Concerned for my children? Don’t be.

“I congratulate them for doing what’s right and removing the two books,” said Scroggins, who didn’t attend the board meeting. “It’s unfortunate they chose to keep the other book.”

The other book Scroggins is referring too is Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. If you remember a few months ago we were all a’flutter with the news that a man wanted to remove three books from the local school. Speak, Twenty Boy Summer (Sarah Ockler), and Slaughterhouse Five. Today it was revealed that Scroggins indeed won the battle and the latter two books were removed from curriculum and school libraries.

There seems to be an explosion of people who are concerned about the welfare of my children; and yours. Megan Cox Gourdon doesn’t feel children should read too darkly, Safe Libraries feels the ALA is too lax and Scroggins thinks date rape is too pornographic and sexual for kids to read. While I can appreciate your views, and your concerns I would just like to say: they are incredibly displaced worries and you don’t have to be concerned for what anyone reads outside your own family.

See we all have different morals, and 90% of the time my views are way more lax than even the average person. The only thing I expect from my children is that no matter what it is they consume they learn something from it, and if they have questions they ask them. My daughter is almost 8 and even though she has free reign to read/watch what she wants she is an excellent example of self censoring. She reads and watches only things she can handle. If it’s too scary or she can’t understand it she quickly moves on.

The question I have is simply this: why can you not trust your children? Do you deem them so immature or so sneaky that you have to ban everything that you deem inappropriate? Do your children have to be mini versions of you, why can they not have their own agenda and ideals?

Children are inquisitive by nature, that which you take away will become interesting if only for gaining the knowledge of what you deemed so incredibly startling and morally wrong that they be protected from it.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Scars and how to hide them:

Cheryl Rainfield’s Scars is being challenged in Boone County Kentucky by clicking the link you can go to Cheryl’s site and read her plea on why teens need this book. You can contact the library via their contact form, or on Twitter. I know it is an emotional situation but let’s try to keep it professional if you decide to contact them.

Censorship in a public library is so wrong on so many levels. The libraries that we are all fighting for more funding for are the hubs and basis of literature in our communities and they must stand strong and stand by the choices of what they bring in on the shelves. They cannot be allowed to cow to several hundred loud talkers when even one child could benefit from reading a book.

I grew up not far from Boone County, I will never go back to the deep South again, at least not until as a whole we as a Southern people can say “It’s okay to be gay, it is okay to be different in any way.” Let us open our minds and not take literature that we deem inappropriate away from others. Your version of morally wrong is more than likely way different than my version of morally wrong.

Teens are pressured from so many more outlets than ever before. The joys of social media and networking makes a living hell of those few hours at home a day that used to be bully free. Kids are made fun of for a myriad of reasons and any book that can speak to any child is okay in my universe.

Speak Loudly! and let our voices be heard over those who would deny those who may not be able to speak for themselves.

I will give away 3 copies of Cheryl’s Scars to those who comment here and who will speak loudly with me.

Tags: , , , ,

Censorship: My take

cen·sor·ship
–noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

Censorship has lots of different definitions. To me it boils down to something pretty simple. The act of censoring materials, beliefs or media is a tyrant activity. To actively seek to destroy, remove or eradicate anything just because it doesn’t bode well with you and your beliefs is a selfish and cowardly way to handle things that you do not agree with.

I don’t like a lot of things. White chocolate for instance. I hate that stuff, and it’s not really chocolate anyway. Do I start a campaign to rid America or the world of this dastardly imposer? Absolutely not. Some people actually eat that garbage and enjoy it.

Now you may say what does chocolate have to do with books, books that have sex, drugs, and (gasp) gay protagonists? Nothing. However taking these materials out of libraries, out of the hands of people who are in no way connected to your life or beliefs weighs at the same ridiculousness as a proposed ban on white chocolate to me.

To take books such as, Twilight, Wintergirls, Crank, and Luv Ya Bunches out of the hands of teens because you don’t think any teen should read them is ridiculous. Are you the parent or guardian of every teen on the planet? Absolutely not.

Just because you do not agree with materials doesn’t inherently make the materials wrong. It makes it wrong to you and your family, not mine. You see I have a plan, my plan involves my children being able to read any material that they want. I want it ready and available for them anywhere they look. I want this because I trust my children.

I talk to them. We discuss things, we are a team. I trust them to make the right decisions, to be humanitarians, to tell me things that they read that made them think or that they need clarification on. I will encourage them to read outside of their comfort zones, to push the limits of their beliefs and have an open mind to any culture.

Through learning only are we free. If you want to live in a box that you have created for yourself that only includes x and y that is fine. Leave me and mine out of it.

What do you think reader? Do you have a plan for censorship in home?

I would like to thank Amy, Danielle, Gail, Susan, & Tasha for weighing in. Their pieces were fantastic. Go read them already.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Censorship Week: Tasha from Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Books

Welcome to Bookalicious and Censorship week. We all know I am a huge advocate for censoring in your own home and leaving others to do what they wish in their own. Instead of giving you post after post of my own opinion, I wanted to bring in some other awesome bloggers to give us their take on censorship and what it means to them personally and their thoughts on what it means to us as a society. Humans through the ages have always banned, censored, rallied against, and protested anything that fell beyond their comfort zones. Whether that zone is in place due to religion, upbringing, or personal morals I have never understood the need to force others to your mentality. As bloggers we have the platform to be anti-censorship. To be a flagship of open content and doing and saying on our own blogs what we see fit. We must outwardly oppose censorship of any piece of literature, even if we are censoring it in our own homes. What if we are the next to be censored? Freedom of journalistic integrity and blogging taken away. What then?

