|
|
smith
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
The American Library Association has listed the year's top 10 banned books with this slogan: Let Freedom Read! Read A Banned Book!
Remember the book Fahrenheit 451 where the people were forbidden to read and so they memorized the books, became the stories?
It is better, they say: in 1981 there were 900 books challenged and in 2001 there were 448.
Here are the top ten:
1. Harry Potter - J.P.Rowling wizardry and magic
*2. Of Mice & Men - John Steinbeck offensive language
*3. The Chocolate War - Robert Cormier offensive language
*4. I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou sexual content, offensive language, racism, violence
5. Summer of my German Soldier - Bette Green racism, offensive language,sexually explicit
*6. Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger offensive language
*7. Alice Series - Phyllis Reynolds Naylor- sexually explicit,offensive language
8. Go Ask Alice - Anonymous sexually explicit, offensive language, drug use
*9. Fallen Angels - Walter Dean Myers - offensive language
*10. Blood & Chocolate - Annette Curtis Klause sexually explicit
(* is inappropriate for age group *** that's ME !! )
I've only read 1,2,4 & 6.......I am going to read the rest!!
smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I have only read books one and two, I guess I've got some work to do!
I was curious though, about what it means for a book to be banned. Surely, I thought, America was beyond the book burning days of the past. Also, this sounds like another ploy of the Christian right-wing portion of American government. Is this the case? Can I find these books in the library?
If not, this is yet another injustice we need to fight. Just by your post, you are in some small way fighting against this ban.
Besides, reading is fundamental. hehe
Nothing would be better than first-hand knowledge of these books by the general public, to make the banning irrelevant. But in the meantime, keep stamping your feet.
**Kevin pledges to read a new book right after he finishes 'Dreamcatcher'.**
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harry Potter wouldn't be banned there, but I know there are people who would like to see those titles banned...
Catcher in the Rye was the book Mel Gibson's character collected in the movie "Conspiracy Theory". I haven't read it.
Anyway, what have you to say about the titles you have read? Especially those titled 'racist'.
-Lenny
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
We had two paperback books: "Nice Girls Finish Last", and "Acid Temple Ball". And the second one even had some serious gay scenes in it.
We concealed them inside other covers. We were not stupid. But the housemaster found and confiscated them.
Odd, really. By today's standards were almost soft core, but this was 1968
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I have read a couple of those Banned Ones. "Catcher in the Rye"
and "Harry Potter". I also read Farenheit 451, one of Dads books. I like those books and found them a good read. They are fiction, hardly enough to BAN them,??
My Dad told me that a few years ago, Noddy and Big Ears were banned cause Big Ears was thought to be a paedophile and that Noddy was in danger cause they shared a bed, FULLY CLOTHED??? I believe that a book on "Douglass Bader" was also banned?? Silly all this book banning, there are VIDEO games out there worse. In Palestine and a few other Arab type countries they teach their children how to make bombs and how to kill, maybe READING would be less destructive??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ien
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: Netherlands
Registered: April 2002
Messages: 81
|
|
|
I read 1 and am reading 4 but then there's only one banned book overhere. Tho I'm pretty sure it's no big problem to get it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
by public libraries and/or school systems usually as a result of right wing extremists who are generally religeous fundamentalists. They claim that they don't want their "children" to be exposed to such things and they can get away with it because public money is being used to purchase the books. The books are easy to obtain if you have the money to purchase them for yourself at a local bookstore.
While I haven't read any of the books on this year's top ten list, I have read several that have often been banned over the years. "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Grapes of Wrath" are two that I was assigned to read in high school that have been banned in some places.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
Banned literally means removed from shelves, censored, forbidden to be read, and sometimes burned.
Apparently, a formal, written complaint is filed (usually by a parent) with a school or public library. These complaints are called 'challenges'. It all depends on the community.
Of course you can buy any of these from Amazon or at Barnes & Noble.
