The book burning starts at dusk

I would like to wish everyone a very happy Banned Books Week. That's right, all week long, we get to bash on freedom of choice when it comes to what others read, do our best to remove the books we think are perverse, subversive, and just plain unpleasant (or books that we don't agree with), and generally force our opinions onto others. To kick off the celebration, we'll start with a big ol' bonfire tonight, toss those nasty ol' books into the fire, and dance around like insane little gremlins, cackling with delight and evil glee.

[Listening to my director in my earphones]

What's that you say? Banned Books Week isn't about burning them? It's about reading them?

Ohhhhh. My mistake.

Anyone who has been reading me for a while knows that is a highly sarcastic title and start to this entry. Quite frankly, I think it's a little snarky of me, too! I'm feeling sassy today.

Banned Books Week, according to the American Library Association, "is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States." Most of you probably know by now that I love to read and that I'm a big fan of books. Not just the action of reading; not just the physical presence of books held in my hands; I love the idea of reading, the ability that it gives each and every one of us to learn, to know, to step outside our normal lives and discover something about another place, another time, another way of life, another culture. Books are a way to travel without ever leaving the comfort of our home.

I've never understood those who would seek to ban books. Just that phrase makes me cringe. I understand if people don't want their kids to read certain things; that is their right. However, in attempting to remove books from school and public libraries, they are also restricting others from reading those books. That is unacceptable, and it is unconstitutional. (That seems to be a popular word these days.) Just as in restricting others from listening to certain types of music because you object to the content, no individual or group has any right whatsoever to keep others from listening to music or reading what they wish to read. In your own home, if you want to limit your child's reading exercises to Chinese takeout menus, have at it. But don't tell me and don't tell my library that I cannot read certain materials because you find them objectionable.

The restriction of books is nothing less than the restriction of ideas. For those who would keep others from reading certain books or other types of media, it naturally begs the question, "What are you afraid of?" The ALA site includes a list of books that have been challenged recently, as well as a list of classics that have been banned or challenged throughout the years. Here is the complete list of those challenged in 2008-2009 (it's a PDF file, so takes a moment to load), and here are a few of the books on the list.

• Go Ask Alice Still? This book has been around since I was in junior high school (and yes, it was in my library, and I read it). It was challenged in one school district because of descriptions of drug use, but the book was retained in the library. The kid dies of an overdose, so you'd think it would be seen as the cautionary tale it is rather than glorification of drug use.
• Black Hawk Down Removed because of foul language
• Brave New World Challenged because of sex and drugs, but retained
• To Kill a Mockingbird Yep, this is not a joke. A parent challenged this because they felt the depiction of racist behavior in the book would frighten black children. The book was retained.
• Stephanie Meyers' Twilight series Challenged because of sexual content; retained.
• And Tango Makes Three This story of two male penguins parenting a chick in Central Park Zoo was challenged because one parent said the book "is based on one of those subjects that is best left to be discovered by students at another time or in another place." Yeah, like in the boys' locker room.
• The Catcher in the Rye Challenged
• The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Again, not a joke. The book was retained, but teachers have to attend seminars on how to deal with issues of race before they can teach the book in their classes.
• The Color Purple Challenged because of homosexuality, rape, and incest.
• The Lovely Bones Moved to the faculty section because it was thought to be too frightening for middle school students.
• A People's History of the United States Challenged as "un-American, leftist propaganda." It was a secondary textbook in an Advanced Placement history class, and students also read an article critical of the textbook.

Some of these challenges are ongoing, but many of the challenges were rejected and the books retained in the library. This is encouraging news, because it's getting harder and harder for individuals or groups to try to dictate to others their own narrow view of the world. Even well-meaning challenges, like not not wanting to subject kids to the racist behavior or dialogue present in To Kill a Mockingbird or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, seek to ignore history. Such behavior happened. Reading about it can lead to *gasp* discussion about why it's bad behavior and why it shouldn't be tolerated today. As with other censorship issues, you have the right to not read, not listen, not view. You do not have the right to dictate to others what they can read, hear, or view.

I hope you all get a chance this week to curl up with a good book. When you do, take a moment to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a place where others cannot restrict what we read because of their own beliefs. Happy reading!