Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.

[mldavis2]

For most 'serious' readers, literature is a form of art. The value of art, in part, is to get the observer/reader to expand perspective, learn alternate viewpoints and facts, and force additional thought leading to a deeper understanding of the subject at hand. Censure is counterproductive from an artistic viewpoint. It is a form of control. We tend to want to censor or control things that we don't understand, things that we fear, or things that make us uncomfortable. - sex, homosexuality, racial or religion bias, street language.

As an adult, I will read most anything, provided it is either labeled as fiction, or adequately researched as fact. Some factual information is arguably inappropriate for youth. Some factual information runs counter to desired beliefs and biases that parents wish to maintain with their offspring. The real problem lies in the wide range of maturity among our children, combined with the wide range of education of their parents. What may be appropriate for one youth may be too 'advanced' for another. What may pass muster, ethically, religiously, morally for one parent may be beyond the experience or acceptability of another parent.

Sadly, what happens is that educators are often forced, in a public school environment, to 'dumb down' to the lowest common denominator. Thus, we have restrictions imposed by an elected school board made up of a non-representative sample of parents, or the bias of a single librarian or school official. Such is politics in rural America. It's not always right, but the only way to change it is to vote and/or write letters voicing your objection and viewpoint. Many of the most highly conservative schools are in small towns where control can be maintained by a small but vocal minority.

Not knowing the reasons given for the censure, it is difficult to criticize the decision. But it would be a total failure of the school district not to announce the censure, give reasons, and list the books banned for the reasons given. More open-minded parents could then review the reading material and determine if they wanted to acquire copies for their children in the interests of a well-rounded education. Reasons for censorship are excellent springboards for healthy discussion.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There was 7 AKs used in Deathly Hallows, and they were said by Crabbe, Draco, and Voldemort. ...

Didn't Mrs. Weasly use one on Bellatrix (or was that just the movie)?

[DiapDealer]

The Harry Potter discussions are two streets over, first thread on the left.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The Harry Potter discussions are two streets over, first thread on the left.

I've given up and joined the Borg-y HP discussions (obviously). Resistance was futile.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by John F

Didn't Mrs. Weasly use one on Bellatrix (or was that just the movie)?

Yeah, they changed her battle for the movie. It was much more bad ass in the book, and she didn't say Avada Kedavra. Molly was way more fearsome in the book. Also, Molly used just wordless magic, so if she pulled off a wordless AK, shows just how powerful she is because not even Voldemort could do that.

[Coops]

"Even though Slaughterhouse-Five... it was just too dirty for Scroggins, as was Ocker's Twenty Boy Summer, about which he wrote, "In this book, drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex." "




"An interesting sidenote: only one of the four school-board members voting had actually read either of the books"




Quotes from www.nerve.com - a very unbibley website.

[mldavis2]

Originally Posted by Coops

"An interesting sidenote: only one of the four school-board members voting had actually read either of the books"

You didn't expect them to read the whole thing did you? Most creationists haven't even read and understood the title of Darwin's book, yet they rail against it as evil.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

You didn't expect them to read the whole thing did you? Most creationists haven't even read and understood the title of Darwin's book, yet they rail against it as evil.

all they need is a summary

[WT Sharpe]

We interrupt this thread for a reminder note from the MobileRead Moderation Team.

Some of the comments in the thread have ventured perilously close to religious territory.

Posts commenting/discussing Political and/or Religious topics are inappropriate for this section. If you are interested in these topics, please review this thread.

Thank you.

[MV64]

I hate when this happens. [Deleted by Moderation]

And of all the books to ban, they always pick the strangest ones. If you're going to ban books for inappropriateness, the entire teen section would be removed. Those books are worse than adult books a lot of the time. Classic fiction is not going to mess up kids and turn them into atheists.

[mldavis2]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Some of the comments in the thread have ventured perilously close to religious territory.

