Banned books

[den]

The same site's `100 Most Challenged Books' is a compelling list, but unfortunately they don't describe the reasons why each and every book is on the list. But again, it's not too difficult to surmise the reasons, given the particular books context and when it was written. Although, I haven't read them all so I don't know why some of them have been banned or challenged.


http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...frequently.htm


The `Book Burning' link is interesting too, going back to circa 200 B.C.E.

[amuse]

Please! I looked at "Go Ask Alice" not long ago because it was near the register and I haven't read it in two decades. It's an excellent book and moving (the girl dies, for goodness sakes), as to why NOT to use drugs. Are these people actually reading?

[hal9000]

Originally posted by Lara
Again, one has to consider how the language in the story provides the strength and moving emotions that make the story.

Nicely said.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den
"...it's not too difficult to surmise the reasons, given the particular books context and when it was written."

True, but still, books like Flowers for Algernon, Slaughterhouse-Five, and
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer ?

[Dr Cynic]

Ahhh.... If only I could get a copy of The Satanic Verses

[den]

Flowers for Algernon ... I think the biggest `issues' some have with it is sexual content...

Ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it's not Politically Correct to use the `n' word anymore, hence, argument that it's inflammatory/ hateful language and racist.

amuse, yes people who ban books are reading, they're scanning for dirty words and looking for justification to back-up their own agendas. <oh aren't I the cynic huh? > You can't please everyone huh? Debate and criticism is healthy. I have my own values about things in my life, but I really don't try to impose them on others. Live and let live and all that.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den
Flowers for Algernon ... I think the biggest `issues' some have with it is sexual content...

Ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it's not Politically Correct to use the `n' word anymore, hence, argument that it's inflammatory/ hateful language and racist.

amuse, yes people who ban books are reading, they're scanning for dirty words and looking for justification to back-up their own agendas. <oh aren't I the cynic huh? > You can't please everyone huh? Debate and criticism is healthy. I have my own values about things in my life, but I really don't try to impose them on others. Live and let live and all that.

Well, with respect to Mockingbird, as Lara point out: "...one has to consider how the language in the story provides the strength and moving emotions that make the story." Seems terribly elementary.

BTW, Arts and Letters Daily.com
www.aldaily.com

Neat web site.

[Sancho]

I had no idea book banning in public schools was so wide spread. What do you's think of the general banning of the book "The Anarchists Cookbook?” It’s basically a recipe book for bomb making and apparently was one Tim McVeigh’s favorites.

[den]

On the other hand... it's disturbing to see Paladin Press is still in business... a very strong argument for censorship and banning of books.

[IWilKikU]

whats Paladin Press?

[den]

It's an `alternative' publishing company... do a google on it, they have a site, you've heard of it before I'm sure. While this isn't a political forum, venturing into discussion of that site and most of the books that it flogs would probably be bordering politics... in short they seem to favour the `right to bear arms' and one's right to protect themselves and their property... you know, taking the law into your own hands... a lot of people have argued that criminals have `used' their books to nefarious ends and should be put out of business, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I only mention it to be contrary to the popular argument that censorship is unconstitutional or invasive of one's right to read or publish whatever they want. In some cases, censorship and or banning of books is a good idea. One of their books is not going to make me want to go out and buy a gun, but there is some societal consequence to what they publish, and it happens to be in the criminal realm, and I can't believe they get awa with it.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den


I only mention it to be contrary to the popular argument that censorship is unconstitutional or invasive of one's right to read or publish whatever they want. In some cases, censorship and or banning of books is a good idea.

Your argument here is flimsy. Who then would decide what all the "in some cases" would be. Lines would continue to be drawn and the criteria for censorship would always be subjective.

Besides, sophisticated weapons systems, and chemical and biological weapons are routinely sold by corporations, and governments around the globe to so-called rouge nations. Rumsfeld was on the board of a company that sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and services to North Korean nuclear plants. Why not invest energy holding government officials and corporations accountable instead of censoring small printing presses.

[crisaor]

I think both of you are right.

[IWilKikU]

I took a look at their site, www.paladin-press.com , and I cannot justify censoring them. Most of their stuff is dangerous information in the hands of the wrong people, but I know outdoorsmen (I'm from the Mountains of VA remember) that totally dig the kind of stuff on that site. None of my retard outdoorsmen friends will ever use their knowlege to hurt people. Also, alot of my friends from VA own guns and knives (big big knives mind you). If these weapons are availiable to the public, literature on how to use them HAS to be as well, I feel more safe knowing that my friends can buy these books and learn how to use thier weapons efficiently rather than stupidly.

Just to clarify, I strongly support gun control, I don't own weapons of any kind, and I wouldn't ever have any use for Paladin's publishing, but I think that it has a place.

[avid_reader]

top 10 banned books


1) Ulysses
by James Joyce. Published in 1918, this book was banned on sexual grounds. In 1922, 500 copies of the book were burned by the United States Department of the Post Office.


2) Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
by Mark Twain. Published in 1884, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has been banned on social grounds. Concord Public Library called the book "trash suitable only for the slums," when it first banned the novel in 1885.


3) Madame Bovary
by Gustave Flaubert. Published in 1857, "Madame Bovary" was banned on sexual grounds. In the trial, Imperial Advocate Ernest Pinard said, "No gauze for him, no veils--he gives us nature in all her nudity and crudity."


4) The Scarlet Letter
by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Published in 1850, "The Scarlet Letter" was censored on social grounds. The book has been challenged under claims that it is "pornographic and obscene."


5) Uncle Tom's Cabin
by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Published in 1852, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was controversial. It has been been banned for language concerns.


6) Of Mice and Men
by John Steinbeck. Published in 1937, Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" has been frequently banned on social grounds. The book has been called "offensive" and "vulger" because of the language and characterization.


7) Brave New World
by Aldous Huxley. Published in 1932, "Brave New World" has been banned with complaints about the language used, as well morality issues.


8) Lady Chatterley's Lover
by D.H. Lawrence. Published in 1928.


9) Moll Flanders
by Daniel Defoe. Published in 1722, "Moll Flanders" was one of the earliest novels. The book dramatically depicts the life and misadventures of a young girl, who becomes a prostitute. The book has been challenged on sexual grounds...


10) Candide
by Voltaire. Published in 1759, "Candide" was banned by the Catholic Church. Bishop Etienne Antoine wrote: "We prohibit, under canonical law, the printing or sale of these books..."