Banned Books...."To Kill A Mockingbird" Has No Place On My Bookshelf!

[Razor]

Banned Books Week: September 26-October 3, 2009.

This is, essentially, a week to reflect on the silliness of banning books. People come up with fucktarded reasons to ban books, and they often get stupider as the day goes on. These are just a sample of commonly challenged books:

1. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
3. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
5. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
6. Ulysses by James Joyce
7. Beloved by Toni Morrison
8. The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
9. 1984 by George Orwell
10. Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov
11. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
12. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
13. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
14. The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
15. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
16. A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
17. Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
18. Their Eyes are Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
19. Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
20. Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
21. Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
22. Native Son by Richard Wright
23. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
24. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
25. For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
26. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
27. In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

Why Were These Books Banned? Click Here!.

This is nothing but people getting mad about a book, and trying to censor the writers. Seriously? To Kill A Mockingbird was challenged in 1977 because it uses the word "****e lady?" I especially like this crock of bullshit:

Challenged at the Warren, Ind.Township schools (1981) because the book does "psychological damage to the positive integration process " and "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of good literature:"

The entire book was built around a little girl narrating to you about how she and her father, Atticus, found the treatment of the black man wrong. Hell, her father was his fucking attorney. How it causes damage to the positive integration process, I'll never know.

Well. I'm not going to go down the entire list. Though I would like to point out the silliness in banning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn simply because it has the word "******" in it. The book is meant to show the irrationality of racism. And as Mark Twain said before, it wouldn't have worked without that word in it. If you don't understand that, then you fail at grasping basic implication. I read the book in 9th grade, and I promise you that I didn't come out racist. If anything, the act of Huck Finn becoming friends with ****** Jim shows that racism can be defeated. But noooo. Let us all have a hissy fit.

So. Should these books be banned? Are the challenges of merit? Should a library or school, funded by the state, be allowed to even entertain these challenges? Or is this all just people making a thinly veiled attempt to violate the First Amendment Rights of authors? Stake your claim.

 

[CH David]

I always loved the fact that The Great Gatsby was banned or challenged, for the simple fact that nothing fucking happens in the book that could be considered horrendous or terrifying for teenagers to read. They see worse shit on television and movies, and hell even hear it in music. What the fuck are people on to think that The Great Gatsby should be banned? According to your link on why they were banned

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald

Challenged at the Baptist College in Charleston, SC (1987) because of "language and sexual references in the book."

Oh dear heavens, bad language in a book? Then why the fuck isn't Cujo banned from a high school library? That has worse language than Gatsby, and I read both my junior year of high school. Same thing with the sexual references. It says that a supporting character fucking jerks off in Cujo, how is that not worse than Gatsby?

Other shit that is worse about Cujo than Gatsby, but it isn't banned from a high school library.

Spoiler: Cujo

The wife cheats on the husband, and what is worse, in Cujo, the kid fucking DIES!!!!!!!!

I find it ridiculous that books are banned or challenged in high school. At least when it comes to books like The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and I think even Fahrenheit 451. People just seem to want something to complain about in life, especially when it comes to teaching teenagers or children.

 

[HBK-aholic]

LOL, half of them have been on my High School or College reading list. Okay so, To Kill a Mockingbird is really just boring and no one should have to read it. I know "Good piece of literature blah blah" but I couldn't even get to the end of it. and I tried twice.

Gatsby is an amazing book, and for the life of me I'm trying to work out why it's 'banned'. Same with Of Mice and Men and One Flew over the Cuckoos nest. Okay, so they deal with topics which some may call sensitive, but on this list? Lol.

 

[stingerlegends]

People are scared of what they don't understand. People have been banning and censoring stuff for years because it makes people think, and uneducated people are responsible for this. I am not talking about people who don't go to school, I'm talking about people who DID, but never got anything out of it except a diploma. smart enough to have an opinion, but not smart enough to think about how their opinion may or may not be relevant.

 

[The Legendary 23]

LOL, half of them have been on my High School or College reading list. Okay so, To Kill a Mockingbird is really just boring and no one should have to read it. I know "Good piece of literature blah blah" but I couldn't even get to the end of it. and I tried twice.

Really, do yourself a favor and finish. While you obviously can't force yourself to like it, it is a classic book about maturing, aging, and innocence, and offers a universal theme anyone can relate to.

I can't believe Of Mice and Men, my favorite book of all time, is banned in some places. Damn, I really love that book. Not fluffed up, no bullshit, and tells it how it is. Not to mention, John Steinbeck flawlessly executed it.

 

[CanYouSayKay?]