Ackkk,Kevin. Did you see that Stephen King says he's not writing anymore? The Stand, It, Salem's Lot......Dang !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's only taken 21 years for that number of challenged books to be halved. Perhaps in another 21 years that number will become 0? Hope springs eternal (but as long as these fascists are allowed to have control over the rest of us, I fear this lunacy will simply continue).
smith has already heard this from me, but this posting by him (along with some mild prodding from our genial board moderator) has prompted me to share it here as well:
For many years now, I have been doing a show at a local non-commercial classical music radio station. I played a goodly helping of excerpts from the “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s (Philosopher's) Stone” soundtrack CD on my show just after it was released (and, by the way, again on Harry’s birthday, this past July 31!). On that first occasion, I prefaced it (unguardedly, perhaps) with some comments. I mentioned how there are those people who seem to have made it their life’s work to keep others from reading the “Harry Potter” books and seeing the movie because they teach children the evils of wizardry and witchcraft. In no uncertain terms, I said they should get a life, telling of the case of this one public library out in Kansas somewhere that had announced a summer reading program for children which had included the “Harry Potter” books, and how pressure from certain groups of those people caused the entire program to be canceled. My diatribe then went on something along these lines: “Now, I’ve read “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s (Philosopher's) Stone”, and I have seen the movie. Perhaps I’m missing something, but to me they are not about wizardry and witchcraft at all; to me, they are really about such things as love, friendship, loyalty, bravery, self-sacrifice; and when things like that are truly thought of as being evil, then we as a race are truly done for.” Anyway, no sooner did I start the music than the phone started ringing off the hook with irate people (all women, by the way) demanding to know how dare I say such things on the radio. One actually said, “You know, I have a lot of Christian friends who would take great exception to what you said.” Now mind you, I never once said “Christian” or “Jesus” or anything even remotely similar, and yet these people were ready to crucify me (as John Lennon would say!). Seriously, though, I question whether these people actually read the book or saw the movie before passing judgment on them (if history is any judge, they probably haven’t; John Steinbeck said he wouldn't mind his books being banned and burned so much if the people doing the banning and burning had actually read them first). Further, I question whether they are truly “Christian”; for if they were, then they would have seen through the “magic” stuff and realize that to condemn it would mean to condemn all those concepts they seem to find “truly evil”. Would that all this energy being wasted on chasing after imagined evil be channeled towards overcoming real evil (such as this very narrow-mindedness which is at the very root of hatred and bigotry)!
What causes me further puzzlement is that these people say there should as little intrusion by the government into the personal lives of the people as possible, and yet these are the very same people who seek to occupy those very government positions where they can wield control over such things as what books the people read, what movies they see, what TV shows they watch, what religion they follow, who they can and can't fall in love with and marry, and on it goes.
I once heard a radio talk show host read a similar list of banned books (this particular list contained 50 titles), and as he mentioned each title, I thought, "Wow! Not only have I read them all, I stll own a copy of every single one of them!" That list also included "Catcher in the Rye" and "Of Mice and Men", along with such others as "Huckleberry Finn", "Lord of the Flies", "The Wizard of Oz", "A Separate Peace", and many more acknowledged classics. Of the books on this list smith is sharing with us, there are (I'm ashamed to say) several I haven't read as yet; but I intend to continue making these people their own worst enemy by making it a point to read every single one of them!
Thanks (again!), smith!
Happy reading to all!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
When my son was about 6 he chose a book from the children's section of our public lending library here in the UK. I forget the name of the book. It is unimportant.
I read it to him as a bedtime story.
As I read, I found that I objected to it's tone and content. It contained a camp, gay rabbit making sexual overtures to all the other cast members. It was not a book that says "It is OK to be gay", it was a book that, in my view as a gay man, attempted to pervert the young into becoming gay. In some cases that may even be possible. It was aimed at a very impressionable age group of about 6 to about 11.
I ofnoshed the book with my son. Since he was at the lower edge of the target age bracket it meant little to him. My wife looked at it and was concerned about it. And on the basis of a family finding it unpleasaningly overtly sexual, it was removed from the library shelves. The librarians read it and agreed wholeheartedly.
Now this is a banned book in our library and in all the libraries in our county. It is not a universal truth that all books should be freely available in libraries. One must have regard to age groups and genuine potential harm.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
timmy, while appreciating the account you gave I disagree with your conclusion. It is wrong to ban books (from libraries, from shops). I see no reason why libraries cannot carry a warning (like cigarettes do), but it is anti-libertarian to ban a book simply because someone thinks that it should not be read. (That would also be true if the whole world thought that it should be banned: I should still have the opportunity of borrowing it and reading it in order to make up my own mind.)
