Inevitably, when I write about banned books, someone leaves a comment exemplifying the ALA propaganda hinting at how endangered our intellectual freedom would be if the ALA OIF weren't here to raise a stink whenever some hillbilly school somewhere removes some questionable book from their library shelves. One of the typical responses is that if this hillbilly school removes the book, then it's the beginning of the end, the thin end of the wedge, though a commenter last week called it the camel's nose under the tent. I wasn't familiar with that phrase, but then there aren't any camels where I live. Perhaps the commenter was a Bedouin or something. Regardless of the vehicle of the metaphor, the tenor is completely wrong. Some hillbillies in Kentucky removing a book from their school library isn't the thin end of the wedge. Saying it is such is the thin end of nonsense.
I almost called it the thin end of desperation, because that's the sense I get every time the ALA OIF releases some of more of this "banned" book propaganda. Since we live in perhaps the most intellectually free country on earth, it just gets harder for a group dedicated to protecting our intellectual freedom to find something to complain about. I feel the same way myself sometimes. When book publishing is going strong, self-publishing is easier than ever, and online publishing is ubiquitous, there's no shortage of information around putting forward any ideas you may care to entertain.
When you can write or say just about anything you want at any time, when many people seem much more concerned about the rights of the vulgar to be loud and obnoxious than the rights of the rest of us to be saved from their vulgarity, where porn merchants have more protection than kids who want to pray at a football game, then we're not living with many threats to intellectual freedom. (Except for the intellectual freedom of religious people, but we all know how terrible they are, so they don't count.) Throw in free internet connections, which our public libraries so generously provide so that people can trade child porn without getting tracked, and you can get to just about anything worth getting to, unless it's a scholarly article or a copyrighted book. Most of those are harder to get.
Aha! the thin-ended camel might say! Most of these "banned" books are just that! You've admitted that they can't just be found everywhere! Well, yeah, okay, but that's a silly argument, too. Some of the "banned" books are in fact available on the Internet. If any benighted souls were desperate enough for reading material to try out Tom Sawyer, they can get it online. But even the copyrighted books are widely available. Take this Golden Compass that everyone is so enthusiastic about defending. You can get that book along with the other two in the trilogy for $13.50 on Amazon. Where's the threat to anyone's intellectual freedom? And the little hillbilly kids who can't get it at the school library can just go to the public library, if they have one. It's probably there, too. Where's the threat to anyone's intellectual freedom?
Comparisons with actual threats to intellectual freedom should make it clear how much of a joke this is. Unless government censorship or control of information is involved, there is no threat. If some legislature decides that their public schools aren't going to teach evolution because it's contrary to some hillbilly's third-grade level literal interpretation of the Bible, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom. If some government starts blocking Internet sites favorable to democracy or critical of the current political regime, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom. Or if some dictator starts imprisoning people for having books in their house that the dictator doesn't agree with, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom.
The problem is, some hillbillies banning The Golden Compass doesn't lead to any of these things, and to say so is just foolish. Removing that book from a Catholic school isn't the thin end of the wedge, though it might be the thin end of nonsense. I'm as pleased as anyone about the freedoms of America, probably more pleased about some freedoms than some of the OIF folks, but this doesn't mean I have to invent fake threats to make myself seem relevant.
Some people say that removing this particular book does threaten the intellectual freedom of the particular students at the particular schools who for some bizarre reason don't have $13 or a public library with the book. Just for argument's sake, let's say there are a handful of these kids. Saying that not having easy access to the Golden Compass or Tom Sawyer or My Daddy Swings Both Ways threatens anyone's freedom is ridiculous. Most libraries don't have most books, so making the argument that being without a particular book means that someone is a victim of censorship means that we're all victims of censorship, even though there aren't any censors.
If getting rid of questionable books were the thin end of the wedge, then we'd get rid of all books, but that never happens. It's only the tiniest handful of politically charged books that are ever challenged. Compare the number of books challenged with the number of books published, and I bet that even under the nightmarish scenario of every challenged book being permanently censored we wouldn't feel much pain. And I mean really censored, not that censored-lite stuff the ALA gets so drunk on. I mean remove the books from society completely. What percentage would be gone? Enough that we couldn't get by okay? I'm not so sure.
This extreme case would definitely be bad, but of course it's inconceivable in our society except among those who dream of totalitarianism, and who pays attention to them. When we narrow down the argument to any particular book, the threat-to-intellectual-freedom argument becomes as weak as water. What particular educational value does the Golden Compass have? Why should this be in school libraries at all? Why should any particular novel be in libraries? Can anyone name any particular novel that's so important for school libraries that its absence is an intellectual disgrace? Can you even name a non-fiction book like that?
Some wonder why I get so annoyed by this "banned" book propaganda. I get annoyed because it's a bunch of lies designed to get us all worried about a threat that doesn't exist so that the ALA can then take a boldly irrelevant stand and provide a solution that's not necessary. What's not to get annoyed about?
Showing posts with label banned books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banned books. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
More Stupid Banned Book Stuff
Once again the forces of good and decency that exist to protect the rest of us from the nightmare of totalitarianism have taken up their cudgels against the forces of badness. That's right, there's another "banned" book controversy that has brought out all sorts of silly drivel from various library types.
You might have heard the story of some kid's book called the Golden Compass written by some guy who claims his books kill God or something like that, as if God is in any danger from some kiddie writer. My opinion is, if God can't handle some kiddie fantasy writer, then he doesn't deserve to exist. A Catholic School Board in Canada is reviewing a complaint about the book to decide whether to remove it from their school libraries. Keep this in mind. Catholic schools. Canada. Reviewing the book. That seemed to be the start of it, but no subject is too remote to bring out the high minded drivel of the "banned" books folks.
The Glorious President of ALA of course had something to say, though I'm not sure why anyone in Canada would care what she says. Most people in this country don't even care what she has to say. Nevertheless, she made sure to tell us about how bad "censorship" is, not that any censorship is going on here, of course, since the Golden Compass seems to be widely available. I understand there's even a movie now, which will probably make the book more popular than ever. Unless it goes out of print soon, which is unlikely, it should be around for anyone who wants to read it. If the thought police come to your door to take your copy, please leave a comment on the blog so I can revise my story.
Of course she also mentioned that this same insidious "censorship" is occurring in America, since some Catholic hillbillies in Kentucky have also removed the book from the open stacks of their Catholic schools. Oooh, how frightening. Some Catholic school kids in Kentucky won't be able to check out this book from their school library. They might have to go to their public library for the book. Horror of horrors!
You might have noticed a theme here. Some Catholic schools in Canada and the United States have questioned the appropriateness of this book for their own school systems. The book is widely available in public libraries and bookstores. Nothing has been banned. Nothing has been censored. Some Catholics have decided it's not appropriate for their Catholic students. How is this of any concern to the ALA?
