xxxxx
Printable View
xxxxx
Are there any banned today (besides in schools)?
xxxxxx
Wow--books banned from certain schools or workplaces, I can maybe understand (a community feels their kids, as a group, aren't ready for the N-word as part of a lesson, for example, or a company keeping "porno" out of the office). But simply banning a book from a town or county is ridiculous. Like people can't even buy it, or read it on a park bench, or keep it in their house? I can't believe the ACLU or somebody hasn't taken that to the Supreme Court yet. That's outrageous, and a shock, definitely.
EDIT
I visited the Wikipedia page on book-banning, and it isn't super-imformative, but after reading that and looking at the OP again, I can see that banning a book here in the U.S. wouldn't necessarily entail prohibitions against the sale or possession of a book. I saw things pertaining to schools and public libraries. That is still pretty controversial, though. Maybe that's the extent of it, though?
Jermac, do you know what the post office and custom's department are doing? I think I've heard things about the government "monitoring" or "regulating" the sale of books that explain how to do terrorist activities, or violent crimes. But I'm not sure, it was a while ago.
Ridiculous. That's all I can say.
If we as a nation are still ignorant enough to think ideas should be controlled and regulated, then that's just troubling. If a county or state still has a ban on something like Naked Lunch or Howl, then they are obviously stuck in the past.
The whole notion of book banning is absurd - if there is one way to get a book emphasized and read, it is to ban it. Look what happened, for instance, when the church excommunicated Luther - since there was print, Luther's pamphlets kicked off a reformation instead of simply disappeared.
It's better to just do what media does, and simply don't mention things you don't want discussed - that's how the status quo is generally maintained anyway - banning something just pushes it into the front.
Zola was perhaps the greatest abuser of these tactics - his deliberate movement to have himself branded immoral seems to have made his early career - lesson learned - better to just not report if you want something gone than to ban or criticize it.
As for which books were banned - well, there were far more that were banned that are good - it doesn't matter anyway, now it is essentially impossible to drop a complete ban on people. The real ban doesn't come from legislature - if something is really banned, it just means people have no desire to pursue it.
Where do you get that from? Yeah, some things like pornography might not be around in a public library, but that's not the same thing as banned. Banned means it's not allowed to get published, and as far as i can tell everything is allowed to get published.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
Why, pray tell, do you insist on defining it that way? The vast majority of books are "banned" by taking them out of circulation after they've already been published. The obscenity trials of Ulysses, Naked Lunch, and Lady Chatterly's Lover attempted to suppress books that were available to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And, unfortunately, public pressure is still brought to bear on libraries and booksellers to stop selling certain books. The tale of And Tango Makes Three is a good example.
Because it's a children's book based on a real incident at a zoo, involving a couple of male penguins who 'adopted' a penguin chick, certain communities were outraged at the way it attempted to portray homosexual parents as actual members of society. The award-winning book has been on the most-banned list since its publication in 2005.
Regards,
Istvan
When and where was The Bible banned?
xxxxx
They were banned not for their ideas but for whatever obscenity laws were in place. I believed those books were banned in Britain as well. They had certain sensibilities then that were different than ours today. Perhaps they were a little too strict then. But we're not talking about then here. We're talking about now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
It's not banned. It's free to be published. School systems decide what is appropriate for children. Certainly you wouldn't consider Hustler magazine appropriate for children. Or perhaps you would, who knows. But i and 99% of the people don't. It's not banned from being published. No one has a right to shove whatever some 1% of the public feel is appropriate for others. if you want to read that book to your children feel free. I protest you shoving it down my kid's throat. Those banned lists are created by people who hold grudges.Quote:
And, unfortunately, public pressure is still brought to bear on libraries and booksellers to stop selling certain books. The tale of And Tango Makes Three is a good example.
Because it's a children's book based on a real incident at a zoo, involving a couple of male penguins who 'adopted' a penguin chick, certain communities were outraged at the way it attempted to portray homosexual parents as actual members of society. The award-winning book has been on the most-banned list since its publication in 2005.
