Banned Books Week Pt. II

     Don't Ban These Books

     I got a lot of good replies on my Banned Book Bleg,
some obvious frustrations concerning certain book types, and a few less serious
suggestions.

     One kind of book that seems to eat away at
librarians are the political talking head books that have become so pervasive.
More then one person said they'd like to see them go and that applied to both the
Ann Coulters and the Al Frankens of the genre. At times I'm tempted to agree but
we all know that's not going to happen. We live in a time where news has become
entertainment. There are certain drawbacks and benefits to that. The drawbacks
being the plethora of junk being printed, the benefits being a large selection of
good reading plus a new kind of audience visiting the library. We shouldn't scoff
at that anymore then we scoffed at Harlequin or comic book readers. We should
simply try harder to be more aware of the good stuff. And if you still think there
are way too many talking head books, go grab a ruler and measure your cookbook
section.

     And no, to all the smart alecks out there, the Bible
isn't getting banned. Jonah Goldberg of NRO has a good statement on that,
actually its on
a
coffee cup
, go figure: "Everywhere, unthinking mobs of 'independent thinkers' wield
tired clichés like cudgels...". The rest of the quote is at the link. And speaking of
clichés, banning cannot and does not make the unpopular popular. It makes the
all-too-popular less available, like its supposed to. So no banning of unpopular Homer
or Aristotle to try and increase their fanbase, it would simply guarantee their path
to oblivion.

     Overshooting and Earned Reading

     I received a link to
this
site
. It contains a lot of information on the various titles involved with
a recent
challenge
.

     Its hard to argue over books like
Fade
by Robert Cormier. Cormier writes for YA and the excerpts given by WPAAG are
pretty damning. Its an example of the worst kind of YA fiction that focuses on
the worst behaviors in society. So of course its exactly what we should give a
teenager to read. Society has turned an entire section of the population into a
fictional everyman strictly to entertain ourselves. And in order to keep everyman
interesting to us we are constantly throwing challenge after challenge at him,
admiring his triumphs and sharing in his misery, a living soap opera. My peers
say we should supply these books because these are the issues teens deal with. I
say they're dealing with it because we're pushing it. Nobody's actually trying to
fix the problems of teen pregnancy, drug use, and sexual abuse they just want to
hand out manuals to teens telling them how to cope when it happens.

     On the flip side Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Toni
Morrison aren't writing books that teens pick up for beach reading. These are
adult books for adult audiences. Is a 16 year old an adult? Could be. Some are,
some aren't. Let me repeat something from a discussion I had late last year on
Conservativelib:

"The reason we tend to be liberal about what is or always has been available on a
library shelf to anyone, regardless of age, is the fact that in order to access
it you had to be intelligent enough to actually read it. A thick novel with
detailed sex scenes and such is harmless in the hands of a 6 year old. Its
harmless in the hands of a 14 year old because the simple fact he would have to
invest in serious reading time is a major turnoff. If he is patient enough to
sit down and read such a book then chances are he is intelligent enough to, if
not always comprehend, at least not act out a skit of Beavis and Butthead while
he's reading it. He can get beyond the 'fun' parts and appreciate the book as a
whole."

     This is the earned reading principle and it has to
be applied to both YA collections in public libraries and school libraries. Like
it or not a graphic sex scene is not enough of a reason to pull a book. You can
argue that it shouldn't be assigned by a teacher but trying to get it pulled is
drawing attention to something most kids wouldn't notice to begin with. The kids
that do notice the harder books, those that attempt to read them, pay attention
to them. They're the smart ones and they need to be encouraged and challenged not
put in straightjackets.

     Back to the easy reader misery books. There are more
then a few out there and I'm not going to just argue they all need to be thrown
out across the board. There would be plenty more just like them Xeroxed out by
somebody trying to make a name for themselves. The idea that you can be a big
success by 'pushing the limits' isn't unique to YA Fiction or ever just books. It
would be better to fight the thinking behind this kind of crap then making stars
out of those who write it. A positive message needs to be created for YA reading.
I don't know where its going to come from but you might want to start by finding
what books you agree with, and try and find some published this decade.

     Now this doesn't mean parents can't challenge books.
My advice to parents is to try and find the Lexile
rating
of a book you find offensive. Compare the grade level to what you feel
the content is and use that for your arguments for why it needs to be removed. A
low reading level combined with a high level of adult content is a legitimate
reason to pull a book. I'm sure there are cases to be made out there but you do
still have to find a balance.

