Strollerderby : banned books

Taking Banned Books Into Her Own Hands ... Er, Locker

Jen Chaney — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:05:00 GMT

One Catholic school student apparently has decided to stick it to the man. Or at least stick it to the people at her Catholic school, which has released a list of books that the students are not allowed to read.

According to a posting on Boing Boing, which points to a question posed by the student on Yahoo! Answers, the young lady has started a banned books lending library in the locker next to hers, a place where her peers can get access to such "offensive" tomes as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Paradise Lost, and Lord of the Flies. Her Yahoo! Question is whether she can legitimately get in trouble for doing what she's doing. The response, for the most part, has been positive, with several people calling her both brave and a hero. But at least one reader questions the truth of what she's saying.

And I can sort of see that person's point. I mean, it's a great story and that makes me want to believe it. But some of the books on the school's "banned" list seem a little ridiculous (Bridge to Terabithia? Really?) I also wonder why the girl would post this question on the World Wide Web if she is genuinely concerned about getting caught.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is true. It's definitely awesome that she's taking matters into her own hands and exposing her fellow students to some really spectacular literature. (Even more awesome? The kid has standards: "Twilight is banned also, but I don't want that polluting my library," she writes.)

As far as the issue about getting into trouble, she might be better off running the lending library off of school grounds. Of course, that's not as delicious as clandestinely keeping the novels in a locker. But it might achieve the same goal and avoid the possibility of her getting suspended.

But that's just my advice, and I was never this rebellious. Again, if the story is true, the school finds out and action is taken against the girl, the ACLU would be on this case faster than you can say, The Canterbury Tales. Which, by the way, is another book on the school's banned list.

Image: Guardian

Hooray for Book Banners - No Really

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:33:00 GMT

There's been plenty of talk about the books that short-sighted Americans have been running around trying to keep out of the hands of their precious innocent little angels this month.

And, as usual, I got that clenchy feeling atop my chest when I saw the list of top ten books Americans wanted banned last year - that "hooray, I showed them, I actually READ some of those books!" kind of feeling.

I've got plenty of words for the book banners out there (who are increasing in numbers by the way, challenges were up last year by close to one hundred), but I have to thank them.

Shocked? Don't be - I've found some fantastic books on the banned book lists over the years. As they say, even bad publicity is publicity. And everytime homophobes try to keep And Tango Makes Three from filling their babies' minds with the hogwash that two boys might make good penguin parents, I'd be you they sell a few copies for Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell.

A lot of the books that make these lists aren't landing in school libraries to make a point to censor-happy parents. They're being purchased by librarians because they're plain old good books, fun books, books that get people - and kids especially - reading. A newcomer to the list, Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner was dubbed "sexually explicit" because of a brief mention of sodomy - in the context of abuse, not gay sex. There are difficult parts to get through even for a parent in the tale of two Afghani boys, but it's packed with good lessons for teens, especially in light of the ongoing conflict with Afghanistan.

With Hosseini's name now plastered all over lists of "banned" books, want to bet it's going to pique some more interest and bring some more readers?

How about Uncle Bobby's Wedding or the The Perks of Being a Wallflower? My daughter and I apparently have some reading to do.

Image: Amazon

Teacher Wants to Drop Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird "for Obama"

JeanneSager — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:37:00 GMT

Now that we have a black president, ~~an Oregon~~ a Washington teacher says he's ready to stop teaching about the days when the "n-word" was acceptable - and he's willing to say bye-bye to some of the most acclaimed books of school curricula to do it.

John Foley says he's sick of having to explain the usage of the "n-word" in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird to his students.

Sure, in the end the authors stood as beacons of light in their time for writing books that decried racism, but Foley doesn't think kids (or "an angry African American mom") have the wherewithal to stick with it to the end of the books.

OK, let's back up here. He's decrying racism and a lack of education with . . . racism and a refusal to educate?

