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
Er, yeah, thanks.Quote:
Has a European book publisher taken your book?
Well, yes - them too.Quote:
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. .
But that's not the point I was making. I'm a suppoter of the phenomenon that the tension between creative impulse and market forces produces the most interesting and commercially viable work. That's just the grown-up stuff of being a writer.
I was simply saying that although interests (hello, Cindy in Hays) outside the creative (artsy writers) and the commercial (publishing sales projections) may exercise influence on the market reaction to a published work, what really matters is the tendency of multinational monoliths to homogenise their output in such a way that it neither excites me nor offends Cindy.
I'm all for books provoking controversy, and even bans. What worries me is that the tendency is for such books not even to get far enough to be banned.
Hmm, well, I don't know how the decisions are made inside these book companies. I would venture to say that there are periods where the impulse is to homogenize and then a counter impulse builds to go away from it. I do think there are lots of avenues for people to get published. I see lots of variety on a book store tables. And look up self publishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I do. And it's actually, at the editorial level, quite sane. A balance between the commerical and the creative. It's down to the predisposition of the most influential editors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
True. But the people who are doing well out of the swing of the pendulum one way are unlikely to invest in a swing the other way. Look, for instance, at how the major record companies fought, at first, against the rise of punk.Quote:
I would venture to say that there are periods where the impulse is to homogenize and then a counter impulse builds to go away from it.
Quote:
I do think there are lots of avenues for people to get published. I see lots of variety on a book store tables. And look up self publishing.
Self-publishing is not punk, I'm afraid. The dynamics are just not viable, even if the product is top class. That's not where the paradigm shift will be forced.
But - I agree with you in principle. It'd be nice to believe that something will happen to seriously worry - for which read commercially terrify - the majors.
Then again, if my agent gets me a deal with Random House next year, I'm likely to stop worrying about this.
Easy there, chief. Nobody's saying you have to read it to your children. But lobbying to have it removed from libraries and bookstores smacks of "banning," don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And would you mind explaining what it is about And Tango Makes Three you find so personally objectionable? I mean, it's a children's book about a family of penguins with same-sex parents. If it were anyone but you, Virgil, I'd suspect that bigotry were coming into play here. However, I know that's out of the question.
Regards,
Istvan
Do people lobby to have books removed from bookstores? (If you answer yes to this question please prove some evidence). I have heard of books being challenged in libraries, but not bookstores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I'm not sure removing a book from a library really makes a book "banned". People can still buy the book if they want, own the book, etc., if they really want the book that badly.
I've never seen anyone try to remove it from bookstores or libraries. The only instance I have heard this book mentioned was in relation to a school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
When I feel an appropriate age for my child to learn about homosexuality, I will gladly do so, and I have no bigotry toward homosexuals. I don't think kindergarden is the approriate age to learn about any sexuality.
Thank you Mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I tend to think the fuss over Chatterley was overblown even if one takes into account the obscenity laws that Lawrence had to skirt-- a few generations earlier, the Victorians floated so called "dirty cards" of women in various sexual poses that authors like Henry James and his realist associates were certainly aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I tend to think Lawrence hit a political nerve of some sort, much like Flaubert, because the novel really isn't about why healthy sex for women is a good idea. There are other things going on in the narrative.
Well, there are certainly degrees of censorship, but should we look with a kind eye upon even the mildest of it's forms? Is it not censorship if it only effects people with no disposable income?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I read somewhere about Americans burning loads of copies of The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe, probably copies people had actually bought to intentionally burn as a protest about something. I was wondering, if it actually happened, which State it was in? It seems the protesters believed that the books promoted a belief in the supernatural (yeah, like the Bible doesn't) & the occult. I also believe some of the Harry Potter novels were burned by some protesters for similar reasons. Mind you, I bet the Potter novels make good fire-lighters! :lol:
Plus, I found this.
Redheaded. I thought this sentence from your link was worth pasting on here.
The city warned me they would intervene if I burned [the Potter books]," ... "because of the toxic emissions (from) the ink.
I seems there are greater forces at work here.
Yes, forces almost beyond human comprehension I think...Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Not long ago I read "Places I Never Meant to Be" (Edited by Judy Bloom). I was a collection of short stories from authors who have been censored/banned in the US. Quite frankly I found some of the reasons for censorship ridiculous - but most were banned 10-20 years ago.
About 5 years ago "Forbidden Love" was removed from bookstores in Australia - though this was due to the questionable accuracy of the facts (rather than "obscene" content).
Other than this I only know of one other book banned in Australia - "The Peaceful Pill Handbook" - which gives instructions on how to perform euthanasia and suicide...
