Daffodil Lane

you've got to be kidding?!? of mice and men, i know why the caged bird sings, & forever?

Makes the mind reel doesn't it?

It's is really quite insane when you look at the books that are on the list of banned books. I've been doing a lot of research on this the past two weeks since I've got a Banned Books week display up here at teh library. Your right, it is about people trying to exert control over others. Trying to decide for them what they should and shouldnt' read, as if people are stupid and can't make up thier own minds.

Isn't the name more for effect than truth, since no books have been banned-just challenged. Our library has the papered/taped display up with "Banned Books"--I think it is rather misleading, giving the impression that all those books were banned, if people do not actually know that no books were banned. There is free speech for people to say there are books in the library that shouldn't be available to children. Many books have merely been questioned by parents and moved to different parts of the library. The parents didn’t like their children having access to graphic sex, etc. and said so. Books are questioned because parents want to have a choice as to what their children are exposed to at the library and at school.

So if you don't like the book then don't let your children read it, but raising a hoopla about how no one should read it is ridiculous! What I might find offensive, someone else might not, and who am I to say what your child can read? The Harry Potter books are the prime example. While I think people who don't like the books, and in many cases haven't even read them to know what's actually in them are off base, that doesn't mean that those parents that are concerned about them shouldn't do what they think is best for their child, and in turn it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to read them myself and to my children. Likewise I wouldn't let Alexis read a book by a right wing author or even read one myself, but you've got to do what you've go to do.

It's about personal responsibility. There are tons of books I wouldn't read myself, or want Alexis to read, but that doesn't mean they should be banned. That just means that I, as a parent, need to be aware and ensure that I do what is best for my child and myself. Banning books, even talking about banning books, is simply nuts!

I do not think books should be banned-I just think there are two issues here. Of course people need to make their own decisions. What I am talking about-not banning books-is 1.--I do think some of the campaign is misleading. Even on the site it says vote for your favorite banned book and when you click it has a list of challenged books. Also--if there is a book in the children's section of the library--and in this day and age there are many books there, that while a person would not think they should be banned, they do not appreciate that book being in the children's section--when that book is brought to the librarians attention and asked if it maybe shoud not be in the children's section--that is treated as a threat to that book-and when you see the numbers of how often that book has been challenged=it could just be that a parent was concerned about that particular book being in the children's section. It needs to be kept in perspective-a parent showing concern about a book is not the same as someone wanting to ban books. Even saying--Free to Read that parent would not be trying to take people;s freedom to read away. There are a ligitimate issues with some books--no they should not be banned--but sometimes they do not to be in the children's section. And I'm not talking about Harry Potter. I mean books with sexual content--parents are responsible for their children-the books should be in the adult section giving the parents the choice of when/if to expose their children to those books. Like I said--I just think there are 2 diff. issues--and they can't both be lumped under "their trying to ban books and take are freedom to read away." Esp. when it concerns grade school libraries. You can't say it is up to parents to decide what is best for their children-and then have certain books in the elementary school library-because that is taking the decisions away from the parents-for when their child will be exposed to certain issues. I am not talking about books like Huck Finn --I mean in this day and age--in the world today--there are many books out there exposing various issues to children that should be up to the parents when these issues will be dicussed.
Again--I know with the #'s given to challenged books--the3y include a parent saying--maybe that book could be moved to a diff. section--for that to be treated with hysteria of our freedoms are being taken away!! --that is ridiculous.

I was simply using Harry Potter as an example since it appears to be quite popular on the "ban" list being in the #1 spot. And the issues you raise are one in the same. There is no distinction. It all boils down to parenting your child. You are in control, not some invisible outside force. It's about responsibility and it's as simple as that. If you aren't responsible enough to pay attention to the content of what your child is reading than that is your issue. It's not the library's job to do that for a parent. These ideas are not hysterical. You seem to be the one having the problem with that issue.

I really don't think the campaign is misleading at all. The website is very clear about the books on their list being banned or challenged. And ALA takes both very seriously:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wbc

As and aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people. If you look at the challenged/bannned book list you will see that there are books challenged for many different reasons. For example, Harry Potter might be banned or challenged by the far-right because they think it will expose children to magic and then turn them into evil magicians. On the other side, books like Huckleberry Finn are banned or challenged because of it's use of a racial slur (that I don't want to repeat here), which is the kind of issue (political correctness and all that) people on the left are generally more concerned with. These are just very general examples. So I just want to be clear that ALA and librarians in general are concerned with book banning and challenging from all sides of the political spectrum. We just think all of it is wrong. period.