By far the silliest response to this has been by the blogger at Library Juice. His response was to give us a self-righteous paragraph about how we're all free to criticize religion and if anyone was aware that it was illegal to criticize Catholicism would they please let him know, because if it is he'll have to change his plans to emigrate there someday. Yep, emigrate to Canada, we're dealing with one of those. This is the silliest response because it's by far the most irrelevant. What does this pseudo-controversy have to do with citizens of either the US or Canada publicly criticizing religion? A totally ridiculous response.
Since when can't private, Catholic schools decide what is appropriate for their libraries or curricula? This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or censorship or anything else. These are private and Catholic school systems. Besides the book not really being banned or censored, since you can get it anywhere, I just don't see how this concerns anyone at all but the parents and students of these schools. How about taking a poll to see if any parents sending their children to these Catholic schools want this book on the shelves? Whatever their answer, it'll certainly be more relevant than the drivel about free speech and censorship coming from librarians in America.
You might have heard the story of some kid's book called the Golden Compass written by some guy who claims his books kill God or something like that, as if God is in any danger from some kiddie writer. My opinion is, if God can't handle some kiddie fantasy writer, then he doesn't deserve to exist. A Catholic School Board in Canada is reviewing a complaint about the book to decide whether to remove it from their school libraries. Keep this in mind. Catholic schools. Canada. Reviewing the book. That seemed to be the start of it, but no subject is too remote to bring out the high minded drivel of the "banned" books folks.
The Glorious President of ALA of course had something to say, though I'm not sure why anyone in Canada would care what she says. Most people in this country don't even care what she has to say. Nevertheless, she made sure to tell us about how bad "censorship" is, not that any censorship is going on here, of course, since the Golden Compass seems to be widely available. I understand there's even a movie now, which will probably make the book more popular than ever. Unless it goes out of print soon, which is unlikely, it should be around for anyone who wants to read it. If the thought police come to your door to take your copy, please leave a comment on the blog so I can revise my story.
Of course she also mentioned that this same insidious "censorship" is occurring in America, since some Catholic hillbillies in Kentucky have also removed the book from the open stacks of their Catholic schools. Oooh, how frightening. Some Catholic school kids in Kentucky won't be able to check out this book from their school library. They might have to go to their public library for the book. Horror of horrors!
You might have noticed a theme here. Some Catholic schools in Canada and the United States have questioned the appropriateness of this book for their own school systems. The book is widely available in public libraries and bookstores. Nothing has been banned. Nothing has been censored. Some Catholics have decided it's not appropriate for their Catholic students. How is this of any concern to the ALA?
By far the silliest response to this has been by the blogger at Library Juice. His response was to give us a self-righteous paragraph about how we're all free to criticize religion and if anyone was aware that it was illegal to criticize Catholicism would they please let him know, because if it is he'll have to change his plans to emigrate there someday. Yep, emigrate to Canada, we're dealing with one of those. This is the silliest response because it's by far the most irrelevant. What does this pseudo-controversy have to do with citizens of either the US or Canada publicly criticizing religion? A totally ridiculous response.
Since when can't private, Catholic schools decide what is appropriate for their libraries or curricula? This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or censorship or anything else. These are private and Catholic school systems. Besides the book not really being banned or censored, since you can get it anywhere, I just don't see how this concerns anyone at all but the parents and students of these schools. How about taking a poll to see if any parents sending their children to these Catholic schools want this book on the shelves? Whatever their answer, it'll certainly be more relevant than the drivel about free speech and censorship coming from librarians in America.
Monday, October 01, 2007
The ALA Celebrates BBW!
One thing I love about the ALA is the way it makes me feel like a child again, or at least it tries to. Sometimes I long for the innocence of youth, when everything seemed so simple, when I could be afraid of evil "censors" and when I could be inspired by such phrases as "Aye, mateys ... celebrate your freedom t' read!"
You might recognize this phrase as part of the latest ALA campaign to warn us about the serious dangers to the republic embodied by some rube somewhere protesting about a book that probably isn't worth reading in the first place. That's right, "Banned" Books Week (or BBW, as the ALA calls it) is with us once again. Last year I felt the need to take the "banned" books folks with some seriousness, but I don't think I can do it again. Despite the claims by the ALA Orifice of Intellectual Freedom that our freedom is in danger when some parent objects that her child is forced to read a book about gay penguins, I just can't get that concerned. I go into bookstores, I search library catalogs, I look online, and all these "banned" books are widely available. We're safe. Our freedom is not in danger. When the relieved smile comes to your lips, remember you heard it here first.
Most of these "challenges" come from parents concerned with the moral education of their children. We know the ALA isn't concerned with the moral education of children, which is why if I had any children I'd warn them to stay away from the librarians. After all, if librarians can't tell the difference between intellectual content providers and porn merchants, do you really want to trust them with your children? Oh, I know, we're supposed to be amoral and just consider everything "information." Sorry, I forgot. Guess that ALA reeducation camp didn't take.
We should all be very grateful for the heroic and misguided work of the Orifice for Intellectual Freedom. After all, if it didn't have this "banned" books stuff to promote, it might go away entirely, and who would protect our intellectual freedom then? No one, that's who!
And the problem is much more serious than we realize. "'The number of challenges reflects only incidents reported,' said Judith F. Krug, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. 'For each reported challenge, four or five likely remain unreported.'" That's scary! Or at least it would be if it was based on anything more than hopes and wishes. No, wait, then it still wouldn't be scary, because we could all still get any "banned" book we wanted. Amazing how that works.
This year the ALA OIF is going all out. Not content just to pester the real world with the dubious claims of their fevered imaginations, they're now doing the same thing with the fake world Second Life. Yawn. So now all you folks who escape the drudgery of the ALA and your miserable existences by visiting Second Life may be subjected to some inane ALA propaganda in your haven from reality. Now no place is safe from the grasping tentacles of the ALA, and we're all a little worse for it. Somehow, though, a fake world seems like the right place to talk about fake "banned" books.
The only enjoyable thing about this year's "Banned" Books Week is what I found when I googled "BBW." To celebrate our intellectual freedom, be sure to google "BBW" and leave the results on your public machines in honor of the ALA. The first hit was stock information for the Build a Bear Workshop. Not sure what dark omen this portends. I don't think you want to visit link three, or at least I don't, but the second link was this. Somehow this seems appropriate. Gives the phrase "The ALA Celebrates BBW!" a whole new meaning, doesn't it.