     A message to Librarians: If anything here does need
to be banned its your whining every time a YA book gets challenged. If you were
doing your jobs instead of always hopping on the nearest soapbox this wouldn't be
an issue. A little balance won't kill you either.

     Coming Thursday: The Honorable Mentions

Comments

Anything?

If anything needs to be banned it's right-wing whining about how certain books need to be banned.

Let thinking people decide for themselves and turn away from what you find offensive for yourself.

Re:Anything?

Thinking people already understand the difference between an adult and a child and realize there is more to the issue then just letting people decide for themselves. That you can't understand such a simple difference isn't my problem.

Re:Anything?

But the right-wing is not composed of thinking people; the hallmark of the reactionary is that he or she does not think, and the right-wing does not understand that children are first and foremost thinking human beings in their own rights. Because of that, they cannot see that the proper way to bring up a child is to treat him as the adult you expect him to someday become. So they treat children like property instead; like stupid subhumans that need to be protected from themselves.

Re:Anything?

Most people expect children to grow up to be adults that not only know what they can and should do but what they cannot and should not do.

Questions.. and comments.

On your webpage (shush.ws), you stated "now this doesn't mean parents can't challenge books. My advice to parents is to try and find the Lexile rating of a book you find offensive. Compare the grade level to what you feel the content is and use that for your arguments for why it needs to be removed." Are you referring only to Juvenile books and not YA in this instance? If you're referring to YA as well, doesn't that conflict with your statement: "is a 16 year old an adult? Could be. Some are, some aren't."? Simply because the book in my YA collection may not be appropriate for a particular teen (and that is something the parent of that child needs to determine, not me), does not mean that the book is inappropriate for all teens. Or even a majority of teens.. Isn't that one of the significant problems with book challenges? That the parent(s) involved make the assumption that a) that all parents should view the book the same way they do and b) just because it is not suitable reading for their teen it must be unsuitable reading for all teens.

LOLOL, I hope you're aware of the irony that the one book that you really took off after, Fade, is not rated by Lexile.

- Robert L

Re:Questions.. and comments.

If its irony its a low level of irony. There were something like 35 books on the challenged list, I'm sure some have ratings. Either way it was something that came to me at the last minute and seemed like a reasonable course to pursue so I threw it in.

Can a book be inappropriate for a teen but not all teens? Yes. Can a book be inappropriate for all teens? Yes. How do we know? Well that's just it. My profession doesn't want to know. They don't want to make any effort that might require any responisbility on their part. This in spite of the fact they are the ones reading the reviews and buying the books. Convenient yes?

I think comparing a lexile rating to content is a good place to start. Its like broadcast stations airing more adult material late at night when minors are less likely to see it. A higher reading level paired with more mature topics is likely to lead to more mature readers reading the book and make it a turn-off to those who simply aren't ready for it.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Greg wrote: "My profession doesn't want to know. They don't want to make any effort that might require any responisbility on their part."

I think that statement is wrong and unfair. I think the vast majority of us care, and do select books that are appropriate for the age groups we are dealing with. You may disagree with what we feel to be appropriate or inappropriate, but we do make those decisions. I think you would be hard pressed to find a public library, for instance, that put "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" in their YA collections. Or, for that matter, you don't find Danielle Steel, Harol Robbins, or a whole host of Adult Fiction bestsellers in YA collections. The only area I tend to see a lot of overlap is in SF and Fantasy books.

No, we do not read every book before we purchase them. I can state with a reasonable certainty, however, that we do read quite a few of them after we they have been bought. It's not that we are lazy, or don't care, it's just that many of us: librarians, parents, and teens, disagree with you on what is and is not suitable for a teen to read. If we have done our jobs correctly, we will have a broad range of material that will appeal to all tastes and views. I buy the books by Robert Cormier and Francesca Lia Block; I also buy books by Robin Jones Gunn and Stephen Lawhead.

What many of the book-banners want us to do, however, is reduce our collection to the lowest common denominator of what is least offensive to any group.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

What many of the book-banners want us to do, however, is reduce our collection to the lowest common denominator of what is least offensive to any group.

I may agree here. But let's also agree on a what constitutes "book banning".

Empirical evidence from WorldCat tells us that there is no correlation between what ALA deems a "banned" book and its universal availability. In fact, most of these celebrated banned books are also the most widely held.

But what about the countless unseen books that are passed over because they may offend the tastes of the collection librarian? Can we agree that your statement applies here as well, and is also widely practiced but though never recognized by ALA types?