Foley wrote a guest editorial in a recent issue of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, noting he's sick of having to explain to those African American mothers why he has students read books that portray blacks as inarticulate and uneducated. He's weary of having black students sit in class uncomfortable when the "n-word" is read out in class. What's more - he says the kids find the books "dull and plodding," and they never get past the usage of the racist word.

And lest you think he's being satirical, Foley told the Los Angeles Times he was "bemused" by the people who came to his quasi-defense in the name of satire.

To be fair, Foley does not want to ban these books. He wants to update the curriculum, replacing what he sees as poor black role models with more empowering examples for his students. I certainly support him on that. So add a few in there, beef up the reading list. But does that have to be at the loss of literative examples of the racial struggles that led up to Obama's victory? However corny, the George Santayana quote comes to mind: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Dropping the Huck Finns of literature from our kids' reading lists is akin to whitewashing those struggles out of our history books. Where else do these children learn what the times in which the n-word" was acceptable were like? Where else will they learn that, yes, the black men depicted in these books were indeed uneducated and inarticulate - not because of stupidity but because of oppression?

As a white teacher, I can also appreciate that Foley faces a daunting task. A close friend is white and teaches at a racially diverse school in the south, where she has been called out time and again by over-sensitive parents of other ethnicities for perceived slights. I am not saying all white teachers are innocent; but unwarranted accusations can be tough on a teacher - my friend is currently seeking a move out of the classroom. Perhaps I am reading too much into his words, but it sounds like Foley has experienced having to rationalize a misperceived support of the n-word to an African American mother who has only been told by her child that the teacher used the n-word (without providing the context of the book).

He's tired. And maybe he's tired of teaching too. Because the saddest comment of all is what Foley has taken out of a classroom after all of these years teaching literature. "You have to remember, it's hard to sell kids these days on books," he told the Times. "I write young adult novels, and sometimes I wonder, why bother? You're writing for three girls who like to read."

Kids can wear teachers down, especially the kids who just don't care. But when a teacher begins to blame the kids for just not getting it or just not being able to get past a stumbling block, perhaps he needs to examine not the book and the history lesson but his method of "inspiring" young minds.

These kids need someone to tell them "that was then, and this is now." Can John Foley still do that?

Image: Amazon

School Has Autistic Child Arrested

Parents Criticize Schools for Celebrating Inauguration

Entire School Board Recalled By Angry Students

UPDATE: Mom Says She Won't Burn Library Book, Still Wants it Censored

JeanneSager — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:33:00 GMT

The Portland area mom who prompted an outrage over her plan to burn the book her thirteen-year-old son borrowed from his high school library has relented. She won't burn it, but she's still calling for the book to be censored.

Taffey Anderson said she was angry when she made her inflammatory (only teeny weeny little pun intended) comments. She told a Portland newspaper she'll return the book, but she's still making her case for keeping the Book of Bunny Suicides out of the hands of "less mature" students. She wants it held behind the desk in the library for the librarian to decide who may or may not borrow the book.

Isn't that still censorship?

Original Post below:

Remember all those banned book posts on Strollerderby a few weeks back? How mediaval all those book burners sounded? Turns out she's alive and well and living in the Portland area.

Yup, an Oregon mom is threatening to burn a book her son checked out of his high school library.

The Book of Bunny Suicides is actually the first in a series of three graphic novels by British author/illustrator Andy Riley, a guy who's been dubbed the British Gary Larson. Subtitled "little fluffy rabbits who just don't want to live anymore," the book is black comedy at its best. Each page shows a hand-drawn bunny in a position that could very well end in his death - although that's never actually seen, and often the means to an end aren't immediately apparent. Take page ine - a line drawing of a bunny with a rope around its neck, and the other end tied to the minute hand on a giant clock tower.

So, no blood and guts. No sex. No drugs. No cursing. And it makes you have to think . . . bad for kids, definitely bad.