You might recognize this phrase as part of the latest ALA campaign to warn us about the serious dangers to the republic embodied by some rube somewhere protesting about a book that probably isn't worth reading in the first place. That's right, "Banned" Books Week (or BBW, as the ALA calls it) is with us once again. Last year I felt the need to take the "banned" books folks with some seriousness, but I don't think I can do it again. Despite the claims by the ALA Orifice of Intellectual Freedom that our freedom is in danger when some parent objects that her child is forced to read a book about gay penguins, I just can't get that concerned. I go into bookstores, I search library catalogs, I look online, and all these "banned" books are widely available. We're safe. Our freedom is not in danger. When the relieved smile comes to your lips, remember you heard it here first.
Most of these "challenges" come from parents concerned with the moral education of their children. We know the ALA isn't concerned with the moral education of children, which is why if I had any children I'd warn them to stay away from the librarians. After all, if librarians can't tell the difference between intellectual content providers and porn merchants, do you really want to trust them with your children? Oh, I know, we're supposed to be amoral and just consider everything "information." Sorry, I forgot. Guess that ALA reeducation camp didn't take.
We should all be very grateful for the heroic and misguided work of the Orifice for Intellectual Freedom. After all, if it didn't have this "banned" books stuff to promote, it might go away entirely, and who would protect our intellectual freedom then? No one, that's who!
And the problem is much more serious than we realize. "'The number of challenges reflects only incidents reported,' said Judith F. Krug, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. 'For each reported challenge, four or five likely remain unreported.'" That's scary! Or at least it would be if it was based on anything more than hopes and wishes. No, wait, then it still wouldn't be scary, because we could all still get any "banned" book we wanted. Amazing how that works.
This year the ALA OIF is going all out. Not content just to pester the real world with the dubious claims of their fevered imaginations, they're now doing the same thing with the fake world Second Life. Yawn. So now all you folks who escape the drudgery of the ALA and your miserable existences by visiting Second Life may be subjected to some inane ALA propaganda in your haven from reality. Now no place is safe from the grasping tentacles of the ALA, and we're all a little worse for it. Somehow, though, a fake world seems like the right place to talk about fake "banned" books.
The only enjoyable thing about this year's "Banned" Books Week is what I found when I googled "BBW." To celebrate our intellectual freedom, be sure to google "BBW" and leave the results on your public machines in honor of the ALA. The first hit was stock information for the Build a Bear Workshop. Not sure what dark omen this portends. I don't think you want to visit link three, or at least I don't, but the second link was this. Somehow this seems appropriate. Gives the phrase "The ALA Celebrates BBW!" a whole new meaning, doesn't it.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Local Libraries, "Censorship," and "Information"
There's been a lot of discussion, not just nationwide, but on the AL itself about the scrotum-biting dog book and related brouhaha, with tempers running high over "censorship" and intellectual freedom and the Left Behind books and other exciting stuff. One of my considerate critics even said I didn't understand this whole issue because I was a Yankee and based on my own admission wouldn't live in these small places where all the excitement is going on. To the person who called me a Yankee, I just want to say, you Southerners are so quaint!
I should say right out that I really don't care what kind of fiction, children's or otherwise, public libraries buy. I think most fiction, and for that matter non-fiction, is garbage anyway and not worth reading. I should also say that I don't really care what kind of fiction public libraries don't buy, and that's one issue here. From my jaded and snobbish perspective, I see two important issues--local control and "censorship." I put that work in scare quotes the same way the Banned Books folks would put "offensive" in scare quotes. I just checked and found that my local library system has ordered numerous copies of the book. And I don't care tuppence. And all the poor little children who want to read about scrotums can just ILL it from my system. I'll return my five copies once they're recalled.
I made fun of all the protesters because it always seems that people are protesting what some other people are doing in some other community, never their own. This is one problem with any ALA "censorship" protest. Okay, so some librarian doesn't want to buy a book because she thinks it's inappropriate for the local collection, which is there to serve a particular community. Why are we to believe that the "intellectual" "freedom" folks at ALA know more about what books are appropriate for a given community than the people who actually live there? I guess the people who believe this are also the ones who believe that some politician in Washington is better able to run their lives than they are themselves. If this was a protest from a local that the library wasn't buying a requested book, I'd feel differently about this. But it's not. The protests are, as far as I've seen, from people who are outraged that the library in a community they don't even live in isn't buying this book. I guess some people haven't heard of minding their own business and cultivating their own gardens.
The other issue is censorship versus selection. I find both it amusing and bizarre when anyone talks about censorship of books in this country considering that there seems to be no limit on what can get published and what "information" is available. When librarians started complaining about censorship and intellectual freedom decades ago, the situation was different, and I think librarians have played an important role in struggle for intellectual freedom. But things have changed, and the ALA still seems to think it's the 1940s and that there's a danger we won't have competing sources of information. With the relaxation of moral standards in the last 50 years and the increasing availability of sources of information on the Internet as well as in print, this argument isn't viable anymore. It just looks like some librarians are desperate to live in a repressive society so they can have something to protest.
Well, we don't live in a repressive society, and if you hate living around the conservative evangelicals in your tiny Southern town, then move to civilization. No, our society is far from repressive. Watch TV and movies, listen to music, surf the Web. How could a repressive society produce this stuff?
I also think the claim that one or a few or even many libraries not buying a book is the same as censorship, for whatever reason they choose. I guess my standards are repressive regimes that keep books from being published, imprison authors, burn books, etc. My opponents' standards are that some library in Bumflap, Oklahoma doesn't have the scrotum book, so our intellectual freedoms are challenged, as if there's anything intellectual about reading this children's book. Obviously different standards. When the government tries to censor information, then the ALA should jump all over it, but some library not buying a book is not censorship.
One reader responded to me on his own blog about this issue (and provided a helpful roundup of scrotum literature from Gelf Magazine for those interested in such things):
"True, not buying a book in libraries is not the same as government censorship, but I don't think the word is entirely inaccurate. A sense of the word still applies. There is probably almost nothing provided by libraries in our country that isn't available elsewhere for a price. We don't provide anything unique. What we do, however, is provide it for free. The idea is for libraries to be the great equalizer in a democratic society by providing information to all citizens without barriers. So, sure, anyone can still buy the book, and the cost of doing so may be a pittance. And it's hardly a source of significantly important information. But by choosing not to purchase this book, librarians are taking it out of the realm of freely accessible information. It may be a matter of principle as much as practical censorship, but it is a sort of marginalization of an information source."
I'm going to politely disagree with Degolar. We don't really provide things for free, for one thing. Somebody has to pay, and the people paying should get what they want. Isn't that what public libraries are for? To give the people what they want, not to give them what somebody in some other place wants. The strongest argument here is that "by choosing not to purchase this book, librarians are taking it out of the realm of freely accessible information." Is it really the case that these libraries both wouldn't order the book if requested by a local AND wouldn't allow interlibrary loan? Even if they wouldn't, it's still not censorship, but it would be irritating even for me. And if this book is removed from the domain of freely accessible information, so what?