I think the point is that we believe in not only freedom of speech, but freedom of thought. What is wrong with children being exposed to ideas? Why not use these ideas as a jumping off point for a discussion? Why repress the idea completely? I hate to burst your bubble but children are exposed to things like sex and racism and Harry Potter without reading books about it. And I agree with Dianne, if you don't want your children to read these books then simply don't let them read the books. Keep track of what your children are doing. Talk to them about what they are reading so that you know.

My point is that, as Americans, we should be allowed to be exposed to works of literature, read them, and make our own decisions about them. And I include children in this. I don't think it is an American ideal to force your (again speaking generally here) your opinion about a book on others. I don't think it is right to tell others "you have to think the way I think. You have to believe the way I believe." I think that people should be exposed to knowledge and works of literature and then make their own decisions about it.

The point about questioning whether something should be in the children or adult section is a sticky one. I think the problem with this idea of challenging a book is simply that it has a chilling effect. Which is repressive and wrong.

Okay, I'll get down off of my soapbox now :)

Very well put Monica!

It seems like a contradiction to me to be saying on one hand that I as a parent is responsible for what my child reads and then saying there is nothing wrong with all books to be available in the school library for a child's free choosing. Contadictory.
Common sense can be used as to certain books not being in the children's section of the public library--why would that have to be threatening and chilling?
Also--are you aware that homeschooling is illegal in Germany for the same reasoning you support? They don't want a child at home where the parent is making the decisions on what to teach their children--they need to be in public school under the reasoning that all children should have the right to learn about all philosophical beliefs-which may sound goood--but is actually saying others besides the parents should be in control of what your children learn. So your reasoning can actually lead to homeschooling being banned....hmmm
It is 2 issues--being made into one with contradictions.
By the way I have a very good relationship with the librarians at our public library, book banning display and all :)

Oh by the way
quote: As and aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people

Where did that come from? Who said anything about the right/the left? If I as a parent want to be responsible and make the decisions for my child--that is making a ref. to the right? Why would that be? Am I to conclude that only right leaning people think they will decide for their children and not the govt? (Like in Germany?)

There is nothing contradictory about that at all. You should be responsible for your child, not the library. I don't see how that is so hard to grasp. And your link between home schooling and banning books is nuts. If that is how it is in Germany (I don't know, because I haven't ever studied the issue) then that's just wrong. There is no correlation between the two and if they are saying there is then they are grasping at straws on very shaky ground.

I think you saying parents are responsible for what their children read and then saying it is wrong for parents to voice concern over certain books and their placement is contradictory. Esp. in schools if all books are available to all children no matter the age-that takes the responsiblity AND abilty for the parents to make the decisions for their own cildren away from the parents--and puts it in the hands of the school ie. government. Now as far as Germany is concerned--it is news-so don't have to look too far--homeschooling is illegal there and a German Consulate stated it is illegal because all children have the right to be exposed to all beliefs when they say they should be. So you say children should be allowed access to every book. They are children and parents need to be protecting them, making decisions for them. There is a diff. between adults making decisions for themselves and children beig left to make decisions for themselves. Now you said you would not have your daughter read books from a right wing author. From your other reasoning--she should be allowed to and should be exposed to all beliefs. And she should be taught them when others, not you, decide she should be taught them. And above all else, she should be taught tolerance of every right wing belief :)
And again--I am not speaking of banning books-so I make no link between that and homeschooling. What I said was if you believe others should decide what and when your children are exposed to various beliefs--that is exactly why Germany made homeschooling illegal. Do you know it was actually Hitler who first made it illegal?
I still think it is a contradiction for you to say "You should be responsible for your child, not the library." and then when a parent wants to take responsibilty and say--have a book moved to a diff. section--that is wrong. Isn't it taking responsibility for what your children are reading?

Well, it might be taking responsibility for what your child is reading, true, but it is also exerting control over others, which I feel, is wrong. I would rather my child (if I had one) read a book that mentions things that are a little bit controversial so that I can discuss it with them then just totally repress it for my child and everyone elses child.

I don't know WTF homeschooling has to do with this discussion so I will just leave it at that.