Taffey Anderson's now holding hostage the book her son borrowed from the Central Linn High School in Halsey, Ore. She wants the issue reviewed by the school district, but she won't even hand the copy over for the principal to view. Instead, she says she's going to burn it. The school principal says that's too bad - the school will have to buy another copy and fine the family for the cost. If Anderson doesn't pay, her son will lose the privilege of taking books out of the library. His mother has already warned she'll burn the school's second copy.

Let's review the list of things she's teaching her son: Borrow things and don't give them back. Destroy that which isn't yours. Threaten and blackmail when you don't get your way.

And a book of cranky bunnies is going to warp this kid?

Image:

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Do You Tell Your Kids to Fight Back?

Pit bulls and kids: Scared or Perfectly Comfortable?

Banned Books Week: James and the Giant Peach

Madeline Holler — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:00:00 GMT

I'll admit that when my then first-grader and I sat down to read James and the Giant Peach, right away I felt the urge to shield her. But not from the word "ass" which comes up frequently. And not because there's whiskey drinking and snuff snorting and child-beating -- I love that stuff! (I mean, in literature.) What gave me pause were James's cruel guardians Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker. Because one is suuuuuuper fat and one is suuuuuuper skinny and their fatness and skinniness are laughed at and criticized and meant to be totally disgusting.

James and the Giant Peach read more like Me and My Giant Body Issues, at least in the first few chapters.

We kept reading but I was in high-alert mode. The last thing I wanted was to give permission to my kid to laugh at -- or even think sinister things about -- people because of the size and shape of their bodies. My girl's a girl! And Dahl's literature is powerful! Would his words about Aunt Sponge (the fatty) -- "she had a white flabby face" and was "like a great white soggy overboiled cabbage" -- come back to her some day in a particularly critical moment in front of the mirror? If I had laughed, would she have remembered that, thinking maybe Mommy agreed?

This is the crazy thing about censorship. Am I honestly going to hold a book accountable for the entirety of one girl's self-image? Or can she just go ahead and hear a story and soak up Dahl's writing, which includes descriptions of extreme body size to physically illustrate two very extreme personalities? (They're total meanies!) Same goes for other books that get challenged. One story? Really? That's your kid's great undoing?

The aunts went away early on in the book and I packed the body critiques away in my mind for the next time we would read it. I barely batted an eye at the rest of what some consider shocking language and imagery -- cause for some elementary schools to stop reading it, pull it from the shelves and generally get the classic filed under "one of the most challenged books."

Some examples: a grasshopper declared "I'd rather be fried alive and eaten by a Mexican!"; a spider licks his lips which is apparently sexually suggestive; and then all the mystical and magical elements (they're flying around in a Giant Peach, it's true.)

I'm all for licked lips (certain that the sexual element goes right over my kid's head) and magical elements. As for the Mexican comment, it's referencing a part of a culture that, indeed, eats fried bugs.

What I love about book challenges and right-out banning is that they are a real testament to the power of good literature, creative language, original imagery. Sure, we all hate certain realities of this world where we're raising our kids. And as jumpy as it makes adults to be reminded of all this crap when it comes up in innocent children's stories, I can't think of a safer way to get a first glimpse at sex or racism or brutal adults or the empty, scared feeling of being alone, really alone -- or even the joy (and consequences) of breaking the rules than between book covers. Adults get the well-worn version of life's good and bad all the time in books. Why should kids miss out? Can anybody honestly name a single book (or movie or song lyric) that corrupted their otherwise perfect child?

My daughter doesn't really remember the aunts, except that they were scary. In the meantime, she's heard plenty of body talk since we read it (mostly, incidentally, from adult women). I'm sure she's heard the word "ass" too, and while we're not big whiskey drinkers and have never managed to develop a steady snuff habit, she knows about booze too. Did she learn it from James and the Giant Peach? Doubtful. Maybe she heard it there first, but that's a pretty big world out there. Just what do book banners think they can actually accomplish?

We're closing the book today on Banned Books Week. Tell us, which banned books did you/will you read?

Banned Books Week: Where's Waldo?

