Reasoning for banning books

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.

What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
 

Stasisesque

New member
Nov 25, 2008
983
0
0
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.

What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
 

LAGG

New member
Jun 23, 2011
281
0
0
Souther Thorn said:
The only reason anyone ever wants to ban a book or burn a book is to destroy the contents of it and remove it from the public eye. They want control, total and complete control, of the thoughts in your head, the contents of your heart, and the direction that you may take as a person. These individuals are motivated through ignorance, pride, or religious ideology and are equal in my opinion to folks like Boko Haram or Al Quaeda in their drive to ensure that one, and only one opinion, ideal, or position can be had, their own. There is no good reason to ban a book unless you want control so bad you're willing to sell your soul for it, period plain and simple.
Exactly. Perfect post.

Nothing else to be said. Well, except this must be said too:

Redflash said:
Ignorance is terrifying and it's everywhere.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.

What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
Did Mexicans eat grasshoppers when the book came out?
 

Stasisesque

New member
Nov 25, 2008
983
0
0
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.

What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
Did Mexicans eat grasshoppers when the book came out?
I would assume so. They're certainly eaten in parts of Mexico today, so unless Roald Dahl was precognitive or he's revered in Mexico to the point they take food inspiration from his books (which I guess is possible, though I would have picked snozzberries) then I would suggest they were either commonly eaten in Mexico in the 1960s, or it was certainly thought so over here.

I'm in no way suggesting the banning of James and the Giant Peach was a good or even justifiable idea, I am merely giving the reasons I know for its ban. Even so, the Grasshopper's line could maybe be construed as racist in the same way the common "Koreans eat dogs" stereotype can be seen as racist today.

Edit: And as my friend just pointed out to me, it has less to do with whether or not the statement is true and more to do with the presentation of it. Dahl obviously saw the eating of grasshoppers as objectionable.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.

What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
Did Mexicans eat grasshoppers when the book came out?
I would assume so. They're certainly eaten in parts of Mexico today, so unless Roald Dahl was precognitive or he's revered in Mexico to the point they take food inspiration from his books (which I guess is possible, though I would have picked snozzberries) then I would suggest they were either commonly eaten in Mexico in the 1960s, or it was certainly thought so over here.

I'm in no way suggesting the banning of James and the Giant Peach was a good or even justifiable idea, I am merely giving the reasons I know for its ban. Even so, the Grasshopper's line could maybe be construed as racist in the same way the common "Koreans eat dogs" stereotype can be seen as racist today.

Edit: And as my friend just pointed out to me, it has less to do with whether or not the statement is true and more to do with the presentation of it. Dahl obviously saw the eating of grasshoppers as objectionable.
I can't really agree with that last part; I'd say it's more likely that the grasshopper saw the eating of grasshoppers as objectionable. For obvious reasons.
 

KungFuJazzHands

New member
Mar 31, 2013
309
0
0
Fun fact: I once spent three days in jail because of an altercation with a rather rabid public book burner.

It was sooooo worth it. I'll do it again if the opportunity ever comes up; willfully ignorant people are high up on my blacklist.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
thesilentman said:
I have a feeling no one read the Wikipedia page...

Taken from Wikipedia itself said:
"This list of most commonly challenged books in the United States lists some of the books challenged from 1990 to 1999 in the United States.[1]

In the United States, many books have been challenged by a variety of groups and agencies to prevent a particular work from being read by the general public.[citation needed] In recent years, it has become more common for those challenging the availability of a book to do so on a local level, targeting public libraries and school libraries. Many communities have a formal process by which a citizen may challenge the public availability of a work."
This does not mean that they were banned. This means that they were highly contested as study material in school because of reasons that may or may not have made sense. I've read a good chunk of titles on that list, and the reason for even considering them to be banned baffles me.
Actually, I did know. I was not speaking as though they had been banned, but as though the idea that anyone should want to was the most asinine thing I'd heard lately. It's not down to the act, but the people behind it, because of the rampant idiocy.
 

