next September (she missed the deadline of turning 5 by one month so I have her at home with me another year .) Here's my question for those of you who already have babes in the school system: what would you do if your child was asked to read a book you didn't feel he or she was ready for? The whole class is reading it, do you ask for a separate curriculum just for your child...?

All of the books on the list mentioned here are among my favorites, btw-"Summer of My German Soldier" made me cry and affected me for the entire year of 10th grade. I highly recommend the little-known sequel, "Morning is a long Time coming".

Bella

PS Joby and Big Jim, you've been echoing my thoughts, thanks!

 

[BigJim]

Re: What if they still bring it home?

Here's my question for those of you who already have babes in the school system: what would you do if your child was asked to read a book you didn't feel he or she was ready for? The whole class is reading it, do you ask for a separate curriculum just for your child...?

Well Bella, I am not a father as yet, but I hope you won't mind me giving you a hypothetical answer anyway?

If that was the situation, I would first speak to the head of year for my son/daughter. I'd voice my concerns and tell them why I thought it wasn't totally appropriate. I'd do this because you never know, it's possible that other parents had done the self same thing. I might even ask a few of the other parents what they thought. If enough of the other parents had also expressed concern, it might be possible to get the school to think again.

If however, the school did not luisten and I had no support from the other parents, I don't think I would demand a seperate curriculum for my child. I would make an extra effort with that book. I would spend even more time than usual going over it and trying my best to explain it in a serious way. In short, I'd do my best to make sure my kid could properly assimilate it. I'd stop short of kicking up a real fuss, unless it was as serious as a teacher giving them Mein Kampf and telling them that all the ills of the world were caused by Jewish conspiracies. If that happened I'd raise Cain! But if it were a milder and more acceptable case, I'd just try my hardest.

Hope that answer didn't sound too poncy.

 

[giggledude]

JoBelle - sorry I didn't have enough time this morning to elaborate. My point was that there may be no really good solution, as there seems little reason to quarrel with any decisions good parents make for their children, but at the same time to give bad parents the unilateral authority for some crucial decisions is horrific. (I hope, by the way, you didn't mean to dismiss my opinion as worth less on the grounds that I was maimed for life by my childhood; I'm assuming not, but your reply seemed as if it could be read either way.) All the parents who have posted on this thread appear to be good and concerned parents, and I doubt I'd quarrel significantly with any of your child-raising decisions. My own experience is that of an adolescent with siblings who needed protection from their own parents, as it were. I think that's more widespread than good parents like to admit, and my firsthand experience is definitely to the effect that the concern of a bad parent can often be worse than indifference. (By the way, the adulterer was much more the problem than the alcoholic. The alcoholic usually fell asleep early in the evenings, which let me cope with the household; it was much easier that way. The adulterer took me on trysts, and it was a battle to keep my sisters from the same fate.) But what has given me a reasonably happy adulthood is that I was the detached one, having the most life outside the mess. More involvement with them was not the answer. And yet I suspect that more involvement with anyone who's posted here may well be the answer for any of your children. But to use my example, as I said earlier, if I had had to have parental permission for any books I'd read in class or taken out from the adult section of the library, whether or not permission would have been granted would have had nothing to do with any informed decision on whether the book were appropriate for me or not.

I'm perfectly willing to accept, though, that just because bad marriages and ill-motivated pregnancies were the norm in my own little corner of the world, that many or most of you have had far happier experiences, though I don't know anyone's personal history.

Amazingly enough, I didn't try to read books which were "too advanced," at least not in the way the term is generally meant. I had the good taste to develop an early liking for historical fiction, Miss Austen and several of her imitators who had slightly less literary merit but were much in the same style of the concerns of "three or four families in a country village". I actually had a remarkably preserved innocence, and remember being twelve years old before I finally understood the concept that conception could occur outside of marriage. I doubt even a good parent could do as much for a child today - rather amusing, really. It just goes to show that I never did much care for science. For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like.

I really hope I haven't offended anybody, though I suppose I probably have and I just shouldn't post at all. Sorry.

 

[Daumantas]

So, in my case, I should have listened to my own dumb-ass father, back when I was about 10, when he tried to convince to watch TV instead of reading, because reading "hurts your eyes?"

After all, he was Dear Ole Dad, and he knew what was best for me...right?

Joby, you're an intelligent person, and you're also in touch with your kids. You're exactly the sort of person who should be deciding what their own kids read or not. But I'm telling you, there are a lot of people out there who aren't necessarily abusive, but who are just plain stupid (go to the nearest mall and take a walk around if you need proof). Stupid people are stupid in most situations, so they're also going to attempt to raise their kids stupidly.