Brett Singer — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:00:00 GMT

When I saw the titles of books that had been banned I was pretty shocked to see "Where's Waldo?" on the list. I could not imagine how a book of pictures featuring a guy who appears to derive great enjoyment from hiding in crowded places would offend anyone.

Silly daddy! There's always something.

In this case, the problem is a Waldo wardrobe malfunction.

In the original 1987 edition of "Where's Waldo?", this following image appears:

As you can see, the woman has removed her bikini top, presumably to enable a more even tan. A small male person, perhaps a child, is dumping water on the woman's back, causing her to leap up in surprise and show her "girls" to a rather happy looking gentleman who appears to have some brown substance smeared on his chest (I'm color-blind, so apologies if that color isn't brown). If you look really really really closely, and are more than a little bit uptight, you might even say that there is a nipple showing.

The image was altered for a 1997 "special edition:"

As you can see, the painted jezebel has covered up. Now children everywhere are safe.

But I think the new image doesn't go far enough! As some folks point out over on snopes.com, the top left corner of this scene clearly shows two men in a compromising position – not only that, but one of the men is African-American! And in the bottom right corner, the elderly woman is obviously touching the man in his private area behind the screen he is holding up. Plus, there's some guy in medieval armor being buried in sand, and we all know what that means…

End of sarcasm.

The funny thing about this one is that the woman in question is actually showing some boobage. If not for the protests, I imagine very few people would have noticed the nefarious nipple. Not that it matters; I highly doubt any child has been scarred by the Where's Waldo? books. Bored, maybe. But not scarred.

Images: Waldo Wiki, Amazon

More from Banned Books Week here at Babble:

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Sarah Palin

Banned Books Week: "And Tango Makes Three"

Banned Books Week: Judy Blume and 'Forever'

Jen Chaney — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:58:00 GMT

Many Generation Xers, especially us girls, spent a good chunk of our childhoods/early adolescences with Judy Blume. The author of such preteen classics as "Blubber" and "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" dared to write about subjects -- puberty, bullying, teen sexuality -- that most people only whispered about, if they ever addressed them at all.

It's just that kind of daring, of course, that usually gets an author in literary hot water, which is why Ms. Blume ranks at No. 2 on the American Library Association's list of top 10 most frequently challenged authors from 1990 to 2004. Blume can claim five titles on the list of 2007's most frequently challenged books ("challenged" signifying that some person or group filed a formal request to restrict access to the material), a pretty astonishing feat since all of them were published more than three decades ago.

Her most well-known offender, and the book that ranks at No. 13, is "Forever," a young-adult novel that takes a very candid look at two teenagers negotiating a romantic and sexual relationship. It's not difficult to understand why some might question its appropriateness, considering that Katherine, the female protagonist, goes on the pill and has "relations" with her boyfriend. The explicitness of the sexuality -- and, in some people's minds, the implicit suggestion that it's okay for teens to do it -- is why "Forever" seems to have a permanent place in the Banned Books Hall of Fame.

I read "Forever" when I was probably 10 or 11. Honestly, a lot of the details flew thousands of feet over my head. I remember understanding that the subject matter was racy, enough so that I made sure neither of my parents were around each time I cracked it open. My other key memory of that book is Ralph -- the nickname that Katherine's boyfriend, Michael, gave to his penis. I am not sure if I was more surprised to learn that a boy might actually nickname his willy, or that he would choose a name like Ralph. Even then, I thought something like Thor might be a better choice.

As fuzzy as my memory of "Forever" is, I do know this: Reading that book did not scar me, nor did it make me want to go out and get laid as soon as I reached my teen years. If anything, the fact that Katherine and Michael's relationship does not last "forever" may have taught me how important it is to be careful in matters of love, romance and sex. I say may but really, I don't recall. I remember Ralph, but not much else.