My main quibble with this book is classifying it as a source of "information." Degolar himself notes that "it's hardly a source of significantly important information," and he goes a lot further than the ALA Banned Books folks seem to be able to do, but I would take that further. It's not a source of information at all in any important way that's worth defending. It's a children's story. The only "information" it provides is its own storyline and the cataloging information on the verso. This is another bone I have picked with the ALA--making everything into "information" is intellectually and morally sloppy and makes it impossible to rationally defend or criticize anything. If it's all just "information," then why do I need this particular book? Or why not get this book but not provide access to government information or useful reference sources or political books?
Not everything is "information," and if it is, then there is no argument that a library should get this book. In the intellectually sloppy and morally relativistic world inhabited by the Banned Books folks, they have no grounds whatever to argue that a particular book, or even a particular class of information, must be made available. "Information" is the great equalizer.
Why? Because of the obvious fact that libraries can't buy everything even if they wanted to, and they wouldn't want to even if they could. That's why we have selection. Even the Library of Congress or Harvard or the NYPL doesn't have everything. Since we can't buy everything, we have people to select what will bought based on local criteria--the local population, the student population, the curriculum. The only time selection metamorphoses into "censorship" is when somebody outside that local population doesn't like the way a library selects for its local population. The Banned Books folks with their sloppy word "information" deny that librarians engage in selection.
But I ask the intellectually and morally relativistic people who get so worked up over these books--what positive reason could you provide that this book should be purchased by any given library? You can't make an argument, because you've forsaken any intellectual standards of judgment when you collapsed everything into "information."
I should say right out that I really don't care what kind of fiction, children's or otherwise, public libraries buy. I think most fiction, and for that matter non-fiction, is garbage anyway and not worth reading. I should also say that I don't really care what kind of fiction public libraries don't buy, and that's one issue here. From my jaded and snobbish perspective, I see two important issues--local control and "censorship." I put that work in scare quotes the same way the Banned Books folks would put "offensive" in scare quotes. I just checked and found that my local library system has ordered numerous copies of the book. And I don't care tuppence. And all the poor little children who want to read about scrotums can just ILL it from my system. I'll return my five copies once they're recalled.
I made fun of all the protesters because it always seems that people are protesting what some other people are doing in some other community, never their own. This is one problem with any ALA "censorship" protest. Okay, so some librarian doesn't want to buy a book because she thinks it's inappropriate for the local collection, which is there to serve a particular community. Why are we to believe that the "intellectual" "freedom" folks at ALA know more about what books are appropriate for a given community than the people who actually live there? I guess the people who believe this are also the ones who believe that some politician in Washington is better able to run their lives than they are themselves. If this was a protest from a local that the library wasn't buying a requested book, I'd feel differently about this. But it's not. The protests are, as far as I've seen, from people who are outraged that the library in a community they don't even live in isn't buying this book. I guess some people haven't heard of minding their own business and cultivating their own gardens.
The other issue is censorship versus selection. I find both it amusing and bizarre when anyone talks about censorship of books in this country considering that there seems to be no limit on what can get published and what "information" is available. When librarians started complaining about censorship and intellectual freedom decades ago, the situation was different, and I think librarians have played an important role in struggle for intellectual freedom. But things have changed, and the ALA still seems to think it's the 1940s and that there's a danger we won't have competing sources of information. With the relaxation of moral standards in the last 50 years and the increasing availability of sources of information on the Internet as well as in print, this argument isn't viable anymore. It just looks like some librarians are desperate to live in a repressive society so they can have something to protest.
Well, we don't live in a repressive society, and if you hate living around the conservative evangelicals in your tiny Southern town, then move to civilization. No, our society is far from repressive. Watch TV and movies, listen to music, surf the Web. How could a repressive society produce this stuff?
I also think the claim that one or a few or even many libraries not buying a book is the same as censorship, for whatever reason they choose. I guess my standards are repressive regimes that keep books from being published, imprison authors, burn books, etc. My opponents' standards are that some library in Bumflap, Oklahoma doesn't have the scrotum book, so our intellectual freedoms are challenged, as if there's anything intellectual about reading this children's book. Obviously different standards. When the government tries to censor information, then the ALA should jump all over it, but some library not buying a book is not censorship.
One reader responded to me on his own blog about this issue (and provided a helpful roundup of scrotum literature from Gelf Magazine for those interested in such things):
"True, not buying a book in libraries is not the same as government censorship, but I don't think the word is entirely inaccurate. A sense of the word still applies. There is probably almost nothing provided by libraries in our country that isn't available elsewhere for a price. We don't provide anything unique. What we do, however, is provide it for free. The idea is for libraries to be the great equalizer in a democratic society by providing information to all citizens without barriers. So, sure, anyone can still buy the book, and the cost of doing so may be a pittance. And it's hardly a source of significantly important information. But by choosing not to purchase this book, librarians are taking it out of the realm of freely accessible information. It may be a matter of principle as much as practical censorship, but it is a sort of marginalization of an information source."
I'm going to politely disagree with Degolar. We don't really provide things for free, for one thing. Somebody has to pay, and the people paying should get what they want. Isn't that what public libraries are for? To give the people what they want, not to give them what somebody in some other place wants. The strongest argument here is that "by choosing not to purchase this book, librarians are taking it out of the realm of freely accessible information." Is it really the case that these libraries both wouldn't order the book if requested by a local AND wouldn't allow interlibrary loan? Even if they wouldn't, it's still not censorship, but it would be irritating even for me. And if this book is removed from the domain of freely accessible information, so what?
My main quibble with this book is classifying it as a source of "information." Degolar himself notes that "it's hardly a source of significantly important information," and he goes a lot further than the ALA Banned Books folks seem to be able to do, but I would take that further. It's not a source of information at all in any important way that's worth defending. It's a children's story. The only "information" it provides is its own storyline and the cataloging information on the verso. This is another bone I have picked with the ALA--making everything into "information" is intellectually and morally sloppy and makes it impossible to rationally defend or criticize anything. If it's all just "information," then why do I need this particular book? Or why not get this book but not provide access to government information or useful reference sources or political books?
Not everything is "information," and if it is, then there is no argument that a library should get this book. In the intellectually sloppy and morally relativistic world inhabited by the Banned Books folks, they have no grounds whatever to argue that a particular book, or even a particular class of information, must be made available. "Information" is the great equalizer.
Why? Because of the obvious fact that libraries can't buy everything even if they wanted to, and they wouldn't want to even if they could. That's why we have selection. Even the Library of Congress or Harvard or the NYPL doesn't have everything. Since we can't buy everything, we have people to select what will bought based on local criteria--the local population, the student population, the curriculum. The only time selection metamorphoses into "censorship" is when somebody outside that local population doesn't like the way a library selects for its local population. The Banned Books folks with their sloppy word "information" deny that librarians engage in selection.
