Reasoning for banning books

[Professor James]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_United_States

I've been looking through this list and I'm baffled at about half of these options. My 2 main issues with the list is that A. a lot of those books aren't meant for kids, a child can still get a hold of it but I doubt a kid is going to be interested in 1984. The second issue is that some of these choices are just beyond stupid for censoring (Bridge to Terabithia, Captain Underpants, Harry Potter, A light in the attic, and Goosebumps are some of the more shocking choices) what are the problems with these books? I've also heard people trying to ban twilight because it has vampires and werewolves in it. Can someone provide some insight on this?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm against banning books of any kind for whatever reason in any time or place. For example, I don't care if Huckleberry Finn says "******" all the time, that book was written in 1884 and it remains a testament of how people lived and thought back in those days. To censor it is to revise history and pretend like nothing of the story ever happened, thereby belittling it to the point people will forget.

 

[Zhukov]

Wait... Call of the Wild? What's wrong with that book?

James and the Giant Peach?

The Witches? Leave Roald Dahl alone you dastardly yanks!

Is there anywhere that says why they get challenged? Some I can at least understand, even if it is stupid, but some are just bloody bonkers. Unless James and the Giant Peach had some kind of super subversive message that flew over my nine year old mind.

Also, now I kind of want to read Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women's Sexual Fantasies, even though it's probably not as juicy as it sounds.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I'm against banning books of any kind for whatever reason in any time or place. For example, I don't care if Huckleberry Finn says "******" all the time, that book was written in 1884 and it remains a testament of how people lived and thought back in those days. To censor it is to revise history and pretend like nothing of the story ever happened, thereby belittling it to the point people will forget.

And the bitter, bitter irony is that it is through reading things like Huckleberry Finn that we gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes and ideas of the time when it was written and set...and a better understanding of why it is so very inappropriate to use words like '******' today. These books help us to understand ourselves, censoring them is just wrong.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Is there anywhere that says why they get challenged? Some I can at least understand, even if it is stupid, but some are just bloody bonkers. Unless James and the Giant Peach had some kind of super subversive message that flew over my nine year old mind.

I agree that attempting to ban the book in unconscionable, but the part that people probably find offensive is

Spoiler: spoilers for James and the Giant Peach

When the peach starts rolling, it crushes and presumably kills both of James' aunts. James & the insects then later make an amusing rhyme of the incident. Now those two women were horrendous bitches who should never have had a child left in their care, but having a joke about the deaths of family members is something that some people would probably find offensive.

 

[FalloutJack]

Catch-22? The Giver? The Great Gatsby? To Kill A Mockingbird? 1984? Lord of the Flies?

Harry Potter and GOOSEBUMPS?! Fuck off, censores!

Who are these morons and how do I ban them from my gene pool? What the hell do these intolerant bastards have against this stuff?

 

[Little Woodsman]

Catch-22? The Giver? The Great Gatsby? To Kill A Mockingbird? 1984? Lord of the Flies?

Harry Potter and GOOSEBUMPS?! Fuck off, censores!

Who are these morons and how do I ban them from my gene pool? What the hell do these intolerant bastards have against this stuff?

I know, the idea of To Kill a Mockingbird being banned makes me physically ill.

 

[FalloutJack]

Catch-22? The Giver? The Great Gatsby? To Kill A Mockingbird? 1984? Lord of the Flies?

Harry Potter and GOOSEBUMPS?! Fuck off, censores!

Who are these morons and how do I ban them from my gene pool? What the hell do these intolerant bastards have against this stuff?

I know, the idea of To Kill a Mockingbird being banned makes me physically ill.

I'm thinking the people who want this one banned are like...really racist. Not like calling out someone kneejerk-style because we're trying to be PC (which I hate), but actual real race-haters. And why? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? The book has BIG commentary on the rights of a black man who is clearly innocent of his crime, because we CAN'T have white people look like the bad guys! NO NO! We can't look at the dark part of ourselves that would sic an angry mob on a man and hang him for a crime he didn't commit. That would be self-reflection, which we cannot allow! Oh, and the part where the real obvious culprit ends up killed and they let the one who did it walk? No, that's injustice, isn't it? We can't have moral victories either!

I tend to believe that some people are so hypocritical that they trip on their own feet every time they walk.

 

[Shadowstar38]

The wolves in Twilight are shape shifters not werewolves...I always feel the need to point that out for some reason.