And that leads me to an important point about Banned Books Week: As parents, we all feel justifiable concern about the books our children read. But in many cases, kids tend to forget some of the things they have read, or at least not dwell on the details as much as moms and dads do. What may sound like a terribly salacious double entendre to us, for example, may glide right on by our kids without them even noticing.That's why banning books, or any material, is such a dicey proposition. What's offensive is very, very subjective, even within the same household, let alone from family to family.

In case you're wondering, the other Blume tomes that showed up on last year's most frequently challenged books were: "Blubber" (no. 36), "Are You There God? It's Me Margaret" (no. 82), "Then Again Maybe I Won't" (no. 93) and "Tiger Eyes" (no. 94). I read every one of them as a kid and, while some may have concerns about the language or sexual content they contain, not one of them deserves to be banned.

Not surprisingly, Judy Blume has become a vocal opponent of censorship over the years. As she writes on her Web site: "It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers."

Blume's books may make that "challenged" list every year. But none of them has ever successfully been banned. I think it's safe to say her novels will indeed be around "forever."

More from Banned Books Week here at Babble:

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Sarah Palin

Banned Books Week: "And Tango Makes Three"

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

JeanneSager — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:32:00 GMT

Before a boy wizard bounced him from his post, R.L. Stine was once the best-selling children's book author of all time. And while his scary stories reigned supreme in kids' hearts, they sat at number 16 on the American Library Association's most challenged books of the 1990s.

The kids loved him. The parents loved to hate him. To be honest, I've never been a fan. He's been writing teen and child books since the the mid-1980s, so ostensibly I could have picked one up at the library over the years. I don't remember any. I do remember picking up a Goosebumps paperback a few years ago - my Harry Potter obsession serving as a gateway back into childhood literature in my adult years. What struck me wasn't how clever the book was or how I couldn't put it down - I could have left it just as quickly as I'd taken it - but that I finally understood why my little brother always had a tough time getting these back to the library on time. It was right up any preteen boy's alley. Which is exactly what makes people's attempts over the years to have them removed from library shelves such a travesty.

Getting kids to read as they enter the tween years - especially boys - can at times be like pulling teeth. A study funded by Scholastic in 2006 showed 40 percent of kids between the ages of 5 and 8 are "high frequency readers" who read for fun every day. That number drops to 29 percent of kids in the 9 to 11 range and even lower as they get older. Separating the genders, the study found boys are three times more likely than girls to say reading for fun is "not at all important."

Ironically, one mom speaking out in an 1997 CNN story about a parental movement to get Goosebumps pulled from the shelves at her local school admitted her son only read for school reports before he started picking up Stine's novels. "And I had to force him to do that," she said. Excuse the Homer Simpson moment, but . . . DOH!

If you want to encourage kids to read, you let them do it. You give them books or magazines that interest them. They can be reading absolute drivel and still learn vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar. Yes, they're a little scary - which is why they've been challenged over the years. But a generation of boys growing up without books on their shelves is enough to give me nightmares.

Image: Amazon

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Sarah Palin

Banned Books Week: "And Tango Makes Three"

Banned Books Week: Sarah Palin

Amy S.F. Lutz — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:33:00 GMT

In honor of Banned Books Week, it seems appropriate to investigate how the woman who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency stands on the issue of banning books. Many of us have received the emails going around listing all the books Sarah Palin allegedly had banned from the Wasilla public library. But is that list real?

According to my favorite urban-legend-debunking-website, Snopes.com, the list is not real. Palin never actually banned any books from any library. However, according to the Anchorage Daily News, there is evidence that Palin was considering it: "In December 1996, [city librarian Mary Ellen] Emmons told her hometown newspaper, The Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her - starting before she was sworn in - about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose."

The article also states that Emmons was completely opposed to the possibility of removing any books from the library, and the matter seems to have ended there. When she was questioned about it, Palin claimed her comments were "rhetorical."

Sure. Completely rhetorical. The question voters need to ask themselves is, does it matter if Palin wanted to censor certain books, even if she never actually did so?