But I ask the intellectually and morally relativistic people who get so worked up over these books--what positive reason could you provide that this book should be purchased by any given library? You can't make an argument, because you've forsaken any intellectual standards of judgment when you collapsed everything into "information."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Yawn. Yet Another "Banned" Book Controversy
Some of you by now have read about the Scrotum Controversy, which I think is the title of the latest Ludlum novel. Even the Times has covered it, and since that's the paper of record you know it must be important. If you haven't heard, some Newberry Award winning children's book has the word "scrotum" in it and some children's librarians have refused to order it for their libraries under the strange impression that the word isn't appropriate for children's literature. My contention is that any word appropriate for polite conversation is appropriate for children's literature, which leaves the burden of proof up to you. Would you start talking about scrotums to your work colleagues? If so, I'm glad you don't work with me.
(For some reason, this whole discussion makes me want to read La Comedie Humaine or pay special attention to the cinematography in The Fabulous Baker Boys.)
The author of this little gem is a librarian, and she has responded to the clamor: "I was shocked and horrified to read that some school librarians, teachers, and media specialists are choosing not to include the 2007 Newbery Medal winner in their collections." Shocked and horrified? My word, we are easily shocked and horrified, aren't we. I guess I'm not that easily shocked. But then again, I don't get any royalties if a library buys this book.
But her pseudo-outrage goes further: "If I were a parent of a middle-grade child, I would want to make decisions about my child's reading myself—I'd be appalled that my school librarian had decided to take on the role of censor and deny my child access to a major award-winning book." So we can tell from this that she is not a parent of a middle grade child, which might be important to note. But what I most note is that she's "appalled." Now she's shocked, horrified, and appalled. How unpleasant it must be to be her.
And of course she's taking an idiotic line right out of the idiotic ALA playbook and crying censorship. So some librarian doesn't purchase this book and it's censorship? Has the word censorship become so debased in our society that we're supposed to take this seriously? Or is it only ALA-inspired librarians who seem to have such a poor grasp on the term?
Who's being denied access to this book? The book's published and publicly available. You can buy the stupid thing on Amazon. How is this censorship? What sort of bonehead thinks that a librarian has the power to "deny a child" access to this book if the parent wants their child to read about scrotums? As with the "banned books" nonsense emanating from the ALA, we've entered into some parallel universe where the library is the only place where books are available and where a librarian not buying a book is somehow the same as government suppression of information.
I'll put this in simple sentences. Libraries don't buy everything. They can't afford to. They don't want to. Librarians make choices. These choices are not censorship. These choices are called selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.
My favorite quote from the author is in the Times story, where she says of the allegedly offending word that "the word is just so delicious." She was probably licking her lips at the time and thinking of a bag of Rocky Mountain Oysters.
I haven't read the book and never will, but I was struck by the second paragraph (quoted in the SHUSH post):
"Sammy told of the day when he had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked ‘62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum."
This is the allegedly offensive term in context, and what a context it is. If I were going to not get this book for a child, it wouldn't be because of the one word, it would be because based just on this paragraph it sounds like a trashy book. If I were the parent of a middle grade child (two can play this game!), I wouldn't want my child reading about some trashy people in some tiny, trashy town getting drunk and falling out of their cars. I don't read stories about trashy people as an adult, so why would I want that for a child?
Of course I haven't read the book, and it might not be about trashy people getting drunk and falling out of their cars. That might be an exception.
I am as puzzled as anyone by this jumped up controversy. I'm not a children's librarian, obviously, and I don't read children's books. I'm a grown up, so I read great big grown up books. If someone wants their child to read about people getting drunk and biting their dogs on the scrotum, fine. Then perhaps they and their children can sit around and smoke dope and bemoan all the puritans in the world. I couldn't care less.
What puzzles me isn't the dubious literary taste of some librarians or parents, but that people claim to be shocked that librarians aren't buying the book. Obviously, lots of children's librarians, and probably a lot of parents, think this is an offensive book, so they're not buying it. And then comes the pseudo-outrage. How dare they exercise some judgment! How dare they not buy a book that has some stupid award! How dare they be so intolerant! We can't tolerate that! They're censors! This is a matter of intellectual freedom! It's a child's God-given right to read about scrotum-biting drunks!
Is anyone willing to die on the barricades of intellectual freedom for this book? If some poor child doesn't get to read this book, will the republic crumble? Don't these people have anything better to do?
(For some reason, this whole discussion makes me want to read La Comedie Humaine or pay special attention to the cinematography in The Fabulous Baker Boys.)
The author of this little gem is a librarian, and she has responded to the clamor: "I was shocked and horrified to read that some school librarians, teachers, and media specialists are choosing not to include the 2007 Newbery Medal winner in their collections." Shocked and horrified? My word, we are easily shocked and horrified, aren't we. I guess I'm not that easily shocked. But then again, I don't get any royalties if a library buys this book.
But her pseudo-outrage goes further: "If I were a parent of a middle-grade child, I would want to make decisions about my child's reading myself—I'd be appalled that my school librarian had decided to take on the role of censor and deny my child access to a major award-winning book." So we can tell from this that she is not a parent of a middle grade child, which might be important to note. But what I most note is that she's "appalled." Now she's shocked, horrified, and appalled. How unpleasant it must be to be her.
And of course she's taking an idiotic line right out of the idiotic ALA playbook and crying censorship. So some librarian doesn't purchase this book and it's censorship? Has the word censorship become so debased in our society that we're supposed to take this seriously? Or is it only ALA-inspired librarians who seem to have such a poor grasp on the term?
Who's being denied access to this book? The book's published and publicly available. You can buy the stupid thing on Amazon. How is this censorship? What sort of bonehead thinks that a librarian has the power to "deny a child" access to this book if the parent wants their child to read about scrotums? As with the "banned books" nonsense emanating from the ALA, we've entered into some parallel universe where the library is the only place where books are available and where a librarian not buying a book is somehow the same as government suppression of information.
I'll put this in simple sentences. Libraries don't buy everything. They can't afford to. They don't want to. Librarians make choices. These choices are not censorship. These choices are called selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.
My favorite quote from the author is in the Times story, where she says of the allegedly offending word that "the word is just so delicious." She was probably licking her lips at the time and thinking of a bag of Rocky Mountain Oysters.
I haven't read the book and never will, but I was struck by the second paragraph (quoted in the SHUSH post):
"Sammy told of the day when he had drunk half a gallon of rum listening to Johnny Cash all morning in his parked ‘62 Cadillac, then fallen out of the car when he saw a rattlesnake on the passenger seat biting his dog, Roy, on the scrotum."
