Where’s Waldo
A Wrinkle in Time
The Giver
Of Mice and Men
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian
Catcher in The Rye
The Giving Tree
The Lorax
The Bell Jar
Can you figure out what these books have in common? Yes, they are all books, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Yes, they’re all well-known books. They do all tell a story. They all tell their story with conviction, belief, and reality—no two are exactly the same, neither in view or tone. They all represent the views contained within them they way they were meant. They are all banned books.
Happy banned books week, 2016, this week of September 25 – October 1.
Until the other day, I didn’t realize book banning was still a thing. The library where I work has bookmarks and such protesting the banning of books, and still it didn’t occur to me. Perhaps it’s because I was lucky enough to have not experienced it firsthand, not until recently. But perhaps it’s because I can be ignorant and believe the best in people.
The other day I came across a bookstore in Ashland, Oregon who is at war with a nearby company. Certain members of this company are angry at the bookstore’s owner for having a banned books display. This feud is over the displaying of books banned for racism, books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and To Kill A Mockingbird. There are a great deal of books that have been banned for racism, but there are a great deal of reasons a book might be banned. The display also holds books like Where The Wild Things Are, Fahrenheit 451, and Shel Silverstein’s A Light in The Attic, among others.
The banning of a book does not take hold over the entirety of the country, otherwise many of our libraries and bookstores would be empty of some of the books we read as children, or read to our children. Instead, the ban takes place in a certain area—a school, a city, and still happens in whole countries. Some books have become unbanned, and some don’t.
In my humble opinion, the banning of books is a foul thing. It is disgusting to think that an entire group of people—no matter how big or small the group—may never grow up reading Where the Wild Things Are, or The Lorax or Harry Potter. We should be able to read what we want. Books
But there is debate. There is a line, I am sure. Some books are radical. Shocking. Morally questionable. For example, The Anarchist’s Cookbook, a book on how to make explosives, drugs, and other such anarchical things. Another, which caused a great stir in the 70’s in France, Suicide, mode d’emploi, an instructional book on how to commit suicide. I leave the question in the air as to whether books like these should be available, or banned. Information such as these is appalling, yet out there already without these books. Dangerous, perhaps encouraging, yet already available.
Let me lay it all out for you. The First Amendment is the one people refer to when defending Freedom of Speech—it’s against the law to restrict speech, because that would conform us all to one single way of thinking. The one in charge would restrict what people could say until only his viewpoint could be preached. Or, everything would be banned and all we’d have left is apples and oranges. I’m sure there have been dystopian books on that sort of society.
However—especially in this generation—it is very important to question authority (especially our government). We do not want to become a dictatorship, do we? Questioning laws for the sake of morality is important. If there was a law that required you to kill anyone who wronged you, would you do it? Questioning laws for the sake of morality is important. Government and laws aren’t everything important in life.
I can see why people might suggest banning books—there are some books that have some unfavorable content—sexually explicit (Fifty Shades of Grey), racially insensitive (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn). They feel people should not expose themselves to these bad things—it could support, encourage, or ‘perpetuate’, the offensive viewpoint or action.
It goes way beyond offensive viewpoints, though. The Giving Tree is banned, somewhere, somehow. Yes, that book about the tree that keeps giving itself to the boy until he has given his trunk to him as well. It is banned because the boy is selfish—he is a bad example. Seeing this—amongst other childishly banned books in that bookstore—made me wonder if these people understand what a book is? What writing is? What literature is?
To make this easier, let me take a definition of ‘literature’ from the Oxford Dictionary: “Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.” Artistic merit. Artistic. Art. Literature is part art.
Let me define ‘art’ for you as well, from the same dictionary, so you don’t have to trouble yourself to search for it yourself: “Subjects of study primarily concerned with human creativity and social life…” Human creativity. Social life.
It’s starting to sound like literature—being art—is supposed to teach us about us. It has historical significance, it shows us how things are, how we ought to be, and it reflects on humanity—both the good and the bad. Books do not contain all good things. They aren’t fairy tales. In fact, fairy tales used to be dark, full of murder and horrible things.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t always believe everything I read. I am smart enough to tell when a character is a good example, and when one isn’t. Voldemort is not a role model. Dumbledore is much more so. (Yes, the Harry Potter series has been banned as well). Children know the difference between good and bad. They know when someone is being mean, and when someone is being good, just like we do, as long as they are taught.
That is what literature is here to teach us—the goods and the bads, the ups and downs, the heroes and villains. They are taught it is better to be like the Giving Tree than it is to be like the boy who chops his friend tree down. If it is not so clear, it is still important to question one’s beliefs in good, evil, and general wrongness, because how else would you become stronger? How else would you come closer to the truth?
