|
Hello friends. This is kind of a half baked essay I idly wrote..I'm not sure I did a very good job with it, but it didn't turn out as bad as it could have. Mostly, the size and scope of the essay needs to be drastically increased to discuss the role of the community and the nature of democracy, but I can't be bothered. Anyway, let me know what you think.
I Hate Banned Book Week
Okay, I do not hate Banned Book Week as much as I do not know what the aim Banned Book Week is, and I suspect that few who celebrate it could give a good account of it either. That is not to detract from the main result of Banned Book Week, richly deserved praise and attention for libraries, but potentially nefarious ramifications lurk behind the seemingly lofty principles of this innocuous looking festival.
The stated ideal of Banned Book Week is to promote “free and open access to information” to the community and the “freedom to seek and to express ideas”. The bugaboo for supporters of this movement is censorship, and this boogeyman is avoided by adopting a position of censorial libertarianism (or perhaps laissez-faire would be more apt): no book should be censored or banned is the presumed takeaway. The emphasis seems to be squarely on the books- they shouldn’t be banned. Who, where and how the books are provided is less clear.
From the outset, though, this formulation is problematic. Would any librarian really agree that no book should be banned? How about the golden test case for censorship The Anarchist’s Cookbook? I think even the most libertine of librarians would agree that a book detailing how to build pipe bombs should not be available in secondary school libraries. Apart from sensitive information, what else would a librarian be uncomfortable providing to secondary school students? How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages? Surely that is both irredeemably offensive and devoid of literary merit. These examples may seem like obvious omissions, but every exception opens cracks in what was presented as an absolute principle.
Even if a librarian would go so far to say that there is no book that they would outright not allow, the limitation of physical space (or, more recently, digital licenses) constricts book availability. Library space tends not to be infinite and many books will be necessarily omitted. Most books are de facto “censored” by not being made available. The decision of what books are included then seems of greater importance than what books are “censored”. In that case, the furor over banning books turns reality on its head. The real power is in the groups selecting the books. Even a request to remove a book is a selective veto at best. It seems disingenuous, then, to rail against the anti-intellectuals wanting to remove certain books while crafting your own preferred collection- while simply omitting undesired works- with unimpeded acquisition power.
A poster boy for Banned Book Week is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which contains some offensive words such as the aforementioned N-word. What is the difference between Huck Finn and the previous case? A great deal, but nothing that could be summed up in a neat, objective definition. The difference requires the judgement of local librarians and communities. A judgement that an uncritical embrace of the apparent aims of Banned Book Week would seem to strip from communities.
The animus against banning or censoring books seems to stem from an idealistic view that as long as everything is open and free, the truth will out. This view, however, neglects two realities. First, as I hinted before, a library collection, like a news agency, cannot be purely neutral, no matter how well intended its acquisitions. Left unscrutinized, you cannot but expect a library collection to drift towards the natural prejudices of its curators (which is not necessarily a bad thing.). Second, the education of young minds requires careful guidance and cannot be left to the chance of willy-nilly, uneven encounters with various books. Neither of these issues can be addressed by only a consideration of banning/not-banning, but requires discussion and scrutiny of both inclusion and exclusion of books.
No doubt nearly all participants in Banned Book Week seek more free and open information resources. I have not yet uncovered a dastardly cabal of librarians seeking to control the world. Nonetheless, promoters should be aware of the whole issue. A movement for free information should not be misused to instead stifle debate.
Edit: Formatting.
 
|
On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages?
I would actually read that. I'd look to see if the author breaks the pattern at any point on any page to leave a hidden message. Also, the dedication would be funny. "I dedicate this to my wonderful mother, I love you." and then the book just bursts into "nigger nigger nigger"
Who would even print such a book? Who would go "I think there's a market for this."?
|
On May 03 2015 09:29 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages? I would actually read that. I'd look to see if the author breaks the pattern at any point on any page to leave a hidden message. Also, the dedication would be funny. "I dedicate this to my wonderful mother, I love you." and then the book just bursts into "nigger nigger nigger" Who would even print such a book? Who would go "I think there's a market for this."?
There's a market for most things. They pay millions for canvas that are half white and half blue. Someone will find a way to give it meaning.
|
Canada11355 Posts
I would just like to comment that when I was 14 I found the anarchist's cookbook online and a million copycat versions to boot. Not sure banning books is as useful a tool as it was before the internet. Actually, I'm going to pretend to be an edgy 14 year old again, one sec.