Where are these books being banned at? I have read To Kill A Mockingbird and plan to read many more of those books later in the school year. TKAM is a great book and one of my favorites. Personally, I thinks it's more coming-of-age than about racism, because it shows Scout how she's maturing and seeing things differtently (then again I could be wrong).

Anyways, this year we had to read A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines (amazing book by the way). There was alot of mature and profane sections in the book like,

Spoiler

1. constant use of the n word
2. Sex scene
3. An execution at the end for one of it's main characters.

Believe me, there's alot more of those scenes in the book but what's shocking is that a bunch of 15-16 year olds are reading this in a very conservative part of the country. I could see if some of the books listed were because of younger kids who really couldn't understand those type of books but I think some parents and teachers are just nit-picking. They need to cool their jets and let the kids learn! These books are great and could enlighten anyone and it's a shame that some students aren't allowed to read them.

 

[X]

Where are these books being banned at?

They're not. The whole Banned Books week thing though was to celebrate those books that were previously banned. As far as I know To Kill a Mockingbird isn't banned anywhere in the US.

It's a good book. Wasn't as good as it had been hyped to be, but I guess it's a book you really have to read earlier on. I find the whole "banned books" thing to be hilarious, I had a discussion about this with a friend the other day when we were talking about the book The Catcher in the Rye and how it had been banned. A book like that wasn't even mildly shocking to me when I read it, but that's probably because I read Naked Lunch when I was 12 (and had the school principal take it away from me ). After reading a book that twisted, every other "banned" book I read wasn't shocking or controversial to me in the least bit.

 

[gd]

There really is no point in banning books, especially not in today's society. Children are exposed to so much on TV and in movies today, why not expose them to such things while they are doing something productive, like reading? Most banned books are just a result of some religious nut going insane. Really, it serves no purpose though because once a book gets banned, its popularity pretty much tripled.

Why in the hell is Grapes of Wrath banned? I didn't really enjoy the book much, but there isn't really anything controversial at all in it, is there? I guess a dead baby is controversial, I don't know.

I am reading a book that my teacher has described as "racy" in English this year, I don't remember the name though. Apparently the teacher was shocked that it even got approved by the school, I think they may have overlooked it. Should be quite interesting.

 

[Mr. Steve]

whaaaat? 1984 is banned?! well, I guess that we really are going the way of Idiocracy. Mike Judge was right, I suppose.

Well, in my opinion, NO book should be banned. What, just because a book portrays the times it was inspired by, and people nowadays find it offensive, they're going to get banned in the schools, a place where oen assumes, you go to learn how to think in a critical fashion?

All those books portray reality, albeit some in a more fictionalized way than others (unless we become Eurasia in the future). It's all a matter of know when to show the kids/pre-teens/young adults those books.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Yeah yeah, we're all talking about Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird, books which are pretty mild and are silly to be censored. But what about texts like Clockwork Orange, The Colour Purple or Lolita? I mean, no matter how liberal you are, those books have some pretty adult themes.

While I find the idea of banning or censoring books repulsive, I do think that perhaps parents should take heed from this. Maybe they should let their 10 year old read some books until theyre older and can comprehend the themes in the book rather than just the N word. Just a thought.

 

[X]

Am I really the only person that actually read the article? This is a week to celebrate banned books FROM THE PAST, none of those books are banned right now anywhere in the US as far as I know.

I don't see the problem with a thirteen year old kid reading A Clockwork Orange or Naked Lunch. None whatsoever.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Yeah, thats why I said a parent should take notice of this, as in, look what has happened in the past. If they've never read Lolita, and think it would be suitable for kids, maybe they can look up why it was considered obscene in some countries.

Just because you don't have a problem with a 13 year old reading A Clockwork Orange, doesn't mean a parent shouldn't be concerned about it. All it takes is for one kid to get the wrong impression and want to be like Alex. This is Anthony burgess' fault of course, its the parents.

 

[X]

Just because you don't have a problem with a 13 year old reading A Clockwork Orange, doesn't mean a parent shouldn't be concerned about it. All it takes is for one kid to get the wrong impression and want to be like Alex.

I think that's rather silly. Any kid who reads A Clockwork Orange is likely not going to want to be like him when his ill deeds are met with torturous punishment. To a young reader it would likely read no different from a biblical story, albeit a bit more graphic (and incredibly harder to understand considering the slang used in the book). To the naked eye on the surface of the book, Alex does bad things, is punished for those things. Obviously there's quite a bit more to the book than that, but we'll save that discussion for another day.