This is the allegedly offensive term in context, and what a context it is. If I were going to not get this book for a child, it wouldn't be because of the one word, it would be because based just on this paragraph it sounds like a trashy book. If I were the parent of a middle grade child (two can play this game!), I wouldn't want my child reading about some trashy people in some tiny, trashy town getting drunk and falling out of their cars. I don't read stories about trashy people as an adult, so why would I want that for a child?
Of course I haven't read the book, and it might not be about trashy people getting drunk and falling out of their cars. That might be an exception.
I am as puzzled as anyone by this jumped up controversy. I'm not a children's librarian, obviously, and I don't read children's books. I'm a grown up, so I read great big grown up books. If someone wants their child to read about people getting drunk and biting their dogs on the scrotum, fine. Then perhaps they and their children can sit around and smoke dope and bemoan all the puritans in the world. I couldn't care less.
What puzzles me isn't the dubious literary taste of some librarians or parents, but that people claim to be shocked that librarians aren't buying the book. Obviously, lots of children's librarians, and probably a lot of parents, think this is an offensive book, so they're not buying it. And then comes the pseudo-outrage. How dare they exercise some judgment! How dare they not buy a book that has some stupid award! How dare they be so intolerant! We can't tolerate that! They're censors! This is a matter of intellectual freedom! It's a child's God-given right to read about scrotum-biting drunks!
Is anyone willing to die on the barricades of intellectual freedom for this book? If some poor child doesn't get to read this book, will the republic crumble? Don't these people have anything better to do?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
You Know, For the Children
As should come as no surprise, it turns out that most "challenged" books are challenged in school libraries as inappropriate for children. According to the ALA, which is the only group who even remotely cares about this subject, about "70 percent of challenges take place in schools and school libraries. " Some fascists apparently are under the mistaken impression that there may be books unsuitable for children. Obviously those totalitarian idiots are mistaken, or at least that's what the ALA implies. Because according the ALA's logic, there are no books unsuitable for children. Perhaps they're "unsuitable" for children, but that's about as far as the ethically challenged ALA can go. To go any further, you might have to engage in some actual moral reasoning, and that requires a lot more brainpower than the ALA is capable of devoting to the topic. Plus you can't team up with Google to do it.
Let's look at the evidence. Perhaps, like me, you were wondering:
Why are Books Challenged?
Well, the ALA has a nice packaged answer for you.
"Books usually are challenged with the best intentions—to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information."
That's right, it's usually to protect children from difficult ideas and information.
And then they claim that "Censorship can be subtle, almost imperceptible, as well as blatant and overt, but, nonetheless, harmful."
Now we've somehow gone from challenging books in libraries (and usually challenges to unsuitable or perhaps "unsuitable" books in school libraries) to censorship. How did we make that transition? They must have a special department of defective reasoners there in Chicago to come up with this stuff. I think there are at least a couple of colleges in Chicago. Perhaps the Defective Reasoning Staff could take courses there in logic or critical thinking. This is what's known in logic as a non sequitur. For the folks at ALA I just want to say, that's a real phrase. You could look it up!
Nevertheless, defective reasoners or not, they now quote a very pretentious justification indeed for their already specious move from library book challenging to censorship. Check this out:
"As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty:
'If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.'"
For a moment I was so stunned by the dense prose of John Stuart Mill that I forgot what he's saying here has nothing to do with challenging books in school libraries because they are inappropriate for children. The school library is not the world. Every opinion does not have to be represented. This should be obvious to any moron.
"According to the The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, Challenges by Initiator, Institution, Type, and Year, the top three reasons, in order, for challenging material are the material is considered to be “sexually explicit” contain “offensive language,” and be “unsuited to age group.”
Again, note the scare quotes. A book isn't sexually explicit, it's "sexually explicit." And no book can be unsuited to an age group, just "unsuited."
The very clear implication of this is that the ALA allows for no distinction for what is suitable or unsuitable for children, and is defending the idea that all books are suitable for children. After all, if it is attacking all challenges, then any challenge must be misguided. I wonder if anyone at the ALA really believes this. Surely some of these folks must have children. Do they think all books are suitable for their own children? Don't they think there are at least some books that are unsuitable for all children? Because if they think there are some books unsuitable for any children, as I and most reasonable people do, then they're terrible hypocrites and poisonous rascals for foisting this idiotic ALA "reasoning" on the world.
But AL, you say, I want an example material that wouldn't be suitable in a school library. Well, how about this or this. Or how about I write a "children's book" about a school librarian who is raped and tortured by potty-mouthed neo-Nazi middle-schoolers--and learns to like it! Someone would probably publish it, and then the school libraries could buy it with the ALA's blessing. See, I would think this book would have offensive language, be sexually explicit, and be unsuitable for children, but the ALA would just put quotes around those phrases and defend it as a bold provocative work that challenges children's perceptions about the acceptability of librarian torture by fascist adolescents.
Fortunately we rely upon school librarians not to buy this sort of stuff for their libraries. In other words, we rely upon them to be decent and reasonable human beings who understand that children are not adults and that there is material inappropriate for children. Fortunately most school librarians either fit that description or else have inadequate budgets, because I doubt any school libraries own the titles linked above or would buy my forthcoming book Hank the Junior High Nazi Tortures the Librarian. But if some sociopathic school librarian set up the new pornography approval plan and the books started flowing in and some parent or teacher dared to criticize the materials and ask that they be removed, all the critics would get from the ALA is abuse about how they're trying to silence opinions and censor thought and in general act like totalitarians.
Are the Banned Books folks at the ALA really this stupid? Can they really not see the illogical and morally unsound ideas they're promoting? I'm not sure, but I know one thing. If I had any children, I wouldn't want them around those folks at all.
Let's look at the evidence. Perhaps, like me, you were wondering:
Why are Books Challenged?
Well, the ALA has a nice packaged answer for you.
"Books usually are challenged with the best intentions—to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information."
That's right, it's usually to protect children from difficult ideas and information.
And then they claim that "Censorship can be subtle, almost imperceptible, as well as blatant and overt, but, nonetheless, harmful."
Now we've somehow gone from challenging books in libraries (and usually challenges to unsuitable or perhaps "unsuitable" books in school libraries) to censorship. How did we make that transition? They must have a special department of defective reasoners there in Chicago to come up with this stuff. I think there are at least a couple of colleges in Chicago. Perhaps the Defective Reasoning Staff could take courses there in logic or critical thinking. This is what's known in logic as a non sequitur. For the folks at ALA I just want to say, that's a real phrase. You could look it up!
Nevertheless, defective reasoners or not, they now quote a very pretentious justification indeed for their already specious move from library book challenging to censorship. Check this out:
"As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty:
'If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.'"