Here's the difference: one of Joby's comes home one day with "Catcher in the Rye," available at the local library. Joby is a) smart enough to know what the book is about and b) a good enough mother to know whether her child is ready for it. She believes her child is not ready, and expresses that to her child. What she's done makes perfect sense and seems to me good parenting.

Daumantas many years back comes home one day with "Catcher in the Rye," available at the local library. Daumantas' father a) never read the book, or even heard of it, and b) isn't bright enough to know what the book is about himself, let alone whether Daumantas is old enough to read it. Daumantas' father proceeds to grunt incoherently and wander into the living room, where he flops onto the sofa and turns on the TV.

Now, I know Joby and Strel and the rest of you guys really do authentically want to protect your children - and it's not you that I object to. You have every right to raise your kids as you see fit and to check on what they read (can you tell I WISH I had parents who gave a crap what I read?). And for that reason, having certain books only available with an adult's permission isn't unreasonable at all. As Shem points out, it's the people who want to take the books out of the library altogether so that NO ONE can read them that are trouble - they are USING your kids as an excuse to censor ideas they don't like (their real objection to "Catcher in the Rye" being not that Holden Caulfield says "goddam" a lot but that he asserts that most powers-that-be are phonies and hypocrites; not the sort of the thing well-placed local bigshots want their kids to think).

 

[Daumantas]

And anyway, what's all this fuss about "band books" for? What's wrong with children reading band books? I think it's delightful that children should learn about music. They can read books about all of the instruments in the band - the trumpet, the trombone, the flute, the bass drum, the triangle...

Sorry - just thought this thread was getting a little mean and could use some levity.

 

[BigJim]

As Shem points out, it's the people who want to take the books out of the library altogether so that NO ONE can read them that are trouble - they are USING your kids as an excuse to censor ideas they don't like (their real objection to "Catcher in the Rye" being not that Holden Caulfield says "goddam" a lot but that he asserts that most powers-that-be are phonies and hypocrites; not the sort of the thing well-placed local bigshots want their kids to think).

Damn good point D. I could go on for hours about that as it's a favourite subject of mine. Given that I ramble on for hours about things that aren't even favourite subjects though I'll spare y'all that ordeal.

 

[BigJim]

Sorry - just thought this thread was getting a little mean and could use some levity.

Why would you want to make the thread float?

 

[JoBelle]

OK!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, I took a nap Things are much rosier now. *hehe*
I sure get mouthy when something touches a nerve, don't I?

I had to step back and reevaluate my statements. I'm an English teacher by education, so I suppose I'm not your average parent when it comes to what I think kids should or should not be reading. That being said, I'm also happy to see that though I may disagree with the timetable, I'm certainly as pleased as blueberry punch that there are people fighting to keep books in the hands of kids rather than the remote to a mind destroying game of "Kill the driver of the stolen car, pick up a hooker then kill her and run over a lot of people."

I stand by my statements, but I do accept that some people are likely less qualified than their kids as far as knowing what any piece of literature might be about. THAT group...well, can't I continue to pretend that they don't exist? In the meantime, I still think kids should be exposed to adult material only when an adult is there to explain the things that cannot be grasped by the mind of a child.

HI BELLA

To answer you....

I would not demand a seperate courseload for my child. Generally, when an educator chooses a book, it is to do more than share a story. It is to illustrate an idea, a period of time, a social change that took place during the writing, etc. I may disagree with a particular book, but if it is going to be discussed, I would feel confident that any problems I may have will also be addressed. It isn't very often that a parent objects to a class assigned work. It is the unmoderated access that seems to be the problem. It is a whole other ball of wax (where did that phrase come from? LOL) if I approach a teacher who has no intention of teaching. In that, I mean if a teacher says, "I just think they should be exposed to it." Well, that's just not good enough. In my opinion that would require some action on my part. (A request for discussion, or choice of an alternative book since there isn't enough passion on the part of the educator to do more than make an assignment.) My 2 cents...What do you think??

Joby...former band geek....had plenty of band books in my day! Silly D!

 

[giggledude]

J - thank you for that point about preferring the timetable disagreement, as I woke up in the middle of the night fretting that I hadn't expressed the view that books seem so rapidly to be dying out that the problem might be a moot point in another generation or two. The last time I visited the library nearest me, one might not have grasped very quickly that the building actually contained books, and I doubt an alien transported to Earth would find it easy to believe that not long ago books were the library's main purpose of existence.

I think we're all on the same scale, just at different points, and, like the question of the woman who would sleep with someone for ten million dollars but not for ten dollars, it's a question of working out the details. That there should be a line, and that certain books (for one reason or another) do not belong in public libraries, can be generally accepted, as can the idea that libraries ought to exist and ought to have books in them. So now it's just a question of deciding how the line is to be drawn, and there we are. Who wants to make the decision? It's one thing to make the decision for one's own child, whom one has known and nurtured all his or her life, but the people who scare me are the ones who are eager and jump at the opportunity to attempt to make the decision for everyone else's child as well. Not that in some cases that decision doesn't have to be made (the sad part is that no answer is worse than most bad answers), but the eagerness I've seen in people to pull books generally stems not from the thought that children aren't ready for the book but from the thought that the book contains an idea by which they don't want any children to be attracted.

