It would be a good laugh if it weren't kinda scary.
So, for your laughing/creep-out pleasure, I present to you some of my
Lame, Dumb, and Craaaazy Reasons for Banning Books*
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll -- Banned in China in the 30s for portraying animals and humans on the same level, because "Animals should not use human language."
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl -- Challenged in Wise County, Va. (1982) for "sexually offensive passages; called for rejection by 4 members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) for being a "real downer."
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown -- Removed in Wild Rose, Wisconsin (1974) for being "slanted," whatever that means; the same official said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?" Why not, indeed.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl -- I mentioned this one before; it's just so ridiculous: it "espouses a poor philosophy of life," according to the Boulder, Colorado Public Library (1988)
The Color Purple, Alice Walker -- Challenged as appropriate reading material by an Oakland, Califnornia, High School honors class because of its "troubling ideas about race relations, man's relationship to God, African history, and human sexuality." Because we wouldn't want people to question things...
A Doll's House, Henrik Ibsen -- Again, 4 members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) called for the rejection of this classic, ground-breaking play because it "propagates feminist views."
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury -- this is frequently challenged, and anexpurgated copy (with the "damn"s and "hell"s blacked out) was used in Venado Middle School, Irvine California (1992). I find it ironic when a book about censorship is censored.
The Graphic Works of MC Esher -- Called "pornographic, perverted, and morbid" by Maldonado Elementary School in Tuscon, Arizona (1994).
A Light in the Attic, Shel Silverstein -- I mentioned this one previously, too. It "encourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them"(Cunningham Elementary School in Beloit, Wis., 1985); it contrains "suggestive illustrations" (Minot, N.D. public schools); and it "glorified Satan, suicide and cannibalism, and also encouraged children to be disobedient" (Big Bend Elementary School, Mukwonago, Wis., 1986).
The Lorax, Dr. Seuss -- Again, mentioned in the "The Children!!!" post, this was challenged by the Laytonville, California Unified School District in 1989 because it "criminalizes the foresting industry."
Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut -- Challenged in Owensboro, Kentucky (1985) because of "foul language, a reference to 'Magic Fingers' attached to the protagonist's bed to help him sleep, and the sentence: 'The gun made a ripping sound like the opening of the fly on God Almighty.'"
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee -- Challenged in he Warren, Indiana township schools (1981) because it "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of 'good literature.'" Because you come away from the book thinking racism is a good thing? I must have missed that somehow.
Where the Sidewalk Ends, Shel Silverstein -- Challenged in Pennsylvania because of the poem "Dreadful," which talks about how "someone ate the baby" (Central Columbia SD, Bloomburg, Pa., 1986) and it apparently "suggests drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for legitimate authority, [and] rebellion against parents" (West Allis-West Milwaukee, Wis. school libraries, 1993).
A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle -- Challenged in Anniston, Alabama (1990) because the books lists the name of Jesus Christ with the names of greta artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders when referring to those who defend the earth against evil. Janet Yanosko, creater of The Forbidden Library list said it best: "Got it. Let's cross Jesus off that list, shall we?"
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl -- Challenged in Wise County, Va. (1982) for "sexually offensive passages; called for rejection by 4 members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) for being a "real downer."
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Dee Brown -- Removed in Wild Rose, Wisconsin (1974) for being "slanted," whatever that means; the same official said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?" Why not, indeed.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl -- I mentioned this one before; it's just so ridiculous: it "espouses a poor philosophy of life," according to the Boulder, Colorado Public Library (1988)
The Color Purple, Alice Walker -- Challenged as appropriate reading material by an Oakland, Califnornia, High School honors class because of its "troubling ideas about race relations, man's relationship to God, African history, and human sexuality." Because we wouldn't want people to question things...
A Doll's House, Henrik Ibsen -- Again, 4 members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) called for the rejection of this classic, ground-breaking play because it "propagates feminist views."
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury -- this is frequently challenged, and anexpurgated copy (with the "damn"s and "hell"s blacked out) was used in Venado Middle School, Irvine California (1992). I find it ironic when a book about censorship is censored.
The Graphic Works of MC Esher -- Called "pornographic, perverted, and morbid" by Maldonado Elementary School in Tuscon, Arizona (1994).
A Light in the Attic, Shel Silverstein -- I mentioned this one previously, too. It "encourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them"(Cunningham Elementary School in Beloit, Wis., 1985); it contrains "suggestive illustrations" (Minot, N.D. public schools); and it "glorified Satan, suicide and cannibalism, and also encouraged children to be disobedient" (Big Bend Elementary School, Mukwonago, Wis., 1986).
The Lorax, Dr. Seuss -- Again, mentioned in the "The Children!!!" post, this was challenged by the Laytonville, California Unified School District in 1989 because it "criminalizes the foresting industry."
Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut -- Challenged in Owensboro, Kentucky (1985) because of "foul language, a reference to 'Magic Fingers' attached to the protagonist's bed to help him sleep, and the sentence: 'The gun made a ripping sound like the opening of the fly on God Almighty.'"
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee -- Challenged in he Warren, Indiana township schools (1981) because it "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of 'good literature.'" Because you come away from the book thinking racism is a good thing? I must have missed that somehow.
Where the Sidewalk Ends, Shel Silverstein -- Challenged in Pennsylvania because of the poem "Dreadful," which talks about how "someone ate the baby" (Central Columbia SD, Bloomburg, Pa., 1986) and it apparently "suggests drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for legitimate authority, [and] rebellion against parents" (West Allis-West Milwaukee, Wis. school libraries, 1993).
A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle -- Challenged in Anniston, Alabama (1990) because the books lists the name of Jesus Christ with the names of greta artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders when referring to those who defend the earth against evil. Janet Yanosko, creater of The Forbidden Library list said it best: "Got it. Let's cross Jesus off that list, shall we?"
For a little good time fun, let's play a little game. Pick a book you are reading now or have read recently, and come up with some ridiculous but plausible reason that it would be banned. +5 points in my Helluva Halloween contest for each you come up with...
*from Janet Yanosko's Forbidden Library list. I would give you a link, but the list has all but disappeared, and where it still appears it is altered. What happened, Janet?
I just started reading my current read (Wondrous Strange), so I'm not sure yet what would be offensive.
ReplyDeleteBut the last one I read (Reincarnation by Suzanne Weyn) is probably ripe for censorship. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already been challenged somewhere, simply because of the subject matter. Oh, and because Jesus supported the idea of reincarnation in the book.
People leaning toward censorship could have a field day with that one!
"because Jesus supported the idea of reincarnation in the book."
ReplyDeleteThat was all you had to say.
Ooh this one is toooooo easy.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading a YA novel called Wicked (Witch & Curse)
I can see it banned for lewdness and sexuality
Promotion of pagan/wiccan beliefs
Touches on satanism, so it promotes devil worship with children
There are birds/cats that act as familiars - so I can see it might make people rethink the values of the SPCA
Animal sacrifices are talked about - so it might start riots at the Zoo
The have a lot of fire - so it might promote pyromania
and some people drown in the book, so it might cause people to spontaneously become aquaphobic
Good ones, Parajunkee! I especially like the pyromania and wiccan.pagan beliefs
ReplyDeleteAnd then they were none because a doctor makes fun of women and their nerves.
ReplyDeleteWow, some of these reasons are absolutely ridiculous!
ReplyDelete"Elric: Stealer of Souls" by Michael Moorcock should DEFINITELY began because it talks of false idols and they worship false gods.
Banning books is seriously ridiculous!
GREAT post. Makes me want to read them all. And I should.
ReplyDeleteYou wanna hear another dumb reason for banning a book? The Giver by Lois Lowry (which is awesome, BTW) was banned in some podunk town for being, "Negative. Kids should only read things that are possitive." They claimed to have read the book and found nothing educational in the content. I must have the book wrong book... o_O
ReplyDeleteI think Strange Angels could catch some flack for dropping the F-bomb so much, and because Dru called Graves a "half-breed" because he's Chinese American. That actually kinda grated on me, I must admit.