Read John Stuart Mill again "On Liberty":
"The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties , or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warrented, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
Here endeth....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
You have the opportunity to buy it. You are an adult. Dounbtless it could have a place on the shelves in the adult section, except it is a children's book(!) and you could borrow it from there.
BUT, it is not a book you woudl like your 7 year old to read,in the same way that you would not like him or her to read an instruction manual for suicide, dressing it up as a wonderful act (cf Islam and suicide bombers).
My request was for removal from the shelves it was on. Children's shelves. A place were sex per se s not appropraite. It had no valid place in the remainder of the loibrary, so it was removed totally and delisted.
A library is not a place that all sorts of crap may be exhibited.It is a place that runs within the commonly accepted codes that its society asks for
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy!
It's not up to YOU as a parent to decide what other parents are to read to their children by complaining and getting a book banned.
First of all, I do not at all believe it is possible to *make* kids gay. Least of all by reading a book to them, no matter how 'impressionable' they are at a particular age.
Second, you actually FINISHED READING the book to him. So it couldn't possibly have been THAT BAD now could it! Or else you wouldn't have done it, right?
Third, isn't a universal truth SAYS WHO? As soon as a group of people (in this case consisting only of you and your wife it seems) takes it upon themselves to start deciding things for others we're heading towards really muddy waters. People should decide for themselves what they consider appropriate for their OWN children. That book must have been read to, or by other children before you did. Obviously none objected strongly enough to have the book banned. Now that option is closed to them, unless they go to a different library outside your county. You haven't acted like a concerned, responsible citizen, timmy. The words I'd use in this particular case would be quite different.
Lastly: I do think the title's important!  Please try to find out, I'd really like to know more about this camp, gay rabbit...heheh!
-Lenny
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
from schools and public libraries is something that should be taken quite seriously. Not all books are suitable for children, even some that purport to be children's books. However, it should take more than the objections of a a handful of people to have a book banned. The process should be set up to make it very difficult to ban such a book. In public libraries, it should be darn near impossible while the process should be somewhat easier in a school.
Here in the US, they use "community standards." Frequently that means whatever the ultra-religious object to. That is wrong. However, if you find that a large majority of persons object to banning a book from a grade school library because it contains sexual content, then I see nothing wrong with that. That same book may be fine in a high school library where the students are more mature. Parents should be very concerned with what their children are reading as well as other hings they are doing. Parents should exercise some control. But to have a system where a few parents can control what everyone reads is ridiculous.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I submitted my concerns to the librarian, who took it to a meeting to discuss it. My library is a public body run ultimately by those I elect in free and fair elections to govern me. Thus I actually theoretically control my library along with the rest of my electorate.
I may lobby for different rules if I wish, or I may exercise my democratic right to protest, but I MAY complain. Others may complain that the book is not there. Both aspects are valid and are accepted in our society.
Now we get to a complex argument over whetehr (eg) Harry Potter or the Koran should be banned by ruling groups in the areas they control. If we accept that our democratic society is government by consent, and that we elect officers to consent to be governed by them, then this is a genuine risk.
So propose a fair and equitable soultion. This is not a black and white problem (no racial slur intended)
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, hear!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, hear!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith,
Oh my Gosh! (didn't want to be banned) Especially from PUBLIC librarys', we have got to fight against censorship. Even topics we might not like ourselves. This to me, is the definition of freedom. Somthing not really available to us in America (after living in Europe for three years, I have learned that we are NOT the land of the free). At least it should still be a goal.
"To hold free, that speech which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of you lungs, THAT is what it means to speak freely" -unknown-
I will read all ten if possible.
Steven will be back, I think. Though if I had his money, I might never work again either. I have almost all his books. Quite a few left to read.
I just finished "The Sum of all Fears" -Tom Clancy-
Seems relevant today.
Thanks for the list. I will think of it as a buyers guide to books.
You go boy!
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will try to be brief ...
First to 'e'
To know this ban exsists, makes me quite upset. Knowledge, not ignorance, is what makes us free from these issues.
Ashdaw ....
I could agree with you more than I do now.
ien ...
Access is not the issue, public banning is really what we are talking about. Sure, we can go out an buy almost anything, including a bomb. The issue is what "we" say is public domain. That means all of us, not a few. (Please refer to my post "Re: Kevin" about what I think on this)
timmy ....
I am only slightly cross with your insinuation that we could *make* anyone be someone they are not. This view is false, and hurts MANY people in this world now. We should not perpetuate this falshood.
Steve ....
Great post, interesting proposal. Though, resriction is still censorship, access for children is a tough issue for me. I am not sure I am qualifid to make a judgement on that.
Lenny ....
Under "Yes, you did" .... Maybe a bit strong on the condemnation. I agree, but maybe not at that level. timmy has the right as a parent to censor what his kids read, even if I don't agree. He went to far when having a book banned. But, he has the right to complain. The group then went to far, he must shoulder some responsibility in that.
'e' ...
On "The Banning of books" ... You and Ashdaw seem to express my views far better than I could myself. Darn, it's just not fair!
This thread has stirred me up quite a bit.
smith, you've done it again.
Best debate I've seen in a long time. I love it. Thanks to all.
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
"Censorship" in all respects is unforgivable, and should never be tolerated in any society.
I wonder whether the likes of "Harry Potter" and others on smith's list will have made the Vatican's list of forbidden pleasures. It's been years since I cared enough to actually look up the list, but at last count the number of literary and artisitic works that have been so enshrined over the centuries is absolutely mind-boggling.
You stated "Here in the US, they use "community standards." Frequently that means whatever the ultra-religious object to. That is wrong."
I whole-heartedly agree. A sentiment I feel should apply, regardless of which nation-state may be affected. The definition of "community standards" should always consider the religious beliefs of the regulatory society, but never should be exclusively representative of those attitudes alone; nor should those interests ever be allowed legislative power to effect their control.
Here in Ontario Canada, during the very early 1990's, Messrs Falwell, et al, through carrot-and-stick corporate-sponsorship, fellowship and scholarship-funding, direct voter manipulation through the media and outright intimidation at public meetings, attempted to gain control of a number of our urban School Boards.
They very nearly succeeded. Had they been able to have done so, I tremble at the attendant consequences.
I do know that enforced "Daily-prayer", and "Pseudo-christian" societal ethics and standards would have been de rigeur, this notwithstanding the diminishing numbers of "Christian" attendees throughout large numbers of the schools that would have fallen under their jurisdiction.
Our country's Constitution maintains a complete and unfettered separation of Church from State, and this is visibly most important in our educational venues. This separation must be maintained in all "publically-funded" endeavours.
Unfortunately, based on circumstances I witnessed attending a number of the meetings these so-called "Moral Majority" advocates disrupted, this is always going to be close-run battle.
There they stand, holding a cross in one hand, a bible in the other, shouting-down all opposition with their branding all dissenters as infidels and heretics, daring anyone to question the forthrightness of their mission; and, because religion - one of the few remaining "mother-hood" issues in society at large - is at the root of their argument, everyone caves in; it would appear that we as living beings are not pre-disposed to long-term memory of historic religious excess in the recent manner of Apartheid, Salin's and Hitler's ethnic-cleansing, The Mahdi, the Salem Witch Trials, Torquemada, Saladin and other henious historic purges. It is well to remember them, even if only by remote, and we should never again allow their spectre to burden us society with their ilk ever again.
Luckily for us here, the Supreme Court of Canada stepped in forcing the dissolution of their legislative base, and barring them from using publically funded media to spread their litany of hate; but just like all of society's predators they still lie-in-wait, lurking, continuing to spread sickness in almost virus-like proportions. Fortunately I'll be fodder for the maggots whence they next try again, but I do fear for my children and theirs, knowing that they will probably not be strong enough to put them down as was done this last-time around.
Warren C. E. Austin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
When the first Harry Potter book came out, it was nowhere to be found where I live. A teacher that I know quite well read it and asked if she could read it to her class. She was told No.
She gave the book to me and I LOVED it. Everyone became muggles and I became HP. I have read them all and I agree, they are full of companionship, warmth and the friendship of lonely children. The wizardry and magic is just the backdrop for the real story of a lonely boy who finds that he is quite magical
in his own right.
Halloween is a quite dreary holiday around here now. There are no witches displayed. The costume contests can only be famous people or what you want to be when you grow up. No Dracula, with fangs dripping, no Frankenstein, no witches with pointy hats. All the fun stuff. Do they really think I'm gonna go try to suck blood?
Funny, kids can go see Resident Evil and Blade II at the movies (I have). They can play Blood Drayne and Hitman II on Playstation (I have) but they can't read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (I have).
Me ranting again.....Hey Kevin 
smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
WOOHOO....LENNY YOU ROCK DUDE....I AM 1,000,000,000% IN THE SAME CORNOR AS YOU ON THIS ISSSUE...BAN NOTING PARENTS SHOULD MAKE CHOICES FOR THE YOUNGIN'S AND TO CHOSE TO READ SOMETHING OR NOT READ IT TO YOUR KIDDIES IS THE PARENTS CHOICE....BUT TO TAKE THAT CHOICE AWAY FORM OTHER PARENTS IS WRONG WORNG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...
PEACE
TIM...OF USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
I agree with you, Warren, except for your accusing Saladin of religious excesses. He was a goody. Infinitely better than the Crusaders he fought, who were just a bunch of hooligans looking for someone (non-Christian) to beat up in the name of the church. If I meet Saladin in heaven, among the houris (who, me in heaven? me among the houris?), I'll gladly shake his hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of making simplistic this all too complex problem, I return again to what John Steinbeck said about wishing those who banned and burned his books had actually read them before doing so.
Your story about that book, Tim, shows that the problem goes both ways. It seems that not only are there people who demand the removal of books they haven't actually read, but that there are also libraries and similar organizations that will ACCEPT a book without having read it (swayed, as was your son, by an attractive cover and alluring title; and I agree with Lenny, knowing the title and a description of the cover would be most relevant).
Perhaps greater vigilance should be exercised when it comes to books for children, that a book being considered for a children's library (or the children's section in a book store) should first be read by as large and broad-based a committee as possible, and then fully discussed before such an important decision is finally made. The trouble is, though, too many people consider that too much of a bother, and would rather ban a book than read it. I doubt that's something we would want, either.
I find it most telling to read the postings here from people living outside the USA who are astonished that such things actually happen in "the land of the free"; but believe it, it happens here all the time. It is sad but true that the religious right in the USA have been allowed more than what would usually be considered their fair share of influence in such matters; but to challenge them, of course, would mean being branded as "anti-Christ" (and when that happens, there goes the election!).
Now that book, Tim, was obviously a piece of trash, but consider the alternative. Would you really prefer to have some myopic minded right winger decide for you what books you and yours can and can't read? Would you really prefer that your son be forced to purchase his "Harry Potter" (or whatever) books in secret through amazon.com (or whatever) at the same time that they are freely and openly available to others among his peers?
I realize I'm being quite idealistic here; but there are times (like this) where I feel it's all I can be.
Hogwarts Forever!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Firstly, schools and libraries do not remove books from their shelves lightly, there is a great deal of thought about all the same things you have all discussed here.
But in the public forum as far as publically accessable publications are concerned the orginizations tend to opt for a discressionary decision.
This does not mean that the books in question are not available for sale through the common channels of retail businesses.
All it means is that the public and free access to the questionable is no longer made available at that location.
All publications can not be made available to all citizens without reguard to common social mores. Else we would see the raunchiest of porn along side of Peter Rabbit....
And when it comes to the reality of the situation, the books in question are technically not "banned" but are "restricted from access in the public free forum"
The religious zealots that storm through the world preaching intollerance, causing deep rooted bigotry and prejudices toward any group with the presence of mind to have the omitigated gaul to dare to think an origional thought, or live in a way that conflicts with the "Moral Majority" do ban publications for their own purposes. And they DO cause removal of books in libraries, not generally act according to constitutional law, but to their own ends.
Which is a world of difference from total bannishment.
Look to the book burnings at the onset of World War II
There, thousands of books were removed from any and all access, both public and private (It was a criminal offense to hoarde banned books) and piled in town and city squares and doused with gasoline and reduced to ashes.
So, so what if you have to go out and spend a bit of cash to read these books.
I do not like having to go out and find these books and pay for them any more than the rest of you, but I will.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reiterate: hear, hear! Although I do hope you end up being proven wrong as to those fears expressed in that last sentence (in your heart of hearts, I have a feeling you do, too).
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed he has "done it again"! And I cannot help but recall how when he first posted here, smith was afraid he would never have anything of any significance or relevance to contribute. In my humble opinion (and to my knowledge), that was the only time he has ever been in any way wrong about anything.
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
surreal world and kills the first woman she meets. The underage girl then joins forces with three older men and together they set off in search of a particular hated enemy in order to do her in also, causing unrest and mayhem throughout their journey. Sound familiar? No? Then try this, The Wizard of Oz.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Between smith's ranting and Kevin's drum-beating, I should think there's hope for us yet!
Again (again!), smith, you raise an excellent point. In spite of his being raised by an unloving aunt and uncle (not to mention that spoiled brat son of theirs!), Harry Potter never lost any of his innate sensitivity and caring nature. One of my particular favorite scenes in the movie (which was not in the book) comes just after the Sorting Hat ceremony: all of Hogwarts is asleep, except for Harry, who sits by his dorm window, Hedwig perched there with him, the light from the moon hitting his face, which itself shines with quiet gratitude: after a life of loneliness, hatred and rejection, he has finally found friendship, love and acceptance.
To the Muggles of this world, however, life isn't supposed to be fun (in fact, have you ever seen one who looked like he was having fun?). To them, it is good to be a hateful Muggle, but evil to be a loving Wizard. Like I said before, if that ever does become the prevalent attitude, then we are truly done for. However, in spite of it all, I shall try to go on being optimistic.
Please pass the Bertie Bott's!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
Thank you; although I probably knew, when I wrote his name, that I in fact did not mean to refer to Saladin, but wished to have all consider the Ottoman Khilafah Sultan Mehmet II (AD 1453) and his siege of Constantinople which ultimately led to the creation of the Janissaries. I had never intended to refer to a period in time pre-dating the on-set of the early middle-ages. I figured the consideration of 600 - 700 years of atrocities should be enough.
Warren C. E. Austin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First to Ron .....
To be grouped with smith may be one of the greatest compliments I could have ever hoped for. Thanks to both of you.
charlie ...
Cool point, any book can be said to be evil. We need to broaden our horizons, not narrow them. I will get to Marc later. hehe
Warren C.E. Austin ....
Exactly! What more can I say but that we must be vigilant to keep freedoms from those who would decide for us what is right and wrong.
timmy and Ron ...
On "Well I do not govern the library"
Yes this issue goes both ways. But the alternative should be parental involvement. Did we learn nothing from the story of the father and son playing with 'Diablo'? I believe, timmy, you should have been focused more on what else your son read, and left that book to the parents of the other children.
This is quite a sticky part of the issue, but quite imperative. Pornography for instance, should not be given to children. Age restriction, OK. Banning is just plain wrong. Knowledge is power, empower yourself by reading THEN deciding.
again to smith ...
You? Not relevant? Not significant? GEEZ!
Your my hero for cryin out loud! What a debate!
Ron ...
Thanks again for lumping me in with smith.
Marc ......
I must disaree with you on this, totally. What is in the public domain IS the issue. Consider the poor. I know this is an extreme example.
But, not to contest what "We" of "We, the people", and that means all of us, think should be banned from the public domain, takes freedom away from us all.
Should not the least of us have a voice? Will we not someday be judged on how "We" treat the least of us?
Again, age restriction, OK. Censorship, sorry, in the words of Hall and Oats...
'I can't go for that, no, no can do' hehe
I respect your right to your view though.
Kevin
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
Whilst I fervently hope that I'm wrong, I do truly suspect that next time around they will prevail.
The "Judeo-Christian" cultural base of Canadian society has shifted dramatically in the past half-century, with hitherto typical "white, english- or french-speaking, nominally Christian" citizens comprising less tha 30 % of our population, whereas it was more like 70% at the close of the Second World War.