If a parent has a problem with a book, yes, I suppose that is their right. I think children should be encouraged to read no matter what though. If I have a 12 year old son or daughter that wants to read A Clockwork Orange, I'll be one happy camper. That's some complex reading for a kid, and shows they have an interest in the great works of literature. I'm sure not all parents would share that sentiment, I'm just sharing my two cents on the topic at hand.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I think that's rather silly. Any kid who reads A Clockwork Orange is likely not going to want to be like him when his ill deeds are met with torturous punishment. To a young reader it would likely read no different from a biblical story, albeit a bit more graphic (and incredibly harder to understand considering the slang used in the book). To the naked eye on the surface of the book, Alex does bad things, is punished for those things. Obviously there's quite a bit more to the book than that, but we'll save that discussion for another day.

Well, here's the thing. You are in your twenties. you are well spoken and articulate, so I'm guessing you're a pretty intelligent guy. A pre-teen kid who picks up the book (and to his credit is able to navigate it at such a young age) is not going to look at any of those themes. He'll see the punishment, and might be able to understand it, but for the most part, my guess is that the more enticing part of the book to them would be the destruction. The breaking and entering and the rape. That's what would get their attention more than anything else. We are talking about kids here, not to offend any youngin's on the site, but before puberty, it would be hard to say they would get much more out of it.

If a parent has a problem with a book, yes, I suppose that is their right. I think children should be encouraged to read no matter what though. If I have a 12 year old son or daughter that wants to read A Clockwork Orange, I'll be one happy camper. That's some complex reading for a kid, and shows they have an interest in the great works of literature. I'm sure not all parents would share that sentiment, I'm just sharing my two cents on the topic at hand.

Yeah, I agree on this point. Having a child that genuinely wants to read, and read such a deep book at that, would be great. But I'm not sure, if they were very young, if I would let them read it themselves. I may want to discuss it with them, and see what they got out of it, whether it was just violence, or they saw character growth/maturity.

 

[KKarvox]

Yeah yeah, we're all talking about Gatsby and To Kill a Mockingbird, books which are pretty mild and are silly to be censored. But what about texts like Clockwork Orange, The Colour Purple or Lolita? I mean, no matter how liberal you are, those books have some pretty adult themes.

While I find the idea of banning or censoring books repulsive, I do think that perhaps parents should take heed from this. Maybe they should let their 10 year old read some books until theyre older and can comprehend the themes in the book rather than just the N word. Just a thought.

And that's the whole point. The gov't has no place censoring or banning books they dislike or disagree with, regardless of how adult the themes are. The sole deciding vote should lie on the parents, where responsibility for these things needs to be taken. Censorship is a bad street to head down, and eventually will lead to more control over your personal life and business.

 

[2012isbs]

I'm 13, and I know about rape, sex, drugs, violence etc. is a and so do my friends, so I see no problem in letting a 13 year old read a Clock Work Orange. Granted I havn't read, maybe after I do I'll change my opinion. That week is celebrating previously banned books, my school had a freakin's bill board infront of teh library that said 'read a banned book' and listed some previously banned books, not Clockwork Orange, but it got the idea across.

 

[Nitafrong]

Being that this was the Cigar Lounge I actually thought this was going to be a debate about the efficacy of banning books. As almost everyone here has agreed, books banned in the past, have included great works of fiction, and were done so for reasons which are questioned and sneered at by people here. The important question for me therefore is: should any books be banned, or should we operate under a mandate that literally anything can be published? If you think that some books should be banned, or restricted- how strong is your rationale?

A couple of famous books come to mind of course when thinking along these lines. The Anarchists Cookbook- a relatively famous piece of literature detailing how to create home made weapons and bombs to disrupt the operations of the state, and the even more famous Mein Kampf, which until recently in the UK, had the police recording the information of all the purchasers of this. One can of course argue that the latter is an important piece of historical documentation, and vital for understanding the motivations behind the Nazi rise to power. However a question must be raised, as to whether it could contribute in affecting a person’s judgement or beliefs? On the other hand of course, you could respond to this by stating that anyone who is convinced by this book to change their views can be convinced by anything and thus a fool.

There are a myriad of arguments on either side, which I think could be interesting to explore, though really they all fall under the moniker of free speech rather than simply the right to print. If we were keeping with the rights of print, we could move to the subjects of reporting, to what extent should people's private lives be interrupted if they live in the private eye, to what extent should rumours be published which could have damaging effects on the person they are printed about?

But yeah back away from that particular tangent, to my own particular views. Generally I believe that restrictions shouldn't be put on the rights to publish, though I am unsure when it comes to the subject of hate literature, or books which encourage and promote violent, racist, or other violent activity on other people or groups.