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Oh absolutely. We will probably disagree on the frequency of that occurance, but I'm sure that it unfortunately does happen. However, I think that the books deliberately passed over fall all over the spectrum. And the one area where it is practiced the most is in the genre of pornography.

I think that if a book is removed from a school or public library because of the content, it has been banne. Regardless of its availability elsewhere. Otherwise you just keep enlarging your geographical availability and you end up with the assertion that no book is really banned because it is available somewhere.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

This isn't about reading every book. Its about rules and guidelines, things you embrace in the first paragraph and then completely ignore in the second. When you make up your mind as to how you want to approach the issue feel free to let me know.

"What many of the book-banners want us to do, however, is reduce our collection to the lowest common denominator of what is least offensive to any group."

And that, is just silly.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Otherwise you just keep enlarging your geographical availability and you end up with the assertion that no book is really banned because it is available somewhere.

But it is true. How can one effectively ban a book without considering geography? They can't. More so today with reciprocal borrowing, patron initiated ILL requests and shared consortial catalogs. If were are discussing this same issue one hundred years ago in Dodge City or Joplin I may agree that books can be banned. But today, at least in the U.S. this issue is nothing more than political fanfare for liberal folks. Sorry.

Banning, censorship,... can only be discussed in degrees, that being library holdings. It is also about collection development which is really the perfect way to ban a book.
Forgive my shameless promotion but check out 223 to 1 and You Gotta Buy'em to Ban'em for a different perspective on banning.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

I think what you're arguing is that the effects of a book being banned are mitigated by other factors. Which, hopefully, only points out the futility of doing it at all.

However, I do believe that making a big deal about every attempt keeps the success and maybe even the frequency at a minimum. There are organizations that would be more than happy to feed off their successes and work to ban certain books from as many libraries as they can. If we ignore the attempts at book banning, that will make their goal that much easier to attain.

Aruging that a particular book can be found somewhere else also minimizes the joy and importance of browsing and accidental discovery.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

I think what you're arguing is that the effects of a book being banned are mitigated by other factors. Which, hopefully, only points out the futility of doing it at all.

You're warm. What I am saying is that this discussion is nonsense because we are discussing something that cannot be carried through. Yes, it is futile

I am also trying to illustrate that when we peel away the hyperbole and look at the evidence, there is no truth behind what many ALA types try to portray about banned books. We all know the routine, fundamentalist parents carping about something to do about sex or sexuality. If we want an honest discussion then we the issue should focus on availability. The only means to quantify this is through holdings. I would love to see this discussion focused upon the professional ethics of collection librarians. Try running this up the flag pole over at SRRT listserv and see what you get. Their reaction should give pause to anyone seriously willing to consider efforts to prevent certain material from being read.

But Robert I invite you to consider this issue for what it really is, rather than buy into this "wack a wasp" mentality coordinated by ALA. In fact, make a few comparison searches in WorldCat for yourself.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

LOL, I already have. And I think I was reasonably clear about it. We, as a profession, do have rules and guidelines. They are different than yours. I get the impression that you assume that because ours are more liberal than yours, that they don't exist. Having a broad range is not exclusive of having guidelines. A range implies that there are limits. Saying that our collections should appeal to "all" tastes and views is hyperbole. I should have said that our collections should appeal to "most" tastes and views. Better?

How is that silly? If a parent finds a book offensive, they are basing it upon either their own view of what is appropriate or inappropriate. At no point do they stop to consider that other, reasonable people, may have a different take. They want the library to reflect their beliefs to the exclusion of other parents who have different beliefs. The effect, if this is were followed through on all complaints, would be to remove all books that any parents found offensive until you ended up with a collection that offended none of them. Why should a parent who believes in very strict Conservative Christian values (as an example) have more influence over the YA collection than a lax Liberal Agnostic parent? Why should books that offend the former, but not the latter, be removed?

Re:Questions.. and comments.

... over at SRRT listserv and see what you get,

Wrong liberals. I meant IFFORUM.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Redcardlibrarian: Aruging that a particular book can be found somewhere else also minimizes the joy and importance of browsing and accidental discovery.

It is also patently false. Saying that book is not banned when it is available only in the Vatican Library and the Library of Congress, to which places the overwhelming majority of people cannot travel, is nonsense. A handy rationalization for those who prefer that people do not have easy access to ideas so that they might think for themselves.

Tomeboy: It is also about collection development which is really the perfect way to ban a book.