I didn't read all of comments before I put my last comment up there. Deb, I was not targeting you when I said, "As an aside, this IS NOT about ALA and "hysterical librarians" targeting right-leaning people". I was just setting the record straight because I read an article on a neocon website that did say Banned Books week was a way for "liberal librarians" to point fingers at people on the far right. I was not implying that you were saying that in your comment. I am not implying that you are a Neocon. Hence the phrase "As an aside."

I would like to add that I don't know WTF germany and Hitler have to do with this discussion either. ARe you saying librarians are like Hitler? If so I take issue with that. You are truly nuts if this is what you are implying. In fact, I think you owe me, a librarian, an apology for implying this. The difference between librarians and Hitler is that Librarians actually care about American's civil liberties. We care about freedom of thought, freedom to read, freedom of speech. We want people to actually be able to think for themselves. To have access to knowledge. Hitler, being a fascist, didn't. And he murdered millions of Jews,which librarians would NEVER do. Duh.

Furthermore, how is my argument contridictory? That doesnt' make any sense. I am telling you that, rather than being repressive by telling libraries "this book is bad because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is what children should be reading" you should, instead, deal with your child individually. Don't parent the rest of the world. Parent your own child. Librarians are not the parents of your child. You are the parent of your child. I'm not saying don't parent your child. I'm just saying do it differently. Don't force it on the rest of us.

That's not being responsible, that's just pushing your own world view. What you might find offensive, might not bother someone else and vice versa. Monica said it very well.

Here are two scenarios that I can think of for controversial children's material:

1.The book is shelved in the general stacks of the children's section of the library and parents who don't want their child to read that book are responsible to make sure they don't pick it up. Which, BTW, they can't do in a school library--they can only allow/disallow the reading of books once they have actually been brought home.

2. The book is shelved in a 'controversial issues' area of the children's section of the library where a parent who does want their child to read it can easily find it for them.

Why would one situation be preferable to the other?

I don't think either one of those situations are preferable. I say we keep them all together and not single anything out.

Moni, that'd be situation 1, then.

Oh..I guess your right :P

Sorry about that!

But I just want to say that I see nothing wrong with parents allowing/dissallowing their children to read books after they are home. I don't know if you are implying that its wrong or not. Again, it's not the job of a librarian to act as parents. More specifically, is not the job of a librarian to say a child can or can't check out a certain book.

Situation 1 is preferable because it doesn't single out any books. Again, I think singling out a book and saying "this book is wrong for all children because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is wrong or right" ultimately has a chilling effect. And as soon as you do single out a book and put it in a "controversial issues" section children are going to want to read it anyway. Making something controversial makes people more interested in it.

I don't think parents are really the ones who neccessarily *want* children to read controversial books. I think children get thier hands on them or are asked to find books on controverial topics by teachers for a report or something like that. I've never really had a parent come to me seeking out books on controversial topics for thier children, really.

Rather than repressing controversial subject matter why not use it as a jumping off point for discussion? Or just take the book and have them not read it after they are home. I guess that decision is up to the parent. But I think it should be something between the parent and child.

You put words into my mouth. You jump from asking if I was implying librarians were like Hitler to saying I owe you an apology for saying it. I am not linking the librarians to Germany/homeschooling or Hitler. I just had a few different thoughts going at the same time.
I don't understand why you guys can't get what I am saying, whether you disagree or not.
1. I never said "hysterical librarians". I see a pattern going here--taking what I say and misrepresenting it-why? to make it seem I am saying something I'm not? So you can fit me into your preconcieved ideas of people who think diff. from you? I don't know. But stick to the facts where what I say is concerned, please.
2. Also--saying a parent should be able to ask for a book to be removed from the children's section is not pushing my world view. It's not asking the material to be removed--just moved to a diff. section. And when I say section I was thinking the adult section of the library--not to a contoversial section in the children's section. Have the material, but in the adult section, so it is available for the parent to decide if they want it for their child. Do you think a parent should not ask for that?
3. You said that everyone, including children should have every book available to them. To have available to them every way of thinking, right? All the various beliefs etc? So--all I was pointing out was that that is the reason (or one of them)Germany has made homeschooling illegal--they want to make sure all children are being exposed to all beliefs. And then I remembered that it was Hitler who first banned homeschooling--because he wanted to be in control of what children learned--not the parents. Had nothing to do with any name calling--I know I for one have never compared anyone to Hitler--not even George W. But I know I heard that somewhere.