I assume that was aimed at my short post above and/or fallout therefrom. It was in no way intended as a pro- or anti-religious comment, something I studiously avoid online in this or any forum, rather simply the best example to which most readers could relate that came to mind. I stand corrected and will seek alternate examples of unsubstantiation. Sorry...

My point was that, in order to justify the decision, the school board should be required to explain to me, as a parent, their rationale for eliminating the work of a highly regarded author. Failure to do so would suggest that either they have no reason other than a knee-jerk response to a parental complaint (a single parent or minority of parents no doubt), and/or that the members of the school board, who voted or decided as a group, had not all read the material, or had not read all the material, and were unable or unwilling to voice a rational objection based on the known rather than assumed content and its supposed deleterious effects on the tender minds of exposed students.

As a resident from another part of the state in question, it is embarrassing to see such censorship taking place in which supervisory personnel override decisions of teachers trained in their specific disciplines. Few school administrators or school board members have advanced degrees in literature ... and how do we evaluate the potential 'harm' vs. 'enlightenment' value of a specific literary work?

My suggestion to parents who wish to continue to try to shield their offspring from the workings of the real world is home schooling.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

I assume that was aimed at my short post above and/or fallout therefrom. It was in no way intended as a pro- or anti-religious comment...

It wasn't aimed at any one post in particular. Many of the posts in this thread—from many members—have come dangerously close to P&R territory. We've been keeping a close eye on this thread for days. It was just a friendly reminder that we do have a Politics & Religion forum for those topics and that discussion of political and religious topics outside of that forum is against MobileRead policy.

[vivaldirules]

Billy Pilgrim lives!

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Initially I agreed with you, but as I started to think about it, I realized I had been drawn to books because they were banned.

When I was a teenager I was inspired to read Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger because it had been banned. However, I wasn't drawn to other books in a similar manner, or so I thought when I first read your question. As a teenager I had known Gulliver’s Travels and Candide were once banned for political reasons, but I had no desire to read them and I still don't. I also knew that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and To Kill a Mockingbird were all banned because they tackled race issues. As a teen I wasn't interested in reading these books-- BUT I have read them as an adult. I also find it sad they now get banned from schools because they contain racist words. As a teen the books on sex didn't hold much appeal either, but as an adult I have Lolita by Nabokov on my 'to read' list. I also tried reading Ulysses as an adult (Big Fail). I can't say that I read the Harry Potter books because religious nuts tried to get them banned, but I did read The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman because of the religious objections, and The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie is also on my "to read" list (although Midnight's Children is a little higher on that list). Lastly, I also want to read American Psycho by Bret Ellis, and primarily just because of the controversy around the book (it's been banned in several countries).

So, after thinking about it, the fact that a book gets banned or is surrounded by controversy is a draw I think.

i'm a 33 year old man, controversy still draws me in. i've read The Turner Diaries for exactly that reason. had there not been a hubub i'd have never known that book existed. child or adult, i think we're all drawn to "forbidden fruit".

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by anabolina

I'll admit I have a different perspective on this. Despite being a librarian for 4 years ( I never would have mentioned this during any of my classes for fear of being burned at the stake) and having studied English for my BA, I see no problem with banning books or censorship. Maybe it does have something to do with being from the Bible belt and living in the Bible Belt despite not being a bible thumper.

If someone in the community objects to a book, it is RIGHT for the library and it's board(or in this case the schoolboard) to review the book and determine if it's right for that purpose and community. Just because the book was bought doesn't mean it's appropriate, especially for a public school library. If there are people within the community who want to support the challenged book, they should speak up. This is why all libraries need written and thorough policies.

It's nice not to have to worry about this in my current position, I work for a overseas medical school and there's never been a challenge to any of the dry medical texts.

i'm a libertarian and i actually agree with your position.

not to be flippant but if one finds themselves at odds with their community, then move. just as the majority shouldn't trample on the minority, the majority also also shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a few of it's citizens.