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

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by taustin

Except they very deliberately said "this is not about religion, this is about age appropriateness," which - and having lived in rural Missouri, I know - is going to put off the religious types more than if they'd just declined to get involved. It isn't good enough to just ban a book they want banned, it has to be openly done for their reasons, or you're the tool of the devil.

I think not. The religious fundamentalists are very good at dog whistles (I should know -- I grew up as one!). They know that the board has to say things a certain way or the SC ruling will be a banhammer issue.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The religious fundamentalists are very good at dog whistles (I should know -- I grew up as one!)

You grew up as a dog whistle?
That must'a been a bitch.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You grew up as dog whistle?
That must'a been a bitch.

No one could hear a WORD I said. Very frustrating.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I think not. The religious fundamentalists are very good at dog whistles (I should know -- I grew up as one!).

Ahh, that explains your "but think of the children!" argument for kids who won't have sneaky access to the book through the school library.

I can sympathize... I had a friend who was the daughter of a southern baptist preacher. They had very strict rules about what she was 'allowed' to do, and her dad believed very firmly in gender roles. Including such things as: women do all the housework, always wear long dresses and keep their arms covered, and are forbidden to cut their hair. When her mom needed brain surgery, she was convinced her mom was going to hell because the doctors had to shave a small section of hair. (Heck, I was surprised she was 'allowed' to have brain surgery. They were the "god heals everything if you pray hard enough" type.)

/end threadjack, had to share

[anamardoll]

Yeah, there's nothing quite like a fundie upraising to make you realize that parents do NOT always know best for their teenagers.

I didn't have it as badly as your friend, but the list of banned books in our household was quite long. I'm certain I would NOT have been allowed to read Harry Potter or anything similar. Promotion of magic in books leads children to Satanism, dontcha know.

I rather imagine anything criticizing war, the government, etc. would also have been right out.

I actually know a guy at work who doesn't let his teenagers read Harry Potter. I suspect they spend a lot of time "researching" at the library.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You grew up as a dog whistle?
That must'a been a bitch.

It's that pursing of the lips, must play havoc with one's developmental upbringing................

[mldavis2]

Just search for 'banned books' and you'll quickly fill any teen-ager's wish list of reading material. The more elusive the quarry, the more fanatic the hunter.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

Just search for 'banned books' and you'll quickly fill any teen-ager's wish list of reading material. The more elusive the quarry, the more fanatic the hunter.

This point has been made a few times, and in the interest of continuing the discussion in a perhaps new area:

Can Mythbusters weigh in on this? I have to say that, in my opinion, if a teenager wasn't likely to read the class text before it was banned, the act of banning it may not make that much of a difference.

Teenagers are about as complex as adults and they don't immediately do what is forbidden like good (bad?) little robots; nor are they stupid. Many of them may (correctly) divine this situation as being a power contest between adults over things they themselves may not care about. For instance, trying to ban evolution being taught in certain schools didn't suddenly cause our national science scores to leap, you know?

I mean, "teenager's wishlist"? I'm pretty sure Slaughterhouse Five and Huck Finn aren't being read more than Harry Potter and Twilight.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yeah, there's nothing quite like a fundie upraising to make you realize that parents do NOT always know best for their teenagers.

I didn't have it as badly as your friend, but the list of banned books in our household was quite long. I'm certain I would NOT have been allowed to read Harry Potter or anything similar. Promotion of magic in books leads children to Satanism, dontcha know.

I rather imagine anything criticizing war, the government, etc. would also have been right out.

I actually know a guy at work who doesn't let his teenagers read Harry Potter. I suspect they spend a lot of time "researching" at the library.

I find that funny, because the christian allegories are pretty obvious at times. The biggest one being the final part of the 7th book.

Spoiler:

I mean, Harry sacrificing himself to protect others, and then being resurrected?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I find that funny, because the christian allegories are pretty obvious at times. The biggest one being the final part of the 7th book.