Mr. Happy Face

New member
May 8, 2013
36
0
0
Wow, that list it just completely full of crap. I get why most of those books are on the list, but where's the consistency? Lolita is mentioned, for obvious reasons, but I see no mention of It or Flowers in the Attic, which could be argued also fit along similar criteria. And I don't care if it's a bandwagon; I'm jumping on it. Leave Roald Dahl alone. I loved his whimsical children's books growing up, and it'd be a crime to deny them to any child.
 

Dangit2019

New member
Aug 8, 2011
2,449
0
0
I remember back when the Bible belt thought Harry Potter was against God. Fun times.

They did an Xbox 180 when the movies came out and everybody realized how stupid they sounded.
 

Drakane

New member
May 8, 2009
350
0
0
K12 said:
Or "Shade's Children" by Garth Nix which has sexual activity (or as at least strongly implied) by characters who are 15. .
You have made a Garth Nix reference and been promoted to my "win" list. It really doesn't mean much, but the Abhorsen series is one of my favorites... still.

OT: People are idiots. They try to ban anything they don't understand or don't agree. We stupid Yanks let morons talk while ignoring there suggestions... most the time. Sadly sometimes the idiots win. But to my knowledge, no books are banned int he States.
 

BurningWyvern90

New member
May 21, 2013
72
0
0
Because people are stupid. Just because they can't separate real life from fiction or are too scared to broaden their minds because God forbid something make them think for once they think it's bad. You know, it might deal with real, pertinent issues, and we can't have that, can we?

Imagination and public awareness are terrible things, and we should suppress them. Obviously.
 

Haakmed

New member
Oct 29, 2010
177
0
0
I for one am glad about one book in particular! Captain Underpants is a seditious book and no person should read such vicious and down right vulgar books!
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
"Reasons for banning books."

There is none. Except for the Necronomicon. Ban the Necronomicon.
 

Clinky

New member
Jan 5, 2012
212
0
0
OneCatch said:
... and why the holy fuck has anyone tried to ban A Wrinkle in Time?! I read that when I was about 7, it's an entirely innocuous sci-fi fantasy for kids. It's good, but it's utterly non-offensive.
Looking it up it's because of references to witches. Also for 'Challenging religious beliefs' and 'Listing Jesus with the names of famous artists, scientists, philosophers, and religious leaders'.

Both of those being kinda weird since Madeleine L'Engle was an open christian, albeit one with views that are somewhat controversial.
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.


What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
Did Mexicans eat grasshoppers when the book came out?
I would assume so. They're certainly eaten in parts of Mexico today, so unless Roald Dahl was precognitive or he's revered in Mexico to the point they take food inspiration from his books (which I guess is possible, though I would have picked snozzberries) then I would suggest they were either commonly eaten in Mexico in the 1960s, or it was certainly thought so over here.

I'm in no way suggesting the banning of James and the Giant Peach was a good or even justifiable idea, I am merely giving the reasons I know for its ban. Even so, the Grasshopper's line could maybe be construed as racist in the same way the common "Koreans eat dogs" stereotype can be seen as racist today.
I think the "Koreans eat dogs" comparison is a bit off. This stereotype is kinda racist because of the western worlds over attachment to dogs and the idea that eating them is barbaric (unlike pigs, cows etc.). I think it's more like the "the french eat snails" stereotype which is more a "Yuck!" response because let's be honest who gives a toss about grasshoppers!


I think it was probably banned simply because it was popular children's book with magic in it i.e. the Harry Potter rationale.
 

Stasisesque

New member
Nov 25, 2008
983
0
0
K12 said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Stasisesque said:
Queen Michael said:
Nosirrah said:
Queen Michael said:
Little Woodsman said:
Zhukov said:
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
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.


What? How could that be drug related? I doubt kids of the age I read the book have any idea of what drugs are.

Also, the witches, really? I get the whole " wig & glove wearing women are witches" ( who are also octopuses and have massive noses) part, but aside from "incredibly shocking" violence such as a mouse getting its tail cut I don't see the problem.
Actually, I was scaret ****less by The Witches as a kid.

Anc concerning James and the etc., I guess some people think that any imagery that required a little imagination on the part of the creator had to have been drug-inspired. If it seems stupid to think that way, that's because it is.