+ Show Spoiler +
So I guess I'm inclined to agree that banned book week is stupid.
|
On May 03 2015 09:29 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages? I would actually read that. I'd look to see if the author breaks the pattern at any point on any page to leave a hidden message. Also, the dedication would be funny. "I dedicate this to my wonderful mother, I love you." and then the book just bursts into "nigger nigger nigger" Who would even print such a book? Who would go "I think there's a market for this."?
Interestingly enough, my girlfriends grandfather spent 60+ dollars on a book that says the word Jew 6M times for the amount of jews that died in the holocaust. We both thought it was a massive waste of paper, since I think it's like over 1000 pages, though the idea behind it is somewhat reasonable and honorific
|
On May 04 2015 06:47 vult wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2015 09:29 ninazerg wrote:On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages? I would actually read that. I'd look to see if the author breaks the pattern at any point on any page to leave a hidden message. Also, the dedication would be funny. "I dedicate this to my wonderful mother, I love you." and then the book just bursts into "nigger nigger nigger" Who would even print such a book? Who would go "I think there's a market for this."? Interestingly enough, my girlfriends grandfather spent 60+ dollars on a book that says the word Jew 6M times for the amount of jews that died in the holocaust. We both thought it was a massive waste of paper, since I think it's like over 1000 pages, though the idea behind it is somewhat reasonable and honorific
The dead don't care if you honor them or not. You're right, that is a complete waste of paper. At least it could list some names.
|
On May 04 2015 07:06 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 06:47 vult wrote:On May 03 2015 09:29 ninazerg wrote:On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages? I would actually read that. I'd look to see if the author breaks the pattern at any point on any page to leave a hidden message. Also, the dedication would be funny. "I dedicate this to my wonderful mother, I love you." and then the book just bursts into "nigger nigger nigger" Who would even print such a book? Who would go "I think there's a market for this."? Interestingly enough, my girlfriends grandfather spent 60+ dollars on a book that says the word Jew 6M times for the amount of jews that died in the holocaust. We both thought it was a massive waste of paper, since I think it's like over 1000 pages, though the idea behind it is somewhat reasonable and honorific The dead don't care if you honor them or not. You're right, that is a complete waste of paper. At least it could list some names.
I don't think such a thing is for the dead.
|
On May 03 2015 09:20 Jerubaal wrote:
How about a book that’s just the N-word over and over for a hundred pages?
I just don't get it how a word can be so offensive that you can't even use it to refer to the word itself. I read an article where the author was explaining how the version with a is less offensive in some context and I couldn't figure out how 'a nigger' is less offensive than 'nigger'. Of course he meant nigga is less offensive than nigger but I felt like I was reading a puzzle from some weird alternate reality.
|
Would any librarian really agree that no book should be banned? How about the golden test case for censorship The Anarchist’s Cookbook? I think even the most libertine of librarians would agree that a book detailing how to build pipe bombs should not be available in secondary school libraries.
The entire Anarchist's cookbook is available online in a handy-dandy .pdf format for anyone who wants it. If you prefer the paper version, hop on Ebay. That's why censorship (or prohibition of almost any kind) is dumb. Not because of "hurr-durr book burnings!" but because it fails in it's only stated goal, which is "people shouldn't have access to this. Banning it will stop that." Censorship "for safety's sake" doesn't work.
The internet also solves your argument of book availability, since most libraries have partnerships with a network of other libraries, if you want to read a book that your library does not stock they can have the book shipped to them by a library that does. Or buy it on Kindle for $3.99. Or Amazon. Your argument is that buildings can't hold infinite books so therefor they are banning the ommitted books from being read? Does a restaurant which only serves hamburgers cause a de facto ban on hot dogs? No. If you want a hotdog, you are free to go to a different restaurant.
Second, the education of young minds requires careful guidance and cannot be left to the chance of willy-nilly, uneven encounters with various books. Neither of these issues can be addressed by only a consideration of banning/not-banning, but requires discussion and scrutiny of both inclusion and exclusion of books.