Here is what Tasha from Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Books has to say:

Read No Evil

A few weeks ago, Farley’s Bookshop Blog had a post titled “Most People Don’t Want to Read,” an essay by William Hastings. Hastings posited that people don’t want their ideas and world views to be challenged, so they either don’t read or read pablum that they know will reinforce their world view.

As a reader, especially someone who reads what Hastings would undoubtedly label “summer reading,” I found his thesis offensive. Who is he to decide what will and won’t challenge people’s world views, to decide what’s worth reading? Just the act of reading fiction is a submission of one’s viewpoint to that of someone else, at least for a time, and thus is an acknowledgement that experiences outside of one’s ken are valuable–even if they do in the end wind up reinforcing a personal viewpoint.

However, I do think the post is pertinent when talking about censorship.

As various anecdotes prove, the most virulent supporters of censoring books wouldn’t read the books they want to censor if they were last pieces of writing on the planet. They don’t want their world view challenged. They don’t want the books to tempt them or their friends and family. These people are obviously fringe elements, however, and rarely have a lasting impact.

The issue with most societies is there are things that the vast majority of people would object to off-hand without ever considering it. Sometimes these things make sense, like child prostitution or incest. But whether they make sense or not isn’t the point–the point is, if confronted with a taboo, most people don’t want to confront it, consider it, or read about it. It’s wrong, period.

But that’s where the role of genre comes in. Genre provides a structure to reinforce our favorite societal myths–romance and Westerns being two particularly appropriate examples. They are comforting reads of the sort which Hastings would undoubtedly deride. But subversive elements swish through the waters of that comforting, reinforcing framework. People of different classes and races mixing together, changing of genre roles, incest, and question of what is bad and what is good are all things that can be found in genre novels. No, they may not confront issues outright–but then if they did who would read them, or who would publish them?

So in a way, Hastings is right–people don’t want to read things that challenge them too much. Even the most liberal of human beings has a line; people should have lines. But the books he dismisses as an utter waste of brainpower are not. More people listen to a whisper than a shout, and a book someone enjoys is more likely to make an impact on them. In the end, Hastings’ manifesto is its own sort of censorship, reserving books for an educated intelligentsia who can afford to criticize many things from their ivory towers and ignore the fact that they have their own taboos.

But books aren’t just for smart people, or rich people. Books are for everyone.

So read–just read. And don’t let anyone ever tell you what you should and shouldn’t be reading.

Tags: , , , , ,

Censorship Week: Susan from Waste Paper Prose

Welcome to Bookalicious and Censorship week. We all know I am a huge advocate for censoring in your own home and leaving others to do what they wish in their own. Instead of giving you post after post of my own opinion, I wanted to bring in some other awesome bloggers to give us their take on censorship and what it means to them personally and their thoughts on what it means to us as a society. Humans through the ages have always banned, censored, rallied against, and protested anything that fell beyond their comfort zones. Whether that zone is in place due to religion, upbringing, or personal morals I have never understood the need to force others to your mentality. As bloggers we have the platform to be anti-censorship. To be a flagship of open content and doing and saying on our own blogs what we see fit. We must outwardly oppose censorship of any piece of literature, even if we are censoring it in our own homes. What if we are the next to be censored? Freedom of journalistic integrity and blogging taken away. What then?

What Susan from Waste Paper Prose has to say:

I’m a first amendment kind of girl. I’m an express-yourself-and-don’t-give-a-damn-what-other-people-think kind of girl. And admittedly, I’m the kind of girl who doesn’t hold back when I’ve got something to say, even when it could get me in trouble.

Opinions matter. They generate debate and spawn ideas. They shake up the status quo, force people to take a deeper look at issues, and hold the potential for solution and innovation. The problem is that sometimes people aren’t terribly keen on hearing the opinions of others.

Therein lies the root of censorship.

It’s a phenomenon that has always fascinated me. Whenever anything forces people to look at something they don’t want to see or consider a point of view that’s not their own then eradication always seems to be the answer. Eliminate the offending material. Wipe it off the face of the Earth. Sweep it under the rug. Forget about it. And most importantly, never consider the possibility that you could learn something.

Trouble is that the quest to do away whatever it is usually creates more buzz. I know my ears perk up when I hear about any instance of censorship. They have since I was a teenager. If it was off limits then I had to see what the big deal was.

That’s how I found Forever by Judy Blume. It was in the top ten on the American Library Association’s list of most challenged books for a decade solid, from 1990-2000, because it contained suggestive language and depictions of teenage sexuality and sexual intercourse. Learning it had been challenged sealed the deal for me. I had to read it. When I did, I wasn’t the least bit shocked or offended. Why? Because it felt real.

In retrospect, the moment I finished that book might have been the same one in which I came to understand that just because something is challenged, censored or banned doesn’t mean that it’s inherently bad. In most cases, it just means that the book, or whatever the item in question may be, pushed boundaries and that someone, somewhere was offended by it.

By no means am I advocating for every controversial book in existence nor am I saying that everyone will value these books or find insight in their pages. What I am saying is censorship isn’t an absolute. It’s the product of opinions. It’s someone saying “you shouldn’t read this because I don’t approve of it”.

Ultimately, you have to make up your own mind.

Tags: , , , , ,


Warning: fsockopen() [function.fsockopen]: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/euroband/bookalicio.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-shortstat.php on line 137

Warning: fsockopen() [function.fsockopen]: unable to connect to udp://whois.happyarts.net:8000 (php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known) in /home/euroband/bookalicio.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-shortstat.php on line 137

Warning: stream_set_timeout(): supplied argument is not a valid stream resource in /home/euroband/bookalicio.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-shortstat.php on line 138