By asking to have it removed to a different section you ARE pushing your world view. Because you think a book is bad, you want it moved to another section, but what about the parents that don't have an issue with said book? Why should they have to live by your world view. Why should they have to go to another section to get a book, when you can just not get the book. Even in terms of a child, again be a parent!

And as for the rest of your rant, it's just that...A rant. You're trying to make "logical" connections where there is no logic. You have majorly strayed off course of what the original discussion is even about.

And there is no need to get haughty with anyone here. The whole Hitler thing is just out of line.

Oh, yes--another inconsistency--
"Furthermore, how is my argument contridictory? That doesnt' make any sense. I am telling you that, rather than being repressive by telling libraries "this book is bad because it doesn't fit into my mold of what is what children should be reading" you should, instead, deal with your child individually."
OK--I never used that as my example--I talked about asking a book to be moved to another section. So--why does my question have to be twisted into something that sounds like I am saying what you said up there? Can you respond to what I actually said-so since I know you work in a library-going back to the beginning--let me ask--if a parent asks for a book to be moved elsewhere 1.do you consider that a neg. thing? 2. it was my understanding that by asking for a book to be moved to another area that counted as a challenge and was counted in the #'s being shown at the ALA site for how many times a book has been challenged--but maybe I was wrong in that--maybe that is not counted? 3. If a parent brought up a concern about content to you would there be situations where you would agree and actually move the book to the adult section?
Thanks in advance.

Deb, I understand perfectly what you are saying. I do appreciate the clarification regarding the Hitler comment. Frankly, I don't know why you had to bring Hitler into this whole thing in the first place, but that's beside the point.

Again, I think that any kind of challenge to a book is wrong. It is forcing your viewpoint on others. I think the idea of moving book from the children's section to the adult section is better than banning the book altogether, though. But any kind of challenge to a book is an imposition of one's beliefs onto other. And that is wrong.

I think that is all I am going to say on this subject. I'm just repeating myself. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind and my mind is not going to be changed on the subject so I will just leave it at that.

okay, I lied. I was commenting above while the other comments were made.

Hmmm. okay lets see if I can address your issues. I guess I am kind of putting words in your mouth. But it really is what you are implying when you want a book moved to a different part of the library. You dont' like what is in the book. Why? Let's assume it's because of sexual content (since that is what you did say above). You feel that children shouldn't have acess to books with sexual content. But what if parent B is fine with the content of the book? What if Parent B thinks the book is a classic of Children's literature and wants her child to read it? What if parent B feels that her child is mature enough to handle the content? If I am parent B I certainly don't want someone deciding for me what should and shouldn't be in the children's collection.

Again, I don't see how I'm being inconsistant. By telling a library to move a book you are essentially saying "this book is bad." How does one define bad? It's totally subjective. Your idea of bad is different from someone elses idea of bad. So by you saying a book is bad you are essentially saying "this book doesn't fit into my mold of what is right for children to read."

Okay, I'm getting a headache at this point so let me just wrap up by answering your questions.
1) Yes I do think a parent asking to have a book moved from one collection to another is a negative thing.
2)To be honest, I don't know what is counted as challenged and I don't feel like researching it out right now. I'm not on the "Banned Books" committee. I do have work to do today and this has kind of taken up too much of my time already. I'm sure if you check out ALA's banned books week website you will find your answer. If not, why not just shoot them an e-mail?

3)I don't personally make those decisions. But we have moved books to different collections at our library. It's a compromise that is livable. It still sucks but it's a compromise.

Yeah--it is getting rather repetitive, huh.
Bye the way-I do agree parents should discuss various issues with their children; can use books to lead to discussions on differing beliefs, why we believe what we do, etc. It just seems if books with certain content are in the children's section that is kind of forcing the issue of the timeline within when those discussions will take place.

Today I also asked another librarian about parents requesting books to be moved to the adult section--here is her response:

"We recently moved a series of books, intended for children, about sex education. A parent brought up the fact that her daughter could read the title and it would bring up a subject that the parent wasn't willing to discuss with her 6 year old. The librarian agreed with her that we could certainly make that series of books available - in the adult section - for parents to read to their children. And that is where it is now - with the appropriate cataloging information changed."
Sounds like it can be done and be a reasonable solution. There was my answer--could have saved us all a lot of time. But I appreciate your time all the same.