Banned Books Week: Smother the Fire and Read a Banned Book

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Karma Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: "And Tango Makes Three"

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:33:00 GMT

Banning books is nothing new, of course. Thankfully, morons have been trying it for ages. I say thankfully, because there's no surer way of drawing attention to a book than trying to ban it. When "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was pulled from library shelves, Mark Twain famously said that means another 25,000 in sales.

Let's hope the same can be said for "And Tango Makes Three" -- an inspiring children's book about two male penguins, Roy and Silo, who together raise a baby penguin, Tango. Although it's based on a true story from the New York Zoo, and although it has won numerous literary and library awards for story-telling and illustration, the book is frequently on the list of most banned books each year.

In fact, it is the most banned book in 2006 and 2007.

A school district in Charlotte, N.C., pulled the book following a few complaints from parents and from a leading local homophobe, who said he was opposed to books that make homosexuality sound normal. Libraries in two Missouri towns pulled the children's book out of the children's section and put it in the non-fiction section, always a popular spot for young readers.

Why?

Because Roy and Silo are two daddies, and apparently that just doesn't happen in America. (Close your eyes, children. Nothing to see here!)

I remember the first time I read "Tango" to my daughter, Emmeline, who seemed to have a little trouble understanding where, exactly, Tango's mommy was. I explained that Tango had two daddies and no mommies, and Emme grabbed onto the idea that she had seen something like this in real life.

"Just like Joe and Richard!" she exclaimed, referring to family friends.

This is the best part of children's literature -- explaining the world around us in simple, easy-to-understand ways. Roy and Silo aren't the evil hobgoblins homophobes would like us to believe, but winged archetypes for a valued segment of society. Children "get it." Let's hope their parents do one day, too.

And until then, let's hope Tango keeps getting banned across America, if only so more and more people are quickly made aware of such a charming book.

More from Banned Books Week here at Babble:

Shel Silverstein

Read Banned Books

Kama Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

JeanneSager — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:33:00 GMT

His A Light in the Attic and Where the Sidewalk Ends were my first introductions to poetry, his The Giving Tree one of the first hardcovers I bought for my daughter's library. But Shel Silverstein is one of the authors whose books have been repeatedly yanked from the shelves of local libraries.

Which is not to say that I hesitated a second when I placed them on my daughter's shelves. In fact, the reasons two of his books have been censored in America top publisher Harper Collins' list of the Top Ten Silly Reasons to Ban a Harper Collins Children's Book delve right into silly themselves.

A one-time Playboy cartoonist, Silverstein is a scary looking guy - I'll give you that. I've been tempted to remove the book jackets from all four of his titles before letting my daughter take them to bed (as she likes to do with her books - kind of reminds me of her mother). But I still refuse to judge a book by its cover, even one with a bald-headed guy with a full beard and some strange wooly thing wrapped around his neck.

Because inside, his books of poetry are full of hilarious nonsense. There are few rhymes and plenty of made-up-words. There are simple line drawings paired with poems that let kids explore the questions they're dying to ask, from why a babysitter doesn't sit on the baby to what you'll find where the sidewalk ends. In fact Silverstein pretends every child's dream can come true, which is why I remember late nights with my books of poetry in bed as a kid, giggling over the mustache grown 100 inches long just so you won't have to use a rope or board for your tree swing.

So what was so awful about his books? On page 12, A Light in the Attic "encourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them" according to the folks at the Cunningham Elementary School in Beloit, Wisconsin back in 1985. Oh, the horrors. In fact, the poem How Not To Have To Dry The Dishes is like most of Silverstein's itty bitty ditties. It's a total of eight lines about an "awful, boring chore." A chore, he supposes, "maybe they won't let you" do anymore, if you drop one of the dishes on the floor. Which I'm sure the kids will be debating once they finish considering the poem on the facing page - how someone could have possibly stolen someone's knees.