Captcha: bad books
Stop lying, captcha!
From what I've read, James and the Giant Peach wasn't banned because it was thought to be inspired by drugs, but because it promotes the usage of drugs (snuff/tobacco), along with sexual connotations (tenuous) and racism. Some claim the imagery is too scary for children (which could be said for all of the Roald Dahl books), but I haven't seen anything claim it was drug-inspired.
Racism? Where in the book is this racism of which you speak?
"I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by Mexicans."

From the Grasshopper.
Did Mexicans eat grasshoppers when the book came out?
I would assume so. They're certainly eaten in parts of Mexico today, so unless Roald Dahl was precognitive or he's revered in Mexico to the point they take food inspiration from his books (which I guess is possible, though I would have picked snozzberries) then I would suggest they were either commonly eaten in Mexico in the 1960s, or it was certainly thought so over here.

I'm in no way suggesting the banning of James and the Giant Peach was a good or even justifiable idea, I am merely giving the reasons I know for its ban. Even so, the Grasshopper's line could maybe be construed as racist in the same way the common "Koreans eat dogs" stereotype can be seen as racist today.
I think the "Koreans eat dogs" comparison is a bit off. This stereotype is kinda racist because of the western worlds over attachment to dogs and the idea that eating them is barbaric (unlike pigs, cows etc.). I think it's more like the "the french eat snails" stereotype which is more a "Yuck!" response because let's be honest who gives a toss about grasshoppers!


I think it was probably banned simply because it was popular children's book with magic in it i.e. the Harry Potter rationale.
That would be a good comparison if the character in question wasn't a grasshopper. There are many things that eat grasshoppers, but Dahl chose the Mexican stereotype. As the grasshopper is a good guy, this paints Mexicans as bad guys. In very much the same way the "Koreans eat dogs" stereotype paints Koreans as bad guys due, as you said, to the Western world's attachment to dogs.

That said, racism was only one of the reasons cited for its refusal in the USA. As I mentioned earlier, there were others, namely the promotion of drug usage in the form of alcohol, tobacco and snuff, and the scary imagery. I've seen no mention of it being refused because of magic, in the same way I've seen no mention of its refusal because of drug inspired imagery.
 

NihilSinLulz

New member
May 28, 2013
204
0
0
I'd concede to banning certain books if they were about very specific topics and obviously meant to cause harm. An example would be if a book's contents reflected its title of "How to plan, execute, and get away with shooting up your local school - A step by step guide".
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,617
0
0
You can't ban books, as I'm sure you all know. You can stop stocking certain books at certain locations, but freedom of the press means every and all book is allowed to exist.

They explore different themes that a lot of other books tend to ignore. Being the first or the most popular book that touches on different themes is enough.



Some books, like Catch-22, The Grapes of Wrath, Flowers for Algernon, The Jungle, The Great Gatsby, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Slaughterhouse-Five, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Handmaid's Tale, Fahrenheit 451 (unlisted) and 1984 are on there for having dark themes that the book is based around.

Hemingway's books (A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls, etc.), Catch-22, The Jungle, and Slaughterhouse-Five explore dehumanization and the horrors of war. To Kill a Mockingbird, A Clockwork Orange, The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, and Flowers for Algernon all are great, dark criticisms on the world and civilization. The Handmaid's Tale, The Grapes of Wrath, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and The Jungle are all enormous criticisms on the power of the government, the ignorance of the common man, and dark implications of a world to come.

They're just different from the status quo, that's all.

(By the way, anyone who hasn't read the books I listed above really should. But give Hemingway's books and To Kill a Mockingbird a skip, they aren't that good.)

Some books are on there for hilarious reasons of influencing children. Harry Potter, probably for 'promoting witchcraft'. Mark Twain's books, for the use of the word ******. And Tango Makes Three for showing samesex relationships in form of a children's book (protect my babiez's errs!). Are You There God? It's Me Margaret for talking about puberty. Forever for implying that sex is a natural thing that strengthens current and future relationships.

Nothing raunchy at all about the books above, there's simply some people who don't think children should be reading them. To which I say, fuck no, those are books children should be reading!