Banning YA and younger books

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm not sure I know what the point would be of teaching the book if you were going to add disclaimers. Sounds like it would be confusing to the younger children: We're going to be studying this book, my dears, but you don't have to pay attention to anything that is in it.

And if I want my children, or at this point in time my grandchildren, to read Tom Sawyer (and as a matter of fact, I think I do -- must put it on the list of books I'm collecting for the grandsons) then there is nothing to prevent me from putting it into their hands myself. Meanwhile the school can recommend some other good books for them to read -- there are more than a handful of those, you know. To act as though children are being forbidden to read certain books just because some of their schoolmates' parents object to having the book recommended or available at the school (there are still bookstores and public libraries, after all) is, in my opinion, to over-dramatize the situation.

[the smiling weirwood]

I meant when providing books in the school library, which would be open to children in a wide age range.

[BookStop]

Ugh- I may have to become one of those parents who forbids a book. I know, it's ridiculous in this day and age to think books are being taught in schools that are completely innapproprate for everyone, but I'm afraid one of the books on my daughter's upcoming reading list makes that cut. I found the book pretty distasteful and offensive, and I'm pretty darned open minded. There is no way I would subject a child to reading it. I don't even know how inthe heck it got on a child's reading list in the first place. The teacher has the choice of which few books, of the list of many, that she teaches, so hopefully it won't come up.

Am I being too overbearing? Maybe. Is there any way I'd let my daughter read the book? Not if I know about it. Is my child intellegent, caring, repectful, and responsible? You bet. Will she try to read the book if she knows it's verboden? I would bet not. I am pretty open minded and I'm pretty sure she gets it.

If there comes a time when I mellow to the point of changing my mind, I can always suggest the book to her once she's an adult.

[Alia]

I'm curious, BookStop what the book was that you didn't care for and how old your daughter is. If you don't mind answering my questions. I'm not being judgemental... just curious. I can imagine, as a mother of 3, not wanting my 9 year old to read books that my 14 year old reads or what I read for a variety of reasons. My 9 year old suffers from extreme anxiety and depression, he can be severe at times, so I don't let him read about death because he stresses that I'm going to die and becomes emotional to a point where he is out of control. To save us all from his OCD and fears, I just keep it from him and slowly talk to him about the issue when he is ready for it. More or less when he asks about it. But I don't let him read about it, not yet anyways, he's not mature enough to take that on. I might be wrong in other people's eyes for doing this, but it's not wrong for us. If it was my daughter at his age... it would be a different story. I believe that each child is different and as parents we are responsible for their up bringing and care... which includes monitoring what they read.

[BookStop]

My daughter is 14 and starting highschool, but the book deals with molestation of an infant. The protagonist isn't taking a stand against sexual abuse, or even feeling particularly shocked when she discovers it has happened to an infant she's caring for. Maybe if the book had some sort of point beyond, hey, bad stuff happens, deal with it, I would at least consider it for my daughter. She is going to learn things like sexual abuse happen, heck I'm sure she's watched the news before, but this story is just so pointless. I wouldn't even recommend it for an adult reading group. After I read the book, The Bean Trees (it's by the same author as Poisonwood Bible, which is an excellent book), I looked it up on Amazon to see reviews. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking this book is garbage. As many people hated it as loved it, really no middle ground.

[Alia]

the book deals with molestation of an infant.

There are some things that need not go in books. This is one of them. I support your decision, I don't think I would let my daughter read the book either.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

[dustinzgirl]

I think that books are like movies. Parents should be involved in thier kids lives to pre screen everything they watch and read and learn. Books have a strong impact on a child's view of reality, the same as movies. There are some movies that my kids will see once I am long into the grave--The Hills Have Eyes and Devils Rejects---even though I love those movies. Also, I would never let my kids read books that are about molestation or generally to adult for them to understand. On the other hand, it is the schools resposibility to give kids a look at a world beyond thier world, but as parents it is our responsibility to control what parts of that world they see. Innocence only lasts so long, I like to keep it around as long as possible, personally.

I remember when I was a kid there was a big stink in our small town about several witch craft books at the county library. My parents and my best friends parents actually checked all of the books out, threw them away, and then paid the library for them.

I would never go that far, but I think that it is important that kids have controlled access. I see nothing wrong with banning FICTION books from schools for kids in grade and middle school. Nonfiction books though, if they have little graphic detail, should not be banned. My mom didn't want me reading the history of the Nazi Riech because the book was very graphically detailed with dead bodies and gas chambers and the like, but I read it anyways because that is what kids do.

[mikeo]

Originally Posted by BookStop

As many people hated it as loved it, really no middle ground.

Interesting that you should say that - the Amazon rating averages out to four out of five, which sounds pretty positive to me.

Just offhand, I'd suggest that by 14, most people are probably able to handle such things. Still, if you feel your daughter is better off not being exposed to the book, I'm not here to change your mind.

Perhaps my parents were deviants, but I was wandering my (large) local library with no restrictions back when I was about 8. Every once in a while a librarian would question what I was checking out (it was invariably science-fiction or fantasy, at varying levels), and my parents would declare I was allowed to do so. When I found things confusing, I'd ask them, and they'd try to explain things to me. As long as parents are open and accessible, and can offer insight into the thing their children are reading, I think book banning is silly, and indeed, classification by age is similarly nonsensical. Not everyone reads at the same level, and the levels always seem to be so random...

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by mikeo

I As long as parents are open and accessible, and can offer insight into the thing their children are reading, I think book banning is silly, and indeed, classification by age is similarly nonsensical. Not everyone reads at the same level, and the levels always seem to be so random...