Apparently Silverstein should steer clear of Wisconsin. Where the Sidewalk Ends was pulled from the shelves at West Allis-West Milwaukee, Wis. school libraries (1986) because the book "suggests drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for legitimate authority, rebellion against parents." Shhhhh. Don't tell the kids there's real life beyond these four walls. Of course the poem Dreadful from Sidewalk really takes the cake, or should we say the flesh? A mention that "someone ate the baby," prompted people at the Central Columbia School District in Bloomsburg, Pa. to yank Sidewalk, lest children be encouraged to consider cannibalism. This was in 1993, folks.

I'm willing to risk my daughter's rebellion, the fact that she may one day want to take a bite out of my arm and a broken dish or two in favor of some creativity and the fact that she likes a book enough to take it to bed. Come to think of it, maybe it's time to introduce her to Silverstein's contribution to class rock and roll. You know, life ain't easy for a boy named Sue.

Image: HarperCollins

Banned Books Week: Smother the Fire and Read a Banned Book

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Madeline Holler — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

There we were, my 7-year-old daughter and I, sitting down together to read a Banned! Book! I mean, banned books? Oh, bring it on! I don't "do censorship," I fight it. I chalk up banned book efforts to ignorance and dogmatism and misguided fears of the real world. In fact, the only things I ban in my house -- the only things I censor -- are ignorance, dogmatism and misguided fears of the real world.

So we kept reading. We pointed at pictures! We laughed! We turned the pages.

And for the first half of Babette Cole's frequently banned and/or censored book Mommy Laid An Egg: Or, Where Do Babies Come From?, all I could think was "tame, tame, benign, and tame." What the hell were the bored Christian housewives so upset about when they demanded it be pulled from library shelves, hidden behind the check-out counter and wrapped in brown paper before sending it home for review by a pair of innocent eyes. Then we turned to page 21.

OMG, I blushed.

Let me back up: Mommy Laid an Egg is a picture book that explains how babies are made. No biggie. Two kids' hippie parents decide one day to explain the facts of life. But when they say the little boy and girl were dropped off by a stork, or that they grew in the garden, or were squeezed from a tube of baby paste, well, the wiser-than-them kids step in and sketch out the real deal -- to their parents (who wind up blushing too, I might defensively add).

So we see kid drawings of mom and her boobs, dad and his "seed pods" and an arrow pointing to Mommy's hole where Dad is to insert his "tube." Good information. Love the simple language and images.

Turn the page: it's the book's money shot, the aforementioned page 21. This is clearly the page that earned the book's nickname, "The Kama Sutra for Kids." Four different sketches of Mom and Dad copulating. There's missionary style ... on a skateboard. Then she's on top as they float through the air with helium balloons. We've got upright and bouncing on a Space Hopper. And defying gravity as he rides her while she's standing on her head. They're always smiling! It looks real fun! OK, next page?

Page doesn't turn. Daughter goes quiet. There's just so much to see! My daughter is lingering. Staring and staring and staring at the good times between Mom and Dad.

"Do you have any questions," I ask, in my steadiest ain't no thing voice. No. Clock ticks. Crickets chirp. Cheeks get real hot. I go inward, focusing energy on suppressing an uncomfortable laugh.

Eventually, we move on. There's all the stuff about sperm and egg and babies growing and birthing, blah, blah ... one's mind tends to linger on page 21. So I think to myself, "huh. Do the censor nuts have a point?" Did Babette Cole cross a line?

As I set the book on our coffee table, I see a magazine laying face down. On the back cover is an ad featuring a scantily clad model with her ass in the air and a come hither look on her face. Never noticed that. Next day driving to school, we pass a billboard for a watch or perfume or Hennessey ... something. It features a pre-copulatory couple all entwined and horny-faced. Has that always been there?

Bus stop poster with sexy Gossip Girls. The weekly alternative with the phone sex ads. Should all of this doin'-it be so highly charged and explicitly non-explicit and hot and pouty and glamorous? Or can it be kind of explicitly normal and fun and sometimes have a point besides revenge, power, Swiss watches and a reason to shop couture? I'm thinking since the former is inevitable, the latter should get some air time, too.