Oh brother, and I just posted that without seeing your last post. Now I have to make one thing clear haha--
I am not saying a book is "bad", say I just think it is inapproprate for the childrens section--agewise--which is what I had in mind in the first place- that it was age inappropriate, not that I thought it was 'bad'--which is why I just wanted it moved to the adult section and I did not have classics in mind--I'm thinking more of --well like the librarian's example--so just want it moved to a more appropriate section.

ARRRRG! :pulling hair out at the moment:

Yeah Monica, I had much the same reaction. Much like talking to a brick wall isn't it?

What I want to know is why the *?#&* are we even having this argument?!? Deb, why did you incite this argument in the first place? (i'm probably going to regret asking that....)

I'm not sure, but apparently somewhere there she thinks we agreed with her.

I thought it was a discussion--it only sounded like anarguement because I kept having my words twisted so I had to keep clearing things up.

Bottom line--I never said I was talking about banning books--or my thinking a book is bad-or did I say IF someone did think a book was "bad" they had the right to tell others to get rid of it--but that is what you kept saying. All I was talking about was if a book--not a BAD book-was inappropriate for the childrens section-how placing it to the appropriate placxe=the adult section would be threatening. All I was looking for was a commom sense answer such as I got from the other library worker that I quoted.

And the part you don't seem to understand is that what you find "inappropriate" for children might not be what others find "inappropriate" and vice versa. Moving books is not the solution, because then you'd have to move them all, because somewhere, someone can find something wrong with any book you name. That's just he nature of human beings.

And we weren't "debating" because you don't want to debate, you just want to beat your ideas over our heads. We've been giving you common sense answers for the past two days, but you don't see it as common sense because it doesn't fit into your world view.

Oh, please, Diane--because my opinions do not agree with you I am beating you over the head with them? Then I could say the same thing. The only reason I had to keep repeating myself is because my words kept being twisted. And my questions would never get answered without there first being an example I had not given-therefore not answering MY question, but answering something different from what I had asked. If you guys could have just stuck to what I asked, instead of insisting I was sayiong that what some people consisdered bad should be removed, the discussion would not have gone on.

What I am calling common sense was the example given by the other library worker--that was a calm answer that showed a parents concern could just be handled as that-and not as some threat to peoples freedoms. To say there is not a case when a book is more appropriate for the adult section does not make sense-because obviously all those books in the adult section are there for a reason.

You know, I'm not going to deal with your irrationality anymore. You really are not a very nice person and your back handed comments break my rules set up for commenting here, so you have been banned in more way than one in case you get clever and try to find a way around that.

We were completely calm. You were the one that bordered on irrationality and I am sick of dealing with this kind of two faced argument where you're "right: and I'm "wrong". If you feel so strongly about your argument then start your own blog. My blog isn't here for your ideas.

And also my name is DIANNE not Diane. That just goes to show you have no respect for me and funnily enough I don't feel like continuing this conversation with someone that can't even spell my name correctly.

"a truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone" - Jo Godwin.

Yes, I agree with Dianne. I don't like the backhanded way you are saying that we don't have common sense answers to this question (and DON'T frigging tell me I am putting words in your mouth).

Argument, discussion..WTF IS THE DIFFERENCE?!? An argument is ANOTHER FRIGGING WORD FOR DISCUSSION! I think you are the one who is twisting things around here, really.

I guess the thing that is really irritating me is that, Deb, your are just being so nitpicky. So you didn't say Bad. big deal. What's the difference between bad and inapproprate? They both have the same ultimate implication which is what Dianne and I have been trying to tell you for two days and you just don't seem to get it! And I really take issue with you telling us that we are twisting your words. Again, it all boils down to what is wrong with the whole idea behind the problem with challenging (or banning) a book. And that is the fact that you (for lack of a better way to put this. Maybe it's not YOU but someone who wants to challenge the book. Is that explicit enough for you?!???) the fact that you think the book is inapproriate for ALL children. You are imposing your beliefs about that book on everyone not just your own child. I don't care what the problem you have with teh book is. It doesn't even matter. Because what you think is inapproprate might differ from what someone else thinks is inappropriate. For the millionth time.

Ugh!