It depends on your view I suppose. As a parent, I want my children to believe in a better world and not be forced into this world quite yet. There is time enough for violent reality when they reach highschool. Plus, I agree that banning books is stupid...but I also believe that until the child is out of school, books should be regulated for children. I don't want my kids checking out porn or satanic sacrifice books or rape stories or serial killer stories becaus e those just add more nastiness to an already nasty world, and they will have plenty of nastiness in thier lives once they leave my house. Which will hopefully be never.

[mikeo]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

I don't want my kids checking out porn or satanic sacrifice books or rape stories or serial killer stories becaus e those just add more nastiness to an already nasty world, and they will have plenty of nastiness in thier lives once they leave my house. Which will hopefully be never.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother just a few weekends ago. She was preparing the house for the arrival of my nephew, and one of the things she'd done was blunt the cat's claws to "prevent damage." My attitude to that was that someday he's going to have to learn that cats have claws.

Perhaps it's for the best that I have no interest at all in ever raising children?

(use of bold in the quote is mine)

[Alia]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother just a few weekends ago. She was preparing the house for the arrival of my nephew, and one of the things she'd done was blunt the cat's claws to "prevent damage." My attitude to that was that someday he's going to have to learn that cats have claws.

There is such a thing as Cat's Claw Fever. Your mother is a smart woman! Children get very sick from this! Let me explain briefly what Cat's Claw Fever is... A cat goes potty... he uses his paws to cover it up... fetises gets on them... they go and scratch a child... ouch! I'm sure you can take it from there. A friend of mine son just got over it. He ran an extremely high fever for almost 7 days and that's on meds. They had to watch him closely for several weeks. It's serious stuff and nothing to fool around with.

Although, Mikeo, I agree with you on certain things children should be able to do... Like get dirty, play in the mud, explore, experience life. But as a parent, with wisedom and knowledge it's our duty to protect and teach. I teach my children that that the stove is hot and outlets are dangerous. Could you imagine what would happen if they didn't have me telling them that.

Same goes for books... We need to direct and teach. I let my daughter read the Good Earth by Pearl S Buck. We talked and discussed about the culture. I see no issue with her reading this classic. But I do see an issue with her reading about rape... especially of infants...

my two cents.

[mikeo]

Originally Posted by Alia

There is such a thing as Cat's Claw Fever. Your mother is a smart woman! Children get very sick from this! Let me explain briefly what Cat's Claw Fever is... A cat goes potty... he uses his paws to cover it up... fetises gets on them... they go and scratch a child... ouch! I'm sure you can take it from there. A friend of mine son just got over it. He ran an extremely high fever for almost 7 days and that's on meds. They had to watch him closely for several weeks. It's serious stuff and nothing to fool around with.

Interesting! I should have known my mom was one step ahead of me... Is this something only young children (with young immune systems) are vulnerable to?

I have to agree that there are some things young children shouldn't read about - there's no way to justify claims to the contrary, really. Still, where to draw the line is difficult, and I think the line of what is/isn't acceptable will vary hugely from child to child, making bans a poor choice.

I also feel that by the time someone reached their teens, they've likely been exposed to most of what you'll find in books these days, unless they've been locked in their rooms. I know I had been, and I grew up in a tiny little rural town of 5000 people! Who knows what the life of a child in London is like these days...

[Alia]

Is this something only young children (with young immune systems) are vulnerable to?

No, adults can get this too... but children are more likely to get it because of their young immune systems I was a daycare provider for 10 years and this is something I had to watch for because I had a cat... I had him declawed.

[the smiling weirwood]

I should probably never have children, they'd be corrupted by the time they were seven.

[littlemissattitude]

I might not be the right person to even comment on this, as I don't have children. Also, I was brought up in a household where my reading was never regulated.

The library tried. First of all, I had largely moved on to the adult section of the library by the time I was seven years old. The librarians made me prove to them that I could read the books and understand them before they would allow me to check them out. And then, around the time I was ten or eleven, there were books I wanted to read that they just wouldn't let me check out. Rosemary's Baby was one; The Graduate was another; a third was M*A*S*H, on which the movie was based. Those were just beyond the pale, as far as the librarians were concerned. So, I just sat and read them in the library.

I don't recall there ever being any controversy over any books at school. Nobody batted an eyelash when my ninth-grade English teacher had us read Catcher in the Rye. Hated the book myself, and didn't realize until much later that there was any controversy about it at all. Although I did notice that when she taught Romeo and Juliet, the text that was in our English book had a few things missing.

My parents never forbade me to read anything, although I think they got a little nervous when I was reading Soul on Ice, by Eldrige Cleaver in about the eighth grade, as well as some other fairly radical political stuff, but they never said anything to me to indicate that they didn't want me to read those things.

So, I'm not that much of an advocate of banning books in schools or anywhere else. I do think that the fundamentalist Christians take more hits than they need to over wanting things taken out of the classroom; at least as many of the attempts to ban books in schools are initiated by non-conservatives who are motivated by the wish to see that students never see anything that is politically incorrect. For example, one of the huge reasons that there have been attempts to ban Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books is that there is a place in at least one of them where Laura's Ma says that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Not a nice sentiment, to be sure. But that was a widespread attitude at the time, and it bothers me that there are folks who don't want kids to know that it was a prevalent attitude at that point in history. You can't wipe out prejudice and bigotry by pretending that it never existed.

I suppose all this is just a long, rambling way of saying that I don't approve of the censorship of books by a government agency, for example, the schools. If a parent does not want their child or children to read something, I think it is their right to express that and to try to obtain alternate assignments when that occurs. But I am very uncomfortable with the idea that one or a few parents can prohibit entire classrooms of children from reading what they don't want their child to read.