Ridiculous. If you want to publish whatever you wish, you are free to do so. No one has a right to force me or my children to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
I think, Virgil, that you're uncharacterstically mistaken on this. I can't see how something could be banned by being refused publication. Pretty much by definition, a book has to be born in to order to be smothered.
As it's come up though - America gets a bad rap on this issue. Ten years ago, I wrote an article that cited the absurdity of Middle America burning chin-high piles of the first Harry Potter book. ("Pure evuhl," said Cindy Rorschach, a grade school teacher of Hays, Kansas.) I tended to agree with her - though perhaps not for the reasons she'd like.
But, as much as it pains Europeans to admit it, the reactionary hysteria that occasionally spouts in the gut of the US like gastric reflux is the unavoidable corollary of the freedoms of speech that are intrinsic to American self-image - - and therefore to American publishing. You can say and write and publish what the f*ck you like in America. What'll stop you is not Cindy Rorschach - because by the time she hears about it, it's too late. No - what'll stop you is Vertical BookPublishing/Movies/Games/GreetingCards/NewsMedia/And Eventually Yes Okay AdvertisingRevenue Inc.
And that's what Europeans really mean when they get sniffy about censorship in America. Because we are not yet - yet - so corporately owned that we feel controlled.
(Obviously I'll have to get this post run past Legal and have it okayed by Marketing before I post it, but if I'm good with them, I know I'm in for a cut of any residuals that may accrue and I'm also first choice for the sceenplay drafts if we get any action on the movie rights.)
Because no one has a right to have a book read. Have you read my book? How about I force you to buy it and make you and you family all read it? [I don't have a published book; just using it as an example.] Or if you're referring to getting a book published, if you have the money to lay out, you are free to publish whatever you want. You can't expect some publisher to waste his money if he doesn't think your book will make him money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
That's not banning or book burning as the term is used. Those are people who used their money to buy those books and do whatever they wished with their property.Quote:
As it's come up though - America gets a bad rap on this issue. Ten years ago, I wrote an article that cited the absurdity of Middle America burning chin-high piles of the first Harry Potter book. ("Pure evuhl," said Cindy Rorschach, a grade school teacher of Hays, Kansas.) I tended to agree with her - though perhaps not for the reasons she'd like.
Like I said no one is going to layout their money just for you. If it can't make money you will have to do it yourself, and frankly the self publishing industry has taken off in the US.Quote:
But, as much as it pains Europeans to admit it, the reactionary hysteria that occasionally spouts in the gut of the US like gastric reflux is the unavoidable corollary of the freedoms of speech that are intrinsic to American self-image - - and therefore to American publishing. You can say and write and publish what the f*ck you like in America. What'll stop you is not Cindy Rorschach - because by the time she hears about it, it's too late. No - what'll stop you is Vertical BookPublishing/Movies/Games/GreetingCards/NewsMedia/And Eventually Yes Okay AdvertisingRevenue Inc.
I would be surprised if there are European book publishers who will take your book thinking that it's not worth it. Are you saying European book publishers are altruistic? Has a European book publisher taken your book?Quote:
And that's what Europeans really mean when they get sniffy about censorship in America. Because we are not yet - yet - so corporately owned that we feel controlled.
(Obviously I'll have to get this post run past Legal and have it okayed by Marketing before I post it, but if I'm good with them, I know I'm in for a cut of any residuals that may accrue and I'm also first choice for the sceenplay drafts if we get any action on the movie rights.)
There are lots (tons actually, though the intenet is driving amny out of business) of magazines in the US looking for good writing to fill their pages. How the editors make choices is thier business.
They were banned not for their ideas but for whatever obscenity laws were in place. I believed those books were banned in Britain as well. They had certain sensibilities then that were different than ours today. Perhaps they were a little too strict then. But we're not talking about then here. We're talking about now. Virgil
Lady Chatterley's Lover was the subject of a hgh profile court case in England. Of course when it went on sale it sold a mint. This ws JBI's point earlier. It just served to publicise it.
Yes, I'm aware of it. I actually did my master's thesis on Lawrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem