Library cuts deny children glorious addiction

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Sorry I am not sure I agree with you. What would be required for you to say a book is “banned?” A national law prohibiting the distribution of the book? Or a similar state, or local law?

Yes. A book should only be considered "banned" if it's illegal. This is, by the way, the plain and usual meaning of the word. "Cities of Salt" is banned in Saudi Arabia. That means - and everyone understands that to mean - that it's illegal to sell that book in Saudi Arabia. No one would interpret that to mean that, while the book was widely available, one school district in Riyadh had removed the books from its library as being in appropriate for 12 year olds. The same is true of "All Quiet on the Western Front" (banned by the Nazis) or of "American Psycho" (banned in an Australian state in the '90's). "Banned" means it's illegal to possess (or maybe to sell) the book in question. It's stretching the word beyond its meaning to apply it to a book removed from a school library.

Same question for school libraries. I submit “banned” is appropriate anytime on group of the public is able to exert pressure on a library sufficient to cause a book to be made unavailable.

Is a book also banned if a library decides not to carry it? If a bookstore decides to remove a particular book due to public protests, is it also banned?

It would be nice if all libraries and librarians were heroic defenders of free speech, but the truth is when even a small group complains loud enough a book can be “banned” at least locally because it is tough to fight a dedicated group of fanatics. Especially for institutions dependent on public funding, and hence the whims of politicians.

But removing a book from a school library is not "banning" it locally. If a school board in Bakwerdz, KS, removes Harry Potter from the school library, the book will still be widely available at stores in the town, and likely one of the bestsellers. In no way has the book been "banned" in the town.

Everyone knows that banning books is bad - it's the kind of things that Nazis, Communists, and repressive middle eastern despots do. And the kind of things that developed countries used to do to books that are now considered literary classics. But of course all of these governments actually outlawed possession, sale, or importation of the books

It's precisely because book banning is so bad that people want to apply it to their cause - they want to associate the school board's removal of a certain books with the Nazi policy of sending artists of degenerate works to concentration camps. (Or the Soviet policy of sending authors to the gulag). But this is ludicrous on its face. "The Gulag Archipelago" was banned in the USSR, as mentioned above. Harry Potter was not, and has never been, banned in the US, or in any city, state, or county of the US.

The ALA should be honest and talk about "Challenged and Removed Library Books," since that's their actual issue and their actual concern.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I really think that the librarians (of whom I would have expected much more) are being borderline dishonest (and certainly disingenuous) with their promotion of banned book week.

Really.

And I'm strongly opposed to banning books;

One thing we have in common, then.

What they're really talking about is books that have been "challenged"

Not only challenged; in many cases the books have subsequently been removed from public circulation. Can you still get the book? Of course. Even if you don't want to pay the LOC a visit, your local library might have it, or can get it for you. Will many people bother? Probably not.

... defining a book as "banned" if it is removed from a school library somewhere

That does, indeed, fit my definition and understanding of the term. It doesn't have to be banned everywhere: if a school library somewhere in the Bible Belt doesn't carry a book because the school board says it must not, that's effectively a ban, and as such a "banned book". What else?

Removing a book from one school library is not "banning" the book

Yes it if, for that library. That's the reason we can have top lists, i.e. in how many libraries this books is banned. Nobody said the book would be completely
forbidden in all of the US. The fact that you can buy the book, or read it by some other means, doesn't change that fact.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There are at least two levels of deception going on. The first is defining a book as "banned" if it is removed from a school library somewhere - leading to the ludicrous result that "Harry Potter," AFAIK the best selling book series in the US, is listed as "banned." That's just dishonest. Removing a book from one school library is not "banning" the book, particularly when it is displayed prominently for sale in pretty much every book store, grocery, or gas station that sells books.

The second issue, and to me the worst, is the conflation of "banned" with "challenged," particularly in the context of school libraries. While I don't think that any of the books on the most recent list I saw should be removed from school libraries, I think it is very important that parents have the right to challenge what is going on at their school. If my kid attended a middle school library that had a copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or "The Turner Diaries," I would be the first one to request that those books be removed. The freedom to challenge acts our government takes is *just as important* as the first amendment, and stigmatizing people who have the temerity to question the judgment of a school librarian is not a good thing at all.

I bet some of those librarians conducting Banned Books Week have excluded stuff like The Protocols from their own stock. "Banned" is a lot catchier than "Books That Have Been Restricted by Some Libraries Which We Think Ought Not Have Been Week."

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

A book should only be considered "banned" if it's illegal.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. To me, not being available in a library due to an outside decisions does certainly qualify.

Is a book also banned if a library decides not to carry it?

No, obviously not. If the board of governors tells the school librarian "remove this title" on the other hand, it is.

But removing a book from a school library is not "banning" it locally.

Of course not. Only in that particular school, that particular library.

But of course all of these governments actually outlawed possession, sale, or importation of the books

Not necessarily, and certainly not in the beginning. When the Nazis staged public book burnings, e.g., it was not illegal to buy, much less possess, these books. There was mounting public pressure against these authors, of course, many emigrated of their own free will (well, more or less), and later, when they were denied membership in the Reich Chamber of Literature they were simply forbidden to publish (actually, publishers were prohibited from printing their works). Would those be "banned books" in your opinion, then?

Harry Potter was not, and has never been, banned in the US, or in any city, state, or county of the US.

Certain school libraries, though. Which, really, is the point.

[crich70]

I couldn't agree more that libraries are important. When I was a little kid the public library was my main source for books. I loved Dr. Seuss back then (and drove my mom crazy having her read them to me when I was really little) but we didn't have our own copies of his works. The public library was our source. And libraries did other things like field trips for the kids in the summer as well. Brookfield Zoo, a performance of Treasure Island on stage (all female cast, I remember Black Dog lost her wig. lol.), The planatarium,Shed Aquarium (I think) and such. Public Libraries provide a lot of things for kids & adults.

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

What about bookmobiles? When I was small there was only one library but there was the bookmobile. I think it came by every two weeks and what was neat was that you could request a book from the main library and when it was available it would show up on the bookmobile.

I now live in an affluent area. However, there are still plenty of families who wouldn't have books or music or movies or internet access if it wasn't for the library. The schools really can't substitute for the public library. Not open on the week-ends or school holidays. And my schools haven't been publicly funded for additional books for five years. Parents have to raise money to purchase books.

Income must not be a barrier to books.