Yeah, but just because something uses Christian allegories doesn't make it good for childrens' consumption. Indeed, the closer it is to being "Christian-y", the MORE dangerous it is, because then it sucks you in as being good for moral fibre and then BAM! little Jimmy and Jennifer are playing with Ouija boards and selling their souls to Satan.

I kid, but in all seriousness, I will say that just because something deals with resurrection themes doesn't make it Christian. Indeed, Harry is a poor substitute for Christ in your analogy, given all the avada kedavras he is (IIRC) throwing around by the end of Book 7. *tsk*

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yeah, but just because something uses Christian allegories doesn't make it good for childrens' consumption. Indeed, the closer it is to being "Christian-y", the MORE dangerous it is, because then it sucks you in as being good for moral fibre and then BAM! little Jimmy and Jennifer are playing with Ouija boards and selling their souls to Satan.

I kid, but in all seriousness, I will say that just because something deals with resurrection themes doesn't make it Christian. Indeed, Harry is a poor substitute for Christ in your analogy, given all the avada kedavras he is (IIRC) throwing around by the end of Book 7. *tsk*

There was 7 AKs used in Deathly Hallows, and they were said by Crabbe, Draco, and Voldemort. Harry at one point talks about how he didn't even want to stun someone attacking him during the broom chase, because that would have caused that person to die just the same as if he did use AK.

As far as allegories go, there are quite a few more, that's just the first and most obvious to spring to mind.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There was 7 AKs used in Deathly Hallows, and they were said by Crabbe, Draco, and Voldemort. Harry at one point talks about how he didn't even want to stun someone attacking him during the broom chase, because that would have caused that person to die just the same as if he did use AK.

As far as allegories go, there are quite a few more, that's just the first and most obvious to spring to mind.

Ah, I am perhaps misremembering AK with Crucio? I remember Harry using one of the Unforgivables on Bellatrix or am I just sadly mistaken?

Ah, wiki helps:

Spoiler:

Harry Potter attempted to cast the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange, without success, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and attempted to do the same to Severus Snape in Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, however, he not only successfully uses this curse on Amycus Carrow shortly before the Battle of Hogwarts, but earlier in the book also uses the Imperius Curse on Travers and Bogrod during the break-in at Gringotts.

There is no known incident in which Harry cast or attempted to cast the Killing Curse, even against Voldemort himself. Despite the use of the curses being said to carry an automatic life sentence in Azkaban, Harry was apparently not punished in any way for using them (although except for two times, they were legal as he cast them during the regime of Lord Voldemort, and as for the other two times, there are no known witnesses).

Nevertheless, it's practically impossible to find a work of literature that doesn't have "christian allegories" including in literature written before Christ's time period. Take that how you will.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Ah, I am perhaps misremembering AK with Crucio? I remember Harry using one of the Unforgivables on Bellatrix or am I just sadly mistaken?

Ah, wiki helps:



Nevertheless, it's practically impossible to find a work of literature that doesn't have "christian allegories" including in literature written before Christ's time period. Take that how you will.

Tell me about it, the fundamentalist types do love them some Leviticus except for the parts that they ignore of course.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Can Mythbusters weigh in on this? I have to say that, in my opinion, if a teenager wasn't likely to read the class text before it was banned, the act of banning it may not make that much of a difference.

Teenagers are about as complex as adults and they don't immediately do what is forbidden like good (bad?) little robots; nor are they stupid. Many of them may (correctly) divine this situation as being a power contest between adults over things they themselves may not care about. For instance, trying to ban evolution being taught in certain schools didn't suddenly cause our national science scores to leap, you know?

I mean, "teenager's wishlist"? I'm pretty sure Slaughterhouse Five and Huck Finn aren't being read more than Harry Potter and Twilight.

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.

[anamardoll]

Ha. I, too, was introduced to The Golden Compass by the American Catholic League trying to ban the movie or at least complaining about it a lot. God bless 'em, as I now love those books.

But considering that you and I are already avid readers (or at least I imagine you are, being on mobile read), I think we may not be a representative sample. The fact that it's a draw for a Heavy Reader would make me think even more that it would be a myth that Moderate and Low Readers bee line to banned book.