I don't have any evidence of bookstores, your post just reminded me of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
In my highschool library, a group of Christians showed up every couple of weeks and put little cross stickers on all of the books that they deemed "healthy" and removed the books that they deemed "inappropriate." They didn't have permission from the librarian, they just did it (and the library was so small and security was so lax that the got away with it every time). We never saw them doing it, it could have been overzealous kids (but our library was also the public library at night, so it really could have been anyone). It's so irritating when you're trying to research the occult for a school project and all of the books on occultism have been stolen.
The economic element to it is a good point, Mortal.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Personally, piggybacking off Red-Headed and JBI's comments, if I ever publish a book I would be so lucky that conservative Christians should grow angry enough that they purchased all my books for the sake of burning them. Free publicity with a touch of controversy for the newspapers, plus the idiots bought all my books and are giving me royalty money!
Yeah...there's no such thing as bad publicity! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
It's actually a strange thing even cross-nation. China, for instance bans books, but I think educated people there read a wider array of viewpoints (in translation) than, lets say the average Canadian reader, who doesn't read China at all except through a lens accepted by the American publishing market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.
So, for instance, a novel with a strong capitalist agenda from the US may have been banned in China, but how many socialist novels from China ever made it to the US, or Canada?
The actual censorship is relatively irrelevant - the actual forces that control as Innis phrased it, "why we attend that to which we attend to," are the ones at the end of the day that matter.
Culture necessarily bans books. It may not burn them, but it will just push them into oblivion. Every discourse has its ideas, and only some will leak in and change the discourse - if a work isn't fitting with a criteria, naturally it bans itself.
Within the Christian context then, the discourse was controlled by a church who, importantly, were the main ones reading texts anyway, so it didn't quite matter. In the context now it is merely media giants who decide what is read anyway, and institutions like universities. To ban a book now is to praise it, to ignore a book is to kill it.
Once something is banned, it becomes a controversy - controversy reshapes culture, even if it is slightly - therefore, Thomas More for instance, taking a rather violent stab at William Tyndale in the 16th century did all that was possible to ensure his survival. Strangely enough though, their whole argument has never been published separately (outside of the collected works from what I know) and as of yet, has never been edited into modern spelling. The discourse actually reshaped the whole image of More around Utopia, ignoring the darker image, as apposed to banning it, so that nobody but academics know the text, and only as a footnote to his other works pretty much.
As it goes, usually people who come up with the ideas to burn stuff are stupid - most of the book burning crowd are, to be honest, but it doesn't matter.
If a text is relevant, it will survive any censor - Confucius, for instance, was banned worse than any author ever before or since, to the point where owning a copy, or studying him was punishable by either intense forced labor (of which many people died from) or death (the most famous of which being the live burial of the top Confucians of the era). But even then - after all that, it would appear that Confucius had influence on par with Jesus Christ after that, far more so than anybody else.
It seems that the Christian texts originally went through a similar process - whenever there is real merit, no matter how much banning, it always seems to remain and resurface twice as large.
The impulse to read a banned book may increase due to the controversy, but the banning would limit the amount of access to a book. Many people may not know of it's existence if it can't be found in a store or library.
The decrease in circulation may kill many books - only those which receive publicity and are available for a while before being banned would have a good chance of survival. The banning itself does not ensure a books survival.
Many books which were once banned (such as Shakespeare) were already considered classics at the time, and were able to survive the period of repression. Other lesser works may not have survived...
I believe that the Russian Communists had a novel approach to this predicament. Authors like Dostoyevsky weren't actually banned but, apart from not being represented in libraries, their works were made available only in expensive editions that most people couldn't afford.
As an outsider to the USA, it does genuinely appear to be a highly censored society to me, in indirect ways, if not official censorship. I suppose a similar case could be made for any country though. At least Thatcher is not PM any more in my country & cases like this have ended.
May I know what sort of books will be banned? If an author does not write things that most people will agree with, will his book be banned? If he mentions a little bit about something in the evil world, will anyone in authority issue a ban on his book?
xxxxxxx
I have no idea whether that's true, or whether it matters, but I'd really like to know how you arrived at the two figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
Ah, tu quoque, where would the Internet be without you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
Regards,
Istvan
I very much doubt it. What about the Nazis? What about Islamic & Christian conservatives? I would like to see some *statistics on this asseveration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
*Bearing in mind what Disraeli thought of statistics.
It would be nice to think that were true - but if it were not, how would we know?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Or to put it another way, who knows how much work of real merit has been suppressed and will never resurface?
I'm not sure I understood the opening post.
I remember only one book actually getting banned in my country, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The reason given was that it would create a law and order situation if the book was allowed to be sold. As far as I know the ban was never lifted, and I've never set eyes on a copy.
Was any book banned in the US in this way? Surely not?