For a moment I was so stunned by the dense prose of John Stuart Mill that I forgot what he's saying here has nothing to do with challenging books in school libraries because they are inappropriate for children. The school library is not the world. Every opinion does not have to be represented. This should be obvious to any moron.
"According to the The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, Challenges by Initiator, Institution, Type, and Year, the top three reasons, in order, for challenging material are the material is considered to be “sexually explicit” contain “offensive language,” and be “unsuited to age group.”
Again, note the scare quotes. A book isn't sexually explicit, it's "sexually explicit." And no book can be unsuited to an age group, just "unsuited."
The very clear implication of this is that the ALA allows for no distinction for what is suitable or unsuitable for children, and is defending the idea that all books are suitable for children. After all, if it is attacking all challenges, then any challenge must be misguided. I wonder if anyone at the ALA really believes this. Surely some of these folks must have children. Do they think all books are suitable for their own children? Don't they think there are at least some books that are unsuitable for all children? Because if they think there are some books unsuitable for any children, as I and most reasonable people do, then they're terrible hypocrites and poisonous rascals for foisting this idiotic ALA "reasoning" on the world.
But AL, you say, I want an example material that wouldn't be suitable in a school library. Well, how about this or this. Or how about I write a "children's book" about a school librarian who is raped and tortured by potty-mouthed neo-Nazi middle-schoolers--and learns to like it! Someone would probably publish it, and then the school libraries could buy it with the ALA's blessing. See, I would think this book would have offensive language, be sexually explicit, and be unsuitable for children, but the ALA would just put quotes around those phrases and defend it as a bold provocative work that challenges children's perceptions about the acceptability of librarian torture by fascist adolescents.
Fortunately we rely upon school librarians not to buy this sort of stuff for their libraries. In other words, we rely upon them to be decent and reasonable human beings who understand that children are not adults and that there is material inappropriate for children. Fortunately most school librarians either fit that description or else have inadequate budgets, because I doubt any school libraries own the titles linked above or would buy my forthcoming book Hank the Junior High Nazi Tortures the Librarian. But if some sociopathic school librarian set up the new pornography approval plan and the books started flowing in and some parent or teacher dared to criticize the materials and ask that they be removed, all the critics would get from the ALA is abuse about how they're trying to silence opinions and censor thought and in general act like totalitarians.
Are the Banned Books folks at the ALA really this stupid? Can they really not see the illogical and morally unsound ideas they're promoting? I'm not sure, but I know one thing. If I had any children, I wouldn't want them around those folks at all.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Banned Books Proclamation
Ahh, Banned Books week is upon us, so I thought I might comment about it since this is my first Banned Books week as the Annoyed Librarian. If I'm still doing this next year, I might not bother.
Banned Books, my word. The ALA acts like we live in some closed society where the government controls the flow of information. As everyone with even a modicum of intelligence has figured out by now, none of these books are "banned" in any ordinary sense of the term. Okay, so some sensitive soul doesn't want her child reading nasty racial epithets in Huckleberry Finn and asks that it be removed. Well, the ALA says it's your god-given right to be forced to read nasty racial epithets, unless of course you're on one of those university campuses harassed by the old PC people and their war on free speech. It's also your god-given right to have your child stumble across illustrated copies of Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies. If you don't like it, go back to Nazi Germany where you belong, you fascist!
Yes, this is the week of the year when librarians unite together to protect the one thing that makes libraries different from the mall--books. The rest of the year we have to listen to nitwits tell us that we need to dissociate ourselves from books or we'll become irrelevant. The cognitive dissonance at ALA must be terrible.
Which brings us to the Banned Books Proclamation. Let's examine the whole darn thing, why don't we. What comes first?
"WHEREAS, the freedom to read is essential to our democracy, and reading is among our greatest freedoms; and"
Okay, I'll accept this. But is it just the freedom to read that's essential, or actually reading? Should we have people pass literacy tests before they can vote? How essential is this?
"WHEREAS, privacy is essential to the exercise of that freedom, and the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others; and"
Reading, yes. But why is privacy essential? Does this mean that if someone sees what book I'm reading then I become illiterate? What's wrong with scrutinizing people's reading? You learn a lot about people that way. If I go to someone's house, I always examine the bookshelves. If they don't have any bookshelves, that also tells me something about them. Access to information and the freedom to read is one thing, but this obsession with privacy is something else.
"WHEREAS, the freedom to read is protected by our Constitution; and"
Umm, no, it isn't, actually, at least not explicitly. Maybe that's one of those powers delegated to the states. Apparently the person who wrote this has never read the Constitution. Well, I have, and this freedom isn't in it. I find this ignorance of our founding documents scandalous, and I'm going to write my congressman about it.
"WHEREAS some individuals, groups, and public authorities work to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label "controversial" views, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries of materials reflecting the diversity of society; and"
Interesting statement, no doubt true. Some groups to work to remove materials. However, I find the scare quotes around controversial and objectionable interesting. Is the claim here then that there's no such thing as an objectionable book? That's nice and morally relativistic of us and all, but is it true? Are all books appropriate for school libraries, for example? The Story of O, for example? And don't libraries automatically limit access to most reading materials by never buying them in the first place? Does this mean that small libraries are banning books?
"WHEREAS, both governmental intimidation and the fear of censorship cause authors who seek to avoid controversy to practice self-censorship, thus limiting our access to new ideas; and"
My goodness, where do they get this stuff? Limit our access to new ideas? First, how many new ideas are there really? Is there anything new under the sun? And are we limited? We're drowning in "information." And someone would have to be pretty spineless indeed to fear censorship in this country, when you can put anything you want and read anything you want on the Internet (which you can't do in some countries I might mention that Google really wants to do business with). It also must be unforgivably easy to publish based on all the idiotic books out there. Who are all these timid geniuses afraid of censorship? Oh, and who is censoring? Challenging a copy of Harry Potter at the Bumfluff, Alabama Middle School isn't censorship.
"WHEREAS, every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of American society and leaves it less able to deal with controversy and difference; and"
Oh, please. Every enforcement of an orthodoxy? What does that mean? Enforcement by whom? By the government? By a church? By your mother? And toughness and resilience of American society? Is this the same toughness and resilience that I see every day in the news when yet another "victimized" group starts whining about how they're oppressed? Oh, am I not supposed to say that, am I? Should I have exercised self-censorship?
"WHEREAS, Americans still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression, and can be trusted to exercise critical judgment, to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe, and to exercise the responsibilities that accompany this freedom; and"
Ah, if only they favored free enterprise in economics. And can they really be trusted to exercise critical judgement and recognize propaganda and misinformation? We're talking about ordinary people, you know, not brilliant librarians. These are the people swayed by mass advertising and political slogans. These are the same boneheads that vote Republican/Democrat (Please select the party you dislike the most).
