Printable View
I don't think that any books should be banned, but many people think otherwise.
The ALA lists many books that have been banned or attacked. People have even tried to ban the Harry Potter books.
There is more information about fighting the banning of books at
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...dbooksweek.htm
And here is the reason, via Book-a-Minute classics:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute...ng.stone.shtmlQuote:
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is not just about magic; it is magic, for this single book is mysteriously comprised of two separate texts: there is the printed text that is experienced when the book is read, and there is the secret, more sinister text that is experienced when it is not read.
...
Harry Potter
I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.
J. K. Rowling
Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.
THE END
To be frank, I'm surprised that people aren't more up-in-arms about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, on the grounds that, unlike Rowling's opus, it really is heathen propoganda (the heathens, in this case, being atheists and not pagans).
As you may have gathered, I loathe censorship.
I am not for banning books in any public library. I like books. I read banned books. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb here (please don't throw things; it is hard enough to balance) and say that I do believe that there are some books that are better off not taught in middle schools and high schools. A Catcher in the Rye, for instance. Perhaps the author has a valid point (I believe he does), but it is perhaps the most missed point in all of young adult literature. Combine that with the sexuality, language, and the fact that teachers very often don't really know what they're teaching, and A Catcher in the Rye can be one mess, unproductive book. I do not blame any superintendant who bans the book.
The problem with banning books naturally comes because it is hard to draw a line. Ban The Catcher in the Rye, well, what about Of Mice and Men, George curses, too. And then, why not ban Fahrenheit 451? We don't want a bunch of kids fighting imaginary political enemies. In that case, The Chronicles of Narnia will have to go, too. Made-up things are bad business.
So...I think I may have shot holes in my own argument. I see both sides. I guess my sum is that I am acceptant only of schools banning books for explicit language, violence, and sexual content.
There's a difference between not teaching The Catcher in the Rye and not letting people read it. A big difference.
Banning books is a product of social retardation if you ask me. What happens to any tangible object that is banned? Demand increases. Unless the banning of books is a cunning plot to raise their sales, which would cause me to involentarily orgasm, it's a fart emitted by the incessant whining of people with a stick up their rear. (sorry about putting orgasm and fart so close together)
If i write a book, I hope it is banned in the US for a few years. It will sell more and I'll know I gave temporary meaning to some stagnant lives.
That said, is there another opinion out there? I want to know the reasoning behind people who believe books should be banned.
Hence the reason that I differentiated between a school ban and a public ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
A school can quite easily carry a book in its library without teaching it. Removing the book from the ciriculum is questionable, but removing it from the library is insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
Haha...you know what is funny...alot of the books mentioned above my highschool librarian has encourage me too read...On my own I found Fahrenheit 451 and if you can understand it may just be one of the most profound books for me. I have an entire list of books I plan on readng currently I am reading the Communist Manifesto, Dantes Divine Comedy, and Utopia...Next will be not in any order but eventually: Fatherland, A Clock Work Orange, Battlefield Earth: Saga of the Year 300, Alice in Wonderland, The Prince, Seize the Day, Catch-22, The Catcher in the Rye, The Time Machine, The Republic, 15,000 Useful Phrases, Beowulf, Don Juan. I'm nearly 17 and it saddens me that most of the people in my grade could read these books multiple times and miss the point. They probably would never take the time to read one of these books if it wasn't assigned. I can credit my dad for my intrest in books that provoke thought. He is a very avid supporter of Socrates. Thanks Dad. Banning books, pointless as others stated it increases demand. Just don't legalize pot.
hello how can i teach literature to students?
Good day,
I am not sure who said it but: "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading." There are books that have messages that are detrimental to society- anything advocating hate crimes, for example. However, if one book is banned, for whatever reason, there is little legal distance to cover before any book can be banned.
In my opinion, it is better to let the court of public opinion sort out what is worth reading. If a book has any credence it will rise.
Cheery-Bye
There are no moral or immoral books, only good and bad books. Therefore, I am against bans.
In my country nothing is forbidden, we were reading (actually, they did) Catcher in the Rye at age of 14.
Hey, cuppajoe_9... I had a question about the banning of Harry Potter books...
Harry Potter
I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.
J. K. Rowling
Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.
THE END
I'm sorry, I didn't get the point.
Why would that be the reason why we should ban Harry Potter?
I might be mistaken, but don't we have to provide an evidential proof to ban something (in this case, books)? The text above wasn't even in the book. How could we ban the book for the reason that wasn't even the content of the book?
Had someone ever thought that the text had been invented only to discredit Rowling? You know, invented by someone who obviously threatened (well, perhaps jealous is as more suitable word) by Rowling's success, or her popularity, or her fantasy, or her talent... Who knows?
Well, that's all...
It is not the book that should be banned - it is some people who should never read it. In my country the only banned book i can think of is "Mein Kampf". I understand why. But i still read it.
Writing is the magic. Writers are wizards. Any book that that describes something that isn't observable in the world that generally observed by others is a candidate for banning, especially if it is contrary to a particular set of beliefs. Some religions have banned books that didn't agree with their scriptures.
Yes, they have. But America is not the country of one religion. And even a ban on religious grounds is questionable, much more so in a country that considers itself "the land of the free" (national anthem). Is it no longer the country for people "yearning to breathe free" (Emma Lazarus, inscription on the Statue of Liberty)?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
And there is something else I do not understand. While in a library it is comparatively easy for the librarian to keep children from books that are not suitable for their age (to me the only reason why a book should be kept from a child), there are many children watching TV oder surfing the internet without restrictions. Have a look at US serials and movies. There is such a lot of sex and crime which is actually watched even by young children that I wonder why parents go for comparatively harmless books. Can anyone explain?
PS: Somewhere I read statistics how many murders the average American child (and probably meanwhile the European child, too) watches a day. But I lost the statistics Can anyone help?