It's very natural, of course, to wish that community standards would mirror our own values, as then the community at large would do much to reinforce them and spread them. Accommodation for others is rarely an easy question.

If only we had some sort of litmus paper or something that we could touch to people that would give us a reading of how good a parent someone is, what concepts this particular child is ready for, and possibly even the level of books as well! But even if we had the technology to make such a testing device, the difficulty of composing and scoring the test would probably prove insurmountable. Oh, well, just another lovely thought to no useful purpose...

 

[areenactor]

boy is this getting to be a stretch

how did we now get gay teenagers in to a conversation about books?

daumantas, i'm soory you chose the path you did. my olest brother also took that road, and is now in his 50's and regrets it. he at least admits it was a selfish decission. but to the point, sorry but your not having kids does disqualify you in this case. you have nothing at stake, are not trying to protect anything. as far as home schooling i wish every year that we would have done it. i have met 3 or 4 families that do it, and the kids are way above the curve. people have a right to think what they want, and a right to be wrong. if some moron wants to teach his kids that god is a blue genie, that wears a pink tootoo, so be it! who cares? if a gingoistic nut wants to be culturaly stupid, oh well! frankly some of the crap thats been taught to my kids at the public schools have been enough for me to pull my hair at times, and march in the next morning!
so yes i'll hold onto the idea that it's up to me what, and when my kids will read, till they are of leagle age.
steve

 

[Daumantas]

Steve-
Without knowing either me or my wife, how on earth can you presume to judge us as having been "selfish" for deciding not to have kids?

The reasons we decided not to have kids are very complex and very personal, and I surely don't think I have to explain or justify them to anyone, least of all a total stranger.

 

[BellaRisa]

Steve-
Without knowing either me or my wife, how on earth can you presume to judge us as having been "selfish" for deciding not to have kids?

The reasons we decided not to have kids are very complex and very personal, and I surely don't think I have to explain or justify them to anyone, least of all a total stranger.

Well said, D.

And, um...at the risk of being a total brat, folks might wanna use capital letters and proper spelling and punctuation before they talk about homeschooling

Sorry but that was just killin' me, I'll be nice now

Bella

 

[Daumantas]

Thanks, bella...you are a noble soul.

 

[BigJim]

Joby...former band geek....had plenty of band books in my day! Silly D!

This one time, at band camp.......

 

[BigJim]

Thanks, bella...you are a noble soul.

Indeed she is, and an even nobler sole........

 

[Strelnikov]

Shem, reread my last post. I never said that books unsuitable for children should be removed from public libraries... Just that MY kid has to have MY permission to sign those books out.

School libraries are another matter. Material that is inappropriate for a 4th grader doesen't belong in an elementary school library. That's typically not a problem in this state. But if it were, it's not only my right but also my duty to involve my neighbors and do something about it. Daumantas is right - there are lots of bad (or uncaring) parents out there. Their kids deserve to be kids too.

Would I demand an alternate curriculum if my daughter was given an unsuitable reading assignment, or one I strongly disagreed with? Damn right I would! That too is my right and duty.

Strelnikov

 

[giggledude]

We all have to bear in mind, though, that "unsuitable" isn't clearly defined. One image raised is the TV movie in which a popular history teacher, with full community support, was teaching that the Holocaust never happened. I think it starred Raquel Welch or someone similar as the Noble Barmaid Mother who endured the scorn and harassment of the community but brought him down in the end. Another is the father who has been so prominent lately trying to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Granted, his balloon leaks a bit of air given that his daughter apparently goes happily to church with her mother, but if we assume he's sincere in wanting to protect his child (possibly a big "if", but surely there are sincere examples of this sort and I'm just using this man for convenience because we're all familiar with the issue), he can be considered a Concerned Parent objecting to "unsuitable" material.

I've known several cases of alternate curricula being provided upon parental request with happy results all round, though all of the type in which a parent didn't want his/her child in particular to study something rather than demanding that it be removed from the curriculum entirely. But those were all what one can call mainstream, in which it was foreseen that a certain book might raise reasonable objections and a substitute was prepared in advance. I don't really know enough about education to be able to give a good answer here - is it practical for a school to have an alternative to every book ready on parental demand for any reason? Or, on the other side, what should a parent do if, after meetings and discussions, an impasse were reached and no alternative to the proposed book provided? How unsuitable would something have to be to get one to go to court? (Or to what extent, if any, should "unsuitable" have degrees?)