Ah, yes, the old one-sided-universe viewpoint of sociological phenomenon. A rationale that essentially means: Rape is inevitable so just lie back and enjoy it while we fuck with your mind. This typical illogic is illustrative of the right-wing mindset which basically holds that there are no higher ideals and hence no need to aspire to them. Which, in turn, is in keeping with the Christofascist viewpoint that everyone is a sinner and going to burn in Hell.

GregS*: Most people expect children to grow up to be adults that not only know what they can and should do but what they cannot and should not do.

This is an outright falsehood. The right-wing presumption is of a priori guilt; all people are double-plus, ungood crime thinkers or want to be; and the necessary corollary in their minds is that the right-wing and only the right-wing has the One Real Truth on how to live one's life correctly and it must be imposed on all humanity in spite of themselves. They tried it, and failed abysmally with Abolition, they've been trying it, and failing abysmally, with the War on Drugs; and now they've declared War on Reading and Science as well. The right-wing is so narrow-minded that it cannot see how the U.S. has already been down that road from the Scopes Trial to the launch of Sputnik. And when Sputnik went up the U.S. realized just how ignorant it was and spasmodically went into "Something Must Be Done" mode and couldn't throw enough money into education reform fast enough.

The wanting to ban content and viewpoint is going to bite you in your own ass over and over again, and the right-wing will still never learn the lessons of history.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Ah, yes, the old one-sided-universe viewpoint of sociological phenomenon. A rationale that essentially means: Rape is inevitable so just lie back and enjoy it while we fuck with your mind. This typical illogic is illustrative of the right-wing mindset which basically holds that there are no higher ideals and hence no need to aspire to them. Which, in turn, is in keeping with the Christofascist viewpoint that everyone is a sinner and going to burn in Hell.

Impeccably skirted. Let me help you refocus.

What you are really indicating, though understandibly shy in admitting outright, is that you have no problem with a right-wing nut job like myself selecting your books. Complete trust, right Fang?

You squawk and call over Heather Has Two Mommies (over 1000 WorldCat holdings) but fail to notice that the highest held Christian oriented and much more popular Veggie Tales book "God is Bigger" is only held in a paltry 134 libraries. In fact the most widely held Veggie Tale video, "A Very Silly Song", can be found in only 316 libraries.

Those are facts Fang unlike your rebuttal keenly crafted with a Bobby Knight reference and off-topic hyperbole.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

What you are really indicating, [...], is that you have no problem with a right-wing nut job like myself selecting your books.

Wrong, as always. I'll select my own reading. You, however, have my leave to select books for the library at which you are employed, but only for that library.

...the highest held Christian oriented and much more popular Veggie Tales book...

Oh, now there's a lovely non sequitur. You tout it as vastly more popular while admitting in the same breath that it is vastly underordered compared to Heather Has Two Mommies.

I suspect that you are comparing apples and oranges; what is the targe audience for this Veggie Tales book? Adults who don't read anyway?

As well, you are missing the point entirely. What movements are afoot to actively have your Veggie Tales book removed from libraries, or to actively deny them due selection process?

Re:Questions.. and comments.

You haven't made a single definitive statement on what the rules and guidelines are that seem to guide your judgement. You used the "How To Make Love Like A Porn Star" as an example of a book that would not show up in YA but how would we know? What rule are you applying that says that? And since some YA books contain similar content what are you using as the deciding factor? You're accusing the parent of basing a decision on personal judgement but so far your decision to keep "Porn Star" out of the YA section seems similarly based. The arguements your making against those conservative parents are just as easily used against your own judgement.

FYI: At the beginning of the year there was an issue about the "Porn Star" book that was debated extensively by me with others, inlcuding you. Links here:

http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/12/111 7224&tid=

http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/30/103 9204&tid=

http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/27/064 7205

I don't see in your comments where you distinguish between adults and minors having access to that book. So again, when you decide how you want to come at this issue, in a way that you might actually want to stick to instead of just trying to say how wrong I am and how everyone else knows it you let me know.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

I suspect that you are comparing apples and oranges; what is the targe audience for this Veggie Tales book? Adults who don't read anyway?

Wrong...again. But I understand research is hard for some so allow me to help.

Veggie Tales (Big Idea) is a hugely popular series with children. Let me reiterate HUGE. Unless of course we are talking about public libraries.

    ...VeggieTales" is available in 2,500 Christian book stores as well as Kmart Corp., Target Stores, Wal-Mart Stores and other mass merchandisers. According to VideoScan numbers provided by Big Idea, "VeggieTales" ranks No. 4 with 2.75 million units. "Pokemon" is way out front as No. 1 with 8.85 million units; "Blue's Clues" and "Scooby" rank just ahead of "VeggieTales" with 3.29 million and 2.90 million units, respectively....(Advertising Age 6/2000)

Now your point was?