To paraphrase Frank Zappa, the kind of kid who would be corrupted by a book is the kind who would be corrupted by the hum of the refrigerator. Frank Zappa was actually arguing against the banning of Judas Priest albums but the sentiment remains the same. Here's an idea better than outright banning a book from consumption: If you don't want your child to read Huckelberry Finn, be a parent and don't let them.
The difference requires the judgement of local librarians and communities. A judgement that an uncritical embrace of the apparent aims of Banned Book Week would seem to strip from communities.
This is exactly what a ban does. When a book is not banned and freely available: You, the individual, decide what you do and do not want to read. No one else makes this decision for you. When a book is banned or somehow unavailable, some authority has made the decision that you shall not be exposed to the information. If that's not "A judgement stripped from communities," I don't know what is.
If "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it," then it must be the mark of an uneducated mind to seek to eliminate any piece of information that it finds contrary to its views. If you do not like a particular book, you may choose not to read it. However, you don't have the right to make that choice for others who might not share your views. I don't agree with the views expressed in Mein Kampf but I wouldn't want it wiped from the Earth either. Not only because of it's important historical impact but because I'm aware that you can't erase an idea by willing it to go away.
Prohibition has never worked. Prohibition of information, even less so.
Tl;dr- OP is a statist who thinks young minds need protecting from books. Statism: The belief that x, y, or z authority knows better than the individual and must take action to protect the individual from himself.
|
Several of the posts point out that there is an abundance of information and that school libraries are hardly a bottleneck. Even before the explosion of the internet, calling it "banning" was always sensationalistic. It's not a question of whether people are allowed to own a book, but whether that book is in the library. Furthermore, most cases of "banning" were not brought about because a book was tucked away in some corner of the library but because it was part of the curriculum. Banned Book Week is less about stopping any books from being banned than about stopping your own preferences from being implemented while (consciously or unconsciously) ignoring your non-preferences.
@iVLosK!- you should try being less polemical.
You make some...reasonable points, but, unfortunately, they are precisely the points that MY point is a counterweight to and you don't seem to have realized the game that is being played. First, as far as I know, there is no "book" that is illegal in most western states, so this is more about affirmation than it is about access.
You say that the community cannot dictate to the individual what they can read, but they also aren't obligated to provide it to them. Again, don't focus on what is "banned" (because nothing is); focus on what the positive offering is. Who decides what the books on the curriculum are and are in the Reading Spotlight displays? It seems like this should be the local communities because, otherwise, wouldn't that be a tyranny itself if it was imposed from outside or by a small group within? Even if you disagreed with a community's decision, that decision would be limited to them only. (This is a principle that has a great many applications and arouses much debate. I believe people who are opposed to this principle are sometimes pejoratively referred to as "statists".) Still, even in this scenario, no books are being banned. What's happening, though, is that every time someone objects to a book on a curriculum, they are shouted down as backwards, anti-intellectual, book burners, while the people who have all the power in the book selection are unscrutinized. Focus less on the "banning", which doesn't actually exist, and more on the selection. I didn't suggest what sorts of books I thought should be included or excl- sorry- there wouldn't be enough room for or what the standard for diversity should be. All I say is that the idea of Banned Book Week seems to block discussion about what books we should provide to young people when we should be having more of a discussion.
And, you're damned right, I think children should be protected from books. Or, rather, what I fear most is not that we will have children who grow up to become fascists or communists because they read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, but that we will have children that don't think ideas or books are important because all of their teachers just told them to read "whatever".
|
On May 03 2015 12:42 Fecalfeast wrote:I would just like to comment that when I was 14 I found the anarchist's cookbook online and a million copycat versions to boot. Not sure banning books is as useful a tool as it was before the internet. Actually, I'm going to pretend to be an edgy 14 year old again, one sec. + Show Spoiler +So I guess I'm inclined to agree that banned book week is stupid.
Well someone just got themselves on the no fly list lol.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On May 04 2015 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2015 12:42 Fecalfeast wrote:I would just like to comment that when I was 14 I found the anarchist's cookbook online and a million copycat versions to boot. Not sure banning books is as useful a tool as it was before the internet. Actually, I'm going to pretend to be an edgy 14 year old again, one sec. + Show Spoiler +So I guess I'm inclined to agree that banned book week is stupid. Well someone just got themselves on the no fly list lol.
"Oh no officer, I was just showing some people on the internet how easy it is to learn about bombs."
Gives me an excuse not to travel, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W1Eq4vu.png)