Oh and, yeah, not sure why you're shocked about Harry Potter. We weren't allowed to watch the movies back in middle school due to the whole witchcraft being against Christianity thing (did I mention the bible belt is weird?)

Also I never a Goosebumps book but, if they're anything close to the TV show they show on the HUB bow, fuck right off. Kids can take horror in appropriate doses.

The Giver

Well, the main character did display sexual urges in one chapter. Not really child friendly stuff.

 

[Queen Michael]

Is there anywhere that says why they get challenged? Some I can at least understand, even if it is stupid, but some are just bloody bonkers. Unless James and the Giant Peach had some kind of super subversive message that flew over my nine year old mind.

I agree that attempting to ban the book in unconscionable, but the part that people probably find offensive is

Spoiler: spoilers for James and the Giant Peach

When the peach starts rolling, it crushes and presumably kills both of James' aunts. James & the insects then later make an amusing rhyme of the incident. Now those two women were horrendous bitches who should never have had a child left in their care, but having a joke about the deaths of family members is something that some people would probably find offensive.

Nah, the offensive part was the imaginative imagery. People thought it seemed drug-inspired.

 

[Randomeaninglessword]

Censorship, regardless of how nonsensical, is always terrible. Freedom of speech/print should be something everybody strives toward.

 

[wrightguy0]

banning books is terrible, as are book burnings and any other attempt to suppress and eliminate creative freedom and challenging concepts.

I would also like to point out that banning books in the US is unconstitutional, thanks to the first amendment, but that's never stopped the yanks from being a bunch of hypocrites before...

 

[Leonardo Huizar]

I wouldnt have shed a tear if the Twilight books were banned

When i was a kid on my own i checked out from the library something called: 'Will the nurse make me take off my underwear?' It was about a hypochondriac teenage boy who was transitioning from child hood to puberty and Im remembering it had some notes on all the expletive things children knew about before the age of 15 or something like that. Basically a pre- UrbandictionaryDOTcom

 

[Nakts]

1984 and Brave New World, shocking that Animal Farm wasn't included because that's the kind of stuff that's actually going down in the US and they don't want people thinking it an be challenged or having kids be smart enough to notice.

 

[CriticalMiss]

I can understand banning The Anarchists Cookbook, but some on that list are fairly innocent. Maybe the Americans hate Roald Dahl books, except the one where kids happily glut on chocolate and sweets (not suprised). Some are obviously on there because of religion and others because you aren't ever allowed to talk about sex ever ever, certainly not gay sex because that causes terrorism and AIDS! (<- sarcasm) And I find it odd that they chose to try and ban 1984 but not Mein Kampf.

Personally I think banning books is ridiculous. If you make a big deal about a book then you are more likely to publicise it and make people want to read it and now that we have the internet they will find a way to get a copy from somewhere else if they are intent on reading something.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Oh god this list <.<

Half of these books are on our official list for our maturity-exams (highschool equivalent) in our english classes.
1984, brave new world, how to kill a mockingbird, the great gatsby.. etc. They all count as "classic" literature where i live.

Ah, silly Americans

 

[Da Orky Man]

Oh god this list <.<

Half of these books are on our official list for our maturity-exams (highschool equivalent) in our english classes.
1984, brave new world, how to kill a mockingbird, the great gatsby.. etc. They all count as "classic" literature where i live.

Ah, silly Americans

Pretty much the same here. My school library has multiple copies of 1984, and The Great Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird are part of the GCSE (14-16 years) English Literature examination.

 

[Yal]

Oh god this list <.<

Half of these books are on our official list for our maturity-exams (highschool equivalent) in our english classes.
1984, brave new world, how to kill a mockingbird, the great gatsby.. etc. They all count as "classic" literature where i live.

Ah, silly Americans

No, that's all true in the US too. A book doesn't end up on that list unless it's popular and widely read.

No one cares about the books buried deeper in the stacks.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Can someone provide some insight on this?

You live in a country founded by genocidal religious fundamentalists, from that starting point getting into groups and trying to ban books is progress, maybe annoying now but definitely progress!

 

[ShipofFools]

The only book banned in the Netherlands is Mein Kampf by A. Hitler. And you can still totally go to a library and have a go at it, if insane ranting is your cup of tea. Nobody cares.

Ironically, banning books was one of those things the state did in... Brave New World. A book that does appear on that list.

Nice going, Yanks.