Re:Questions.. and comments.

..."Heather Has Two Mommies (over 1000 WorldCat holdings) but fail to notice that the highest held Christian oriented and much more popular Veggie Tales book "God is Bigger" is only held in a paltry 134 libraries. In fact the most widely held Veggie Tale video, "A Very Silly Song", can be found in only 316 libraries."

I think in this instance the comparison is unfair. To begin with, there are only a handful of gay-themed childrens books, of which Heather Has Two Mommies is probably the most well known. Followed by Daddy's New Roommate". Since the choices are more limited, it's not unreasonable to expect to find that the few that have been published will appear in more libraries.

There are quite a few more christian-themed children's books, of which Veggie Tales is only one of many. In order to make the comparison fair, you would have to look at entire collections, and determine if Christian-themed books are unrepresented. Which I do not believe you will find. I am willing to bet, in fact, that the vast majority of public libraries have significantly more christian-themed books comparable to Veggie Tales on their shelves than they do gay-themed books like Heather Has Two Mommies.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Of course, 957 libraries do carry You are so Special by Max Lucado. Judging by what I see in Worldcat, many of the VeggieTales video titles are owned by 400 to 500+ libraries. (VeggieTales: The Ballad of Little Joe is owned by 497 libraries; Esther, the Girl Who Became Queen is owned by a whopping 792 libraries).

I think it is a little bit of Apples and Oranges to compare a book that is based on a video series (God is Bigger), and a book that was intended to be published as a book. Since so many libraries do own the VeggieTales series, public libraries many not have seen the need to buy a book based on a series they already own, and the book has been given a lesser priority. Considering the number of VeggieTales videos that are owned by libraries, there really isn't a problem at all. Especially if other Christian titles are factored in.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

I disagree Robert. The issue, or should I say ALA's issue is banned "books" not genres.

There should be a correlation between public demand and holdings in collection development. Not to say that libraries only purchase high demand materials (specifically public libraries), but there should be a discernable correlation. If not then there is a fiduciary issue of public funds. However I say this correlation is not consistent when comparing liberal/conservate titles. That said I believe my comparison is fair. I contend that the holdings:demand ratio for liberally slanted books is higher than for many conservatively themed titles; adult, juvenile and children. In fact I've proven this yet when I present this data, I only hear justifications for "banning" by non-selection. May I again suggest 223 to 1

But the bigger issue here is the myth of the banned book. Captain Underpants is available in over 8000 libraries, yet we celebrate it as "banned".

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Greg wrote: "You haven't made a single definitive statement on what the rules and
guidelines are that seem to guide your judgement."

For a book to be purchased, or retained, within the Young Adult section, the books should be written for an audience (in my library) between the ages of 15 and 20. The books should be of interest to, and address issues that are, important to that age group. I use reviews provided in Library Journal, School Library Journal and Booklist. For GNs I talk to my local comic book pushers at Things From Another World. I also actively seek out and solicit opinions from the Young Adults who use the collection.

I guess I would have to say that I prefer the concept of guidelines rather than rules. It is more art than science.

The Tempe Public Library
has a good Collection Development Policy for YAs:

"E. Young Adult Fiction and Non-Fiction

The Young Adult collection is comprised of popular fiction targeting high school students in the ninth through twelfth grades who could be as young as fourteen and as old as eighteen. Other determining factors for inclusion in this collection are: materials that are clearly reviewed and/or labeled as young adult, characters are of high school or college age, and the theme or subject matter is of interest to and intended for young adults. In addition to popular fiction, the Young Adult collection includes multiple copies of classic works of literature included in reading lists for college-bound students. Young Adult non-fiction is integrated within the Adult non-fiction collection."

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Greg wrote: "I don't see in your comments where you distinguish between adults and minors
having access to that book."

The discussion was not about whether to place the book in the Juvenile, Young Adult, or Adult section of the Library. The discussion was whether or not the book belonged behind the counter. Related but different issues. If I were asked, I would say "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" belonged in Adult Non-Fiction. I was adressing the issue that was presented, not the one that might crop up four months later.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Because we are looking at books and particular libraries. If it is removed from the shelves of a library, it has been banned. Because it is available at 7999 other places does not make it any less banned from that particular library.

I think, however, I understand your point. Why is it important that we make such a big deal publicizing the banning of a book in one library out of the 8000 that own a copy? I think there are good reasons why we do and why we should.