"WHEREAS, intellectual freedom is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture; and"
Okay, you've got me.
"WHEREAS, conformity limits the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend; and"
Why? Conformity to what? What a vague and loaded term. Thanks a lot, Henry Thoreau, but it really all depends, now doesn't it. For example, we should all conform to the norms of liberal democracy. Oh, and the mores of civilized society. Perhaps you need an example. You want to see a classic nonconformist, check out that guy that just blew himself up on the street in Baghdad. Now that's some nonconformist expression for you! Perhaps the folks at ALA who come up with this stuff should try to conform to the demands of rigorous thought. Just a suggestion.
"WHEREAS, the American Library Association's Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year as a reminder to Americans not to take their precious freedom for granted; and"
I won't take this precious freedom for granted! I promise!
"WHEREAS, Banned Books Week celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them; now, therefore, be it"
I'm certainly in favor of protecting and expressing unorthodox opinions, having so many of them myself. But does this mean every library has to buy every book published to ensure everyone has access to every idea?
"RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library celebrates the American Library Association's Banned Books Week, September 24-October 2, 2005, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library encourages all libraries and bookstores to acquire and make available materials representative of all the people in our society; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library encourages free people to read freely, now and forever.
Adopted by the _______________________ LibraryDateCity, State"
I'll let you fill in the blanks.
More tomorrow.
Banned Books, my word. The ALA acts like we live in some closed society where the government controls the flow of information. As everyone with even a modicum of intelligence has figured out by now, none of these books are "banned" in any ordinary sense of the term. Okay, so some sensitive soul doesn't want her child reading nasty racial epithets in Huckleberry Finn and asks that it be removed. Well, the ALA says it's your god-given right to be forced to read nasty racial epithets, unless of course you're on one of those university campuses harassed by the old PC people and their war on free speech. It's also your god-given right to have your child stumble across illustrated copies of Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies. If you don't like it, go back to Nazi Germany where you belong, you fascist!
Yes, this is the week of the year when librarians unite together to protect the one thing that makes libraries different from the mall--books. The rest of the year we have to listen to nitwits tell us that we need to dissociate ourselves from books or we'll become irrelevant. The cognitive dissonance at ALA must be terrible.
Which brings us to the Banned Books Proclamation. Let's examine the whole darn thing, why don't we. What comes first?
"WHEREAS, the freedom to read is essential to our democracy, and reading is among our greatest freedoms; and"
Okay, I'll accept this. But is it just the freedom to read that's essential, or actually reading? Should we have people pass literacy tests before they can vote? How essential is this?
"WHEREAS, privacy is essential to the exercise of that freedom, and the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others; and"
Reading, yes. But why is privacy essential? Does this mean that if someone sees what book I'm reading then I become illiterate? What's wrong with scrutinizing people's reading? You learn a lot about people that way. If I go to someone's house, I always examine the bookshelves. If they don't have any bookshelves, that also tells me something about them. Access to information and the freedom to read is one thing, but this obsession with privacy is something else.
"WHEREAS, the freedom to read is protected by our Constitution; and"
Umm, no, it isn't, actually, at least not explicitly. Maybe that's one of those powers delegated to the states. Apparently the person who wrote this has never read the Constitution. Well, I have, and this freedom isn't in it. I find this ignorance of our founding documents scandalous, and I'm going to write my congressman about it.
"WHEREAS some individuals, groups, and public authorities work to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label "controversial" views, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries of materials reflecting the diversity of society; and"
Interesting statement, no doubt true. Some groups to work to remove materials. However, I find the scare quotes around controversial and objectionable interesting. Is the claim here then that there's no such thing as an objectionable book? That's nice and morally relativistic of us and all, but is it true? Are all books appropriate for school libraries, for example? The Story of O, for example? And don't libraries automatically limit access to most reading materials by never buying them in the first place? Does this mean that small libraries are banning books?
"WHEREAS, both governmental intimidation and the fear of censorship cause authors who seek to avoid controversy to practice self-censorship, thus limiting our access to new ideas; and"
My goodness, where do they get this stuff? Limit our access to new ideas? First, how many new ideas are there really? Is there anything new under the sun? And are we limited? We're drowning in "information." And someone would have to be pretty spineless indeed to fear censorship in this country, when you can put anything you want and read anything you want on the Internet (which you can't do in some countries I might mention that Google really wants to do business with). It also must be unforgivably easy to publish based on all the idiotic books out there. Who are all these timid geniuses afraid of censorship? Oh, and who is censoring? Challenging a copy of Harry Potter at the Bumfluff, Alabama Middle School isn't censorship.
"WHEREAS, every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of American society and leaves it less able to deal with controversy and difference; and"
Oh, please. Every enforcement of an orthodoxy? What does that mean? Enforcement by whom? By the government? By a church? By your mother? And toughness and resilience of American society? Is this the same toughness and resilience that I see every day in the news when yet another "victimized" group starts whining about how they're oppressed? Oh, am I not supposed to say that, am I? Should I have exercised self-censorship?
"WHEREAS, Americans still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression, and can be trusted to exercise critical judgment, to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe, and to exercise the responsibilities that accompany this freedom; and"
Ah, if only they favored free enterprise in economics. And can they really be trusted to exercise critical judgement and recognize propaganda and misinformation? We're talking about ordinary people, you know, not brilliant librarians. These are the people swayed by mass advertising and political slogans. These are the same boneheads that vote Republican/Democrat (Please select the party you dislike the most).
"WHEREAS, intellectual freedom is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture; and"
Okay, you've got me.
"WHEREAS, conformity limits the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend; and"
Why? Conformity to what? What a vague and loaded term. Thanks a lot, Henry Thoreau, but it really all depends, now doesn't it. For example, we should all conform to the norms of liberal democracy. Oh, and the mores of civilized society. Perhaps you need an example. You want to see a classic nonconformist, check out that guy that just blew himself up on the street in Baghdad. Now that's some nonconformist expression for you! Perhaps the folks at ALA who come up with this stuff should try to conform to the demands of rigorous thought. Just a suggestion.
"WHEREAS, the American Library Association's Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year as a reminder to Americans not to take their precious freedom for granted; and"
I won't take this precious freedom for granted! I promise!
"WHEREAS, Banned Books Week celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them; now, therefore, be it"
I'm certainly in favor of protecting and expressing unorthodox opinions, having so many of them myself. But does this mean every library has to buy every book published to ensure everyone has access to every idea?
"RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library celebrates the American Library Association's Banned Books Week, September 24-October 2, 2005, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library encourages all libraries and bookstores to acquire and make available materials representative of all the people in our society; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the _______________________ Library encourages free people to read freely, now and forever.
Adopted by the _______________________ LibraryDateCity, State"
I'll let you fill in the blanks.
More tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