So book burners, suck it up and leave Mommy Laid an Egg alone. Naked parents humping on a Space Hopper? Oh, bring it on!

Related Posts:

James and the Giant Peach

Smother the Fire and Read a Banned Book

In the Night Kitchen

Little Women

R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Sarah Palin

And Tango Makes Three

Shel Silverstein

Where's Waldo?

Judy Blume and 'Forever'

Is Racism Packaged as Children's Literature Defensible?

Roald Dahl's The Witches

Photo: chroniclebooks.com

Stuart Little Was a Banned Book

Amy Kuras — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Did you know that the first public libraries not only didn’t admit children, they actively discouraged them? The first public libraries in NYC would not admit anyone under the age of 14 or 16, depending, and even then rejected youth's tendency to read "trash" like Dickens and Cooper. At the Astor Library, young girls were not allowed at all.

Anne Clement Moore changed all that. She was the first children's librarian in the NYC system and as such pretty much set the standards for children's libraries nationwide. Think about that –I'd be willing to bet families with young kids are some of the biggest users of libraries, and even that many of us who haven’t darkened the door of library since college become regulars at story hours, etc.

A fascinating article in the New Yorker this week chronicles not only Moore's creation of the children's library and in many ways, the entire genre of juvenile fiction, but the not always honorable ways she used that power. She actually attempted to block publication of children's classic Stuart Little, leading to many school districts and children's libraries banning the book.

Much of Moore's actions came because E.B. White and his wife, Katharine Angell White, rejected Moore's clumsy efforts to cultivate them. White wrote reviews of children's books for The New Yorker and staunchly rejected the twee and treacly nature of much children's fiction.

Many librarians and teachers sided with White, including one librarian who had her school's entire fourth grade class read the book "in order to decide whether it belongs in our school library."

Wonder what Moore would have thought of "Don't Let The Pigeon Drive the Bus"?

How to Get your Children's Book Banned: Use the Word Scrotum

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:13:00 GMT

No publicity is bad publicity. When Susan Patron won the Newberry Medal for her book "The Higher Power of Lucky" I didn't hear a thing. When her book got banned from school libraries, I read about it in The New York Times. Of course now I want to buy it for my kids.

Why did it get banned? On the first page the kid sees his dog get bitten by a rattlesnake - on the scrotum. I guess school libraries don't like biology words. The word 'amniocentesis' really freaks me out. I wonder if I can get that banned too?

Okay, clearly the school systems were objecting to referring to the nut sack in a children's book. I'm just glad they are using the proper word for it. I realize I'm pretty liberal when it comes to discussing reproduction with my children, but I don't see how hearing - no reading the word scrotum is going to hurt anybody. One librarian was quoted as saying 'I don’t want to start an issue about censorship... but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.'

I think I see the problem. Why are people so uptight about balls?

Strollerderby : banned books

Taking Banned Books Into Her Own Hands ... Er, Locker

Hooray for Book Banners - No Really

Amy Winehouse Writing a Children's Book

Get Ready, Get Set, Read With Celebrities!

Judge Sentences Families to Do Puzzles

Teacher Wants to Drop Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird "for Obama"

What's Wrong with "Women and Children First?"

School Has Autistic Child Arrested

Parents Criticize Schools for Celebrating Inauguration

Entire School Board Recalled By Angry Students

UPDATE: Mom Says She Won't Burn Library Book, Still Wants it Censored

Banned Books Week: James and the Giant Peach

Banned Books Week: Where's Waldo?

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: Judy Blume and 'Forever'

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: R.L. Stine's Goosebumps

Banned Books Week: Sarah Palin

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: "And Tango Makes Three"

Banned Books Week: Shel Silverstein

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Banned Books Week: Kama Sutra for Kids

Stuart Little Was a Banned Book

How to Get your Children's Book Banned: Use the Word Scrotum