If the community a patron lives in is small and fairly isolated, the next available copy may be some distance away. Not everyone has the internet, or even credit cards. I suspect this is even more true for the rural poor than the urban poor. A book that had been available, and had been purchased because of interest, potential or expressed, by some part of the community, is now no longer available. Not because it is checked out, or has become worn out, but because someone else has decided that no one in that particular community should have easy access to that Captain Underpants. It is a milder form of censorship in the fact that in order to read Captain Underpants, a patron has to go to more trouble. The patron may simply give up, and not make the attempt. There are already enough reasons that a book might not be available. But an act of deliberate exclusion on the part of someone that wants to meddle in the reading material of someone else takes the issue, in my opinion, to an entirely different level.

I think it is much better to make an issue of banning when it is only 1 out of 8000. Not 4000 out of 8000. I think it is extremely important to make a strong statement that Libraries, and the ALA, view Free Speech and the inclusion of all views within a community important enough that even one book banned is one book too many. However silly it may look to some, I think it is better than the alternative of simply yawning when one group decides that they should have control, no matter how ultimately futile, over what another has access to. You don't like Captain Underpants? Then don't read Captain Underpants. It really is that simple.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Now your point was?

My point was that you are comparing apples and oranges, which you are. I merely pointed to the wrong apples and oranges. What you are conflating is marketing decisions with selection process. It might have escaped your attention, but libraries do not buy books the way retailers do, and are still not as subjected to ultra-right-wing pressures to tailor their ordering in favor of religious material. Every one of the chains you mentioned would cave in to a threat of a boycott in a heartbeat to protect its revenues.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

My point was that you are comparing apples and oranges, which you are. I merely pointed to the wrong apples and oranges. What you are conflating is marketing decisions with selection process. It might have escaped your attention, but libraries do not buy books the way retailers do, and are still not as subjected to ultra-right-wing pressures to tailor their ordering in favor of religious material.

An explanation of the "selection process" from the same person who believes interlibrary loan is packing up the Pontiac to the Library of Congress? You’re in the wrong milieu Fang. This one has technology.

A gentle FYI. Collection development is based upon the needs of the local constituency, hopefully articulated through a collection development policy. These needs often mirror the demands placed upon book retailers, more so with public libraries. May I suggest actually reading a collection development policy? Many are posted on the Web.

Back to my apples and your bananas. Anne Rice's vampires, Judith Collins' bitches, JK Rowlings' Potterhead and Disney's Hunchback are all readily found in those same retailers that you maintain succumb to christofascists. So much for your "boycott" theory. You might also do well to remember that the retail market consists more of your hated Wal-Mart, with much larger book retailers such as Borders, Amazon, B & N, et al all too happy to sell "non-religious" stuff.

But you’ve made your point. Banning by non-selection is okay by you because you select your own reading unless of course the book in question suits your agenda.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

All very vague and useless.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

Anne Rice's vampires, Judith Collins' bitches, JK Rowlings' Potterhead and Disney's Hunchback are all readily found in those same retailers that you maintain succumb to christofascists.

The Harry Potter series at least is popular enough that a threat of boycott would prove useless. You cannot "ban" a book because you choose to read a different book. Choice is inherent in selection. The key is that I choose what to read for myself, the choice is not made by some power-tripping control-freak. And one or two copies of a book to go around to several thousand or million readers still constitutes censorship. Censorship, after all, is an effort to keep ideas or information out of minds over which you have no legal authority, and making a work unavailable to those who might want it falls into that category.

I know that you cannot understand these concepts, but they exist independent of your incapacity.

Oh, and I consider it typical of right-wing hypocrisy that you are attempting to define something that you proclaim does not exist. Don't use the term "selection process" or try to define it if your position is that there is no such thing as selection.

Re:Questions.. and comments.

The Harry Potter series at least is popular enough that a threat of boycott would prove useless.

This makes absolutely NO sense. 16 million Southern Baptists not buying fishing rods, barbeque grills and NASCAR hats at Wal-Mart because of Hunchback, would still be the same 16 million Southern Baptists who oppose Harry Potter, popularity notwithstanding. I thought you "thunk" better than that Fang. Here again, I've flipped your filosophy.

Don't use the term "selection process" or try to define it if your position is that there is no such thing as selection.

There is no such thing as banning, not selection. At least not in my country (U.S). Banning can only be carried through on a Federal/State level. Of course you should know something about this with your (Canada) country's customs folks that regularly "ban" naughty stuff from importation.

Syndicate content