And Tango Makes Three----BANNED

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the article isnt clear about where or when it was challenged or why.

Of all 348 books that were challenged in 2010, it was challenged the most. That part is clear. Yes, the title of the article uses the word "banned," but the article itself clearly indicates that the book is at the top of the Most Challenged List. Following the link included in the article to the list of the 10 most challenged titles of 2010 will give you the challenge reasons for the top ten challenged books of 2010:

And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
Reasons: homosexuality, religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie
Reasons: offensive language, racism, religious viewpoint, sex education, sexually explicit, violence, unsuited to age group

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
Reasons: insensitivity, offensive language, racism, sexually explicit

Crank, by Ellen Hopkins
Reasons: drugs, offensive language, racism, sexually explicit

The Hunger Games (series), by Suzanne Collins
Reasons: sexually explicit, violence, unsuited to age group

Lush, by Natasha Friend
Reasons: drugs, sexually explicit, offensive language, unsuited to age group

What My Mother Doesn't Know, by Sonya Sones
Reasons: sexism, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Reasons: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint

Revolutionary Voices edited by Amy Sonnie
Reasons: homosexuality, sexually explicit

Twilight (series), by Stephenie Meyer
Reasons: sexually explicit, religious viewpoint, violence, unsuited to age group

As to where... you're on your own. But I believe I saw a map somewhere in those links.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Reasons: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint

So I wonder what group in America would have found it so offensive for these reasons? Such a mystery.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I think they're doing that in Texas!

Yes, yes they are...

[vulcan_girl]

Originally Posted by replica145

Don't try to muddle up the story with facts!

Sorry, but you can't unknow it now!

[avariel]

Yet none of them are actually banned. You can buy them.

[Nyssa]

I love how "Vampireism" was listed as a "religious viewpoint" for Twilight. And some people wonder why so many other countries shake their heads at us in the States.

[Catlady]

I agree that this is stupid, but what about people who claim that Muppets Bert and Ernie are gay and should be acknowledged as such, and get married? They're just as busy pushing their agenda on kids, and just as stupid.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by avariel

Yet none of them are actually banned. You can buy them.

There's actually two separate issues here:

1) The fact that you can buy them isn't really relevant, because we're talking about libraries.
2) A challenge is a hell of a lot different from a ban.

I went to library school (for my Masters) so I've heard about this kind of thing for years. The ALA uses this to raise awareness about censorship, which is good, but they mis represent the issue, which, IMO, is bad. Not only do they not make a distinction between "banned" books and books that are merely challenged, but they make almost no effort to educate people on why it's important that public libraries don't make selection decisions based on ideological decisions (either to the right or left). People look at the "Banned Books" and say, "WTF are you talking about, 'banned'? I can get that book easily." But that's not the point the ALA is trying to make. It's about government interference in providing books to library users (i.e., the public).

This controversy is small potatoes, though. You should've seen it when the ALA was arguing that librarians shouldn't filter out porn at public libraries. Now those were fun times!

[avariel]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

There's actually two separate issues here:

1) The fact that you can buy them isn't really relevant, because we're talking about libraries.
2) A challenge is a hell of a lot different from a ban.

I went to library school (for my Masters) so I've heard about this kind of thing for years. The ALA uses this to raise awareness about censorship, which is good, but they mis represent the issue, which, IMO, is bad. Not only do they not make a distinction between "banned" books and books that are merely challenged, but they make almost no effort to educate people on why it's important that public libraries don't make selection decisions based on ideological decisions (either to the right or left). People look at the "Banned Books" and say, "WTF are you talking about, 'banned'? I can get that book easily." But that's not the point the ALA is trying to make. It's about government interference in providing books to library users (i.e., the public).

This controversy is small potatoes, though. You should've seen it when the ALA was arguing that librarians shouldn't filter out porn at public libraries. Now those were fun times!

Libraries are locally ran and it isn't the business of anyone outside of that library's district is how I see it. Let the local people decide what should or should not be added to their book collection without some crazy group deciding it is their right to butt in.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by avariel

Libraries are locally ran and it isn't the business of anyone outside of that library's district is how I see it. Let the local people decide what should or should not be added to their book collection without some crazy group deciding it is their right to butt in.

I have no problem with that... provided that the local library doesn't accept one single dime of state or federal money, of course.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

It is funny this very topic came up yesterday at the monthly book discussion group at the local library. The book read and discussed this month was To Kill a Mockingbird (surprisingly a few book club members had never before read it). Part of the discussion turned to this very issue, and how different advocacy groups have attempted to ban it from use in schools for widely varying reasons. From it negative portrayal of the US South and the racist nature of that society and the justice system to, from completely different groups, the use of word nigger and the portrayal of blacks as poorly educated and powerless. I spent a good part of my youth in the South and can say that even into the late 1950s to early 1960s the novel was quite accurate. It is sad when groups attempt to make history vanish, or to re-write it, especially when it involves banning great literature.

What I think is funny is that fortunately it is difficult to really ban something in the US in the sense of preventing its publication and distribution. All that can be accomplished is to make the book difficulty to obtain by removing it from use in schools or from public libraries. This is more likely to have the effect of ginning up interest in the book, among the youth or the public at large. This is not quite the same thing, but just look how stories about the banning of Slaughter House Five and The Scarlet Letter generated interest in these books as monthly selections for the book club here at Mobile Read.

My mom visited with some friends in the late 50's or early 60's and one day she was walking down the street and an older black gentleman was coming from the opposite direction. When he saw her he not only looked towards the ground but stepped off the sidewalk into the street so I can agree that such was the case as you say it was back then. I agree that banning something doesn't work too. In fact it just makes it that much more likely to be read. Stephen King wrote about a book that was taken out by one student whose mother read part of it and complained to her school board. The book was banned, but not before a lot of people checked it out to see what the fuss was. And prior to the stink about its contents the only check out of the book had been the one student.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by avariel

Libraries are locally ran and it isn't the business of anyone outside of that library's district is how I see it. Let the local people decide what should or should not be added to their book collection without some crazy group deciding it is their right to butt in.

My understanding of the politics of it is that the ALA gets involved when the local librarian wants backup (usually on the side of not removing a book). As a professional organization, it's in their interest to provide support to members when possible.

In principle, I do think these things should be left to local standards. If I pay taxes for my public library, I have a stake in how it's run.

[Spacejock]

One of my author friends posted on FB the other day begging for someone to ban or challenge his book. He reckons the publicity is priceless, and when some well-meaning parent objects to a book all they're doing is ensuring everyone gets to hear about the thing!

[jhempel24]

"So if Twilight is on the 10 most challenged book list, does that make it literature now?" -- Scott Sigler

LOL

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Spacejock

One of my author friends posted on FB the other day begging for someone to ban or challenge his book. He reckons the publicity is priceless, and when some well-meaning parent objects to a book all they're doing is ensuring everyone gets to hear about the thing!

Yep. Everyone wants to read something that someone thinks they shouldn't be. People seem to enjoy indulging their 'naughty' side.