The largest single mother-tongue language demographic now is probably a combined Mandarin/Cantonese/Han/Hakkla/Wu/Min, followed closely by Urdu/Punjabi/Hindi/Gujarati/Hyderbadi, Arabic/Farsi; all trailed substantially any other language other than English or French.
This has not been a bad thing, in of itself, but it has caused major difficulties with the current revisionist rewrite of our history, which largely ignores anthing pre-dating the Balfour Declaration of 1947 which granted Dominion to Canadians over their own External-affaires, and provided for our truly becoming a country in the eyes of the rest of the world. The so-called "re-patration" of our Constitution in the 1970's (you can't patriate something that never resided here in the first place) was an attempt to provide an identity to all "new" Canadians who were emerging as the largest single voting block, none of whom had any inherent historic allegence to the Crown, and most of whom vehemently objected to having to declare one. Of course, this was notwithstanding, it was largely because of the societal base of those that did have this allegence, that they all wanted to emigrate here, and benefit from the balance that allegence had rughtly provided for more than two-centuries.
When you add into this mix, the influence of Madison Avenue and the Media the seers who practice there ultimately control through their advertizing revenues, our election process went down the toilet. Before 1967, most politicians, and civil servants elected public service as a vocation because they truly desired to serve. This changed with the emergence of influence peddling and government by poll, and we've consequently never been the same. I can rember a time one voted for the guy you knew you could get out of bed a four o'clock in the morning (regardless of his party affiliation) when disaster had befallen you, and he would pitch in to help; not any more. Now everything is strictly a mirror of the bastardized American political machine, with the results largely predetermined before hand, and as a consequence voter apathy is at an all time high. No-one enters politcs any more to serve, but solely for what they can get out of it, be it their indexed pension or corporate pay-offs. Sad really; but we have made our bed and we now have to lie in it.
That is why I suspect that "they" will ultimately triumph. There are too many other specialinterest groups, all with their own agendas, none of them having any vested interest in the common good.
Warren C. E. Austin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
Charlie
I haven't laughed so hard in a very long, long, time.
I can just picture Mr Baum simply shuddering at thoughts of youe rather existential, but essentially correct précis of his tale.
Warren C. E. Austin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My work to improve whatever little corner of the world I can, just cannot be for nothing. If everyone felt that way we would not have a chance. I need to believe that I can help, even if it's just a little. I work to elect those who support social issues that I believe in. I write, call, and try to voice opinions that I think are important.
Please, I need to believe that even the discussion we have here, might help in the most microscopic way. I think it all helps. Maybe not much, but it helps.
It's all the hope for the world that I cling to.
Kevin the dreamer
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I replied before and added a few books that my Dad had tol dme about. I dont know about outright banning books but, kids ARE impressionable and saying a book is OK means to a kid that the parent endorses what is in it for them to read.
People DO NOT know about morality from birth, it is taught. Kids see so much nasty stuff these days on TV, video (DVD) and computer screens that books will be seen as TAME. I love books and I can use my imagination but, unfortunately that isnt a wide spread thought today. We have top be careful not to stand on ppls toes or inhibit their personal freedoms or???
While I dont think Banning books is a GREAT thing, banning them by AGE group is REALLY necessary until kids can more fully understand the adult world they are growing into.
Just a view from a not long ago "kid"
People have a habit of changing your direction through life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
Okay, I'm still stuck on timmy's example.
It is an unusual case, admittedly, but it is NOT practical to preview every book your children reads. Yes, I read every HP book to and/or with my kids, and try to be involved, but they are free to check out books from their school's library without my knowledge or consent. Likewise, when I'm at the library with them, I have a reasonable expectation that they can "safely" look through the children's section and find something to read with little or no supervision. I can and should expect that they won't learn how to make bombs, kill, the details of sex, etc.
So, I guess someone has to make the decision about if a book is appropriate for the audience that will have access to it. I guess that's not unlike the "Restricted Section" at Hogwart's - there are safety issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
and i also considered the fact that the world needs ditch diggers as well.
If the poor want something badly enough then there are jobs out there by which they can earn the money to get what they need.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
smith ,Stomping His Feet 
smith, I have a few qeustions .... 
Kevin 
Thank you, Lenny, for making my point better than I did myself! 
Censoring What I Read 
must be those clouds in my eyes 
