Mixie - it wasn’t hamsters. There was trouble afoot and it just happened to spill into here. In other words, nobody saw nothing.
I wonder if anyone ever told these folks that Madeleine L’Engle was a devout Episcopalian whose works, I think, do a wonderful job of showing her faith.
I also remember a court case back when I was in college when a woman objected to the local school district’s teaching The Diary of Anne Frank because it promoted tolerance of other religions. She argued that doing so infringed upon her right to freedom of religion.
On the other hand, the Forbidden Library website does make it clear that American Christians don’t have a monopoly on banning books for senseless reasons. Check out The Satanic Verses, Arabian Nights, or Analects for openers.
You know, some good, old fashioned pornography is starting to sound good right now. Anyone for Shakespeare, including references to “country” matters? 
CJ
How about high school juniors in an American literature class? Many, including Ernest Hemingway, considered Huckleberry Fynn to be “the great American novel.” But in the twenty years that I taught American lit, I was not allowed to teach it. It was on the banned list.
One of the saddest book banning efforts was for The Diary of Anne Frank. The reason? “It teaches religious tolerance.”
As a whole I have found that “the Right” and “the Left” don’t try to ban books. Elements of the Right, usually Christian fundamentalists, try to ban books – including classics. There are also elements within the Left that want certain books banned but that doesn’t happen very often and, generally, not to classics. Huckleberry Finn was an exception, but much of the Left was against the banning of that book.
In general, textbook companies are more sensitive to multicultural issues and women’s issues than they were thirty years ago and there is not as great a need for protest.
Just my opinion based of my experience, but I’m open to updates!
1984 was challenged as pro-communist? Wow, I guess all that damage in Florida was caused by the hurricanes, it was the enormous Whooooosh that blew everything away.
Baker, I think one of my college TAs used the “reverse psychology” method on us once. We were studying The Decameron, and on our Christmas break study list it said “read blah, blah, blah and blah, but do NOT read Day 3, story 10.” Needless to say, we all knew what “putting the Devil into Hell” meant when we came back from break.
err… “wasn’t caused by the hurricanes”
Daggumm! Really!
OK, in fairness to all, Orwell was really a disillusioned Socialist who was against the totalitarian aspects of communism but still took a less-than-right-wing posture on issues.
:smack: 
Sublight, if that was indeed the TAs underhanded method, I say s/he rules. AND was a little bent 
(I got my hands on my mother’s copy of the Decameron when I was a teen and boy, did that give me an appreciation for the classics! – and believe you me I did not need the dictionary to figure out that “they did happily do much dallying” could be summed up as “they f***ed”. Mom had been going to night school for her degree when I was an infant, and kept ALL her books from Freshman until Grad School, at home, in an easily accessible place. Talk about a fortunate child…)
Escher’s Mosaic I and II depict nude figures. I’ll bet it was Mosaic I that was the source of the objections. Judge for yourself.
Hm. Bren_Cameron, thanks for the reply. While I think the vampires = sex symbol thing doesn’t really work, I can see where the guys are coming from a bit more now. (Not that this means I agree with them or anything… I was a teenager looking for any subtext whatsoever to spice up that book, and never noticed a thing. On the other hand, I’m not known for being too quick on the uptake about stuff like that.) And BrotherCadfael, many thanks for the book reccomendation, though my mom works at the libary and I don’t know if I could take her thinking I’m reading Stephen King… But I’ll keep my eyes open.
Mars-You may think the vampires=sex thing doesn’t really work, but you have to realize you’re trying to understand people (the protestors) who are looking for naughty stuff in every little thing.
I don’t agree with them either–that it should be banned, I mean. As for the vampire/sex thing, not only are the people in on this banning thing looking for reasons to object, as GMRyujin points out, but it only works from a particular viewpoint. If you start off with the premise that feminine virtue (and a particular kind of feminine virtue, at that) is essential for the proper functioning of society, and uncontrolled female sexuality threatens to destroy that, the vampires=sex thing makes lots of sense.
When I first read it, I was an impressionable teenager myself, and saw nothing but a vampire story. Later, though, after a better acquaintance with Victorian literature than just the Sherlock Holmes stories, I had occasion to read the passage where Vlad forces Mina to drink his blood, and I realized how unlike other “proper” Victorian stuff it was. From today’s point of view it’s extremely tame, but when it was written I can’t imagine it was received as “just a vampire story.” Of course, this says something about the modern folks who are quick to ban it because they see sex in it…
Aren’t we missing the big point? I mean, c’mon, they want to ban Where’s Waldo? IMHO, Waldo is the least offensive book I’ve ever seen. Anyone have any idea why they want to get rid of it?
On the page of 'Where’s Waldo set on a beach, there’s a woman sunbathing topless. I’ve just referred to my copy of the book, and she’s on the right-hand page, toward the right side, about 2/3 of the way toward the top of the beach.
She’s lying on her stomach but leaning up. You can see one breast, and a dot for a nipple. Frankly, it’s not all that shocking.
Children couldn’t be corrupted by vampires=sex, because as they understand it, vampires=vampires. And if they’re old enough to realize it, they’re old enough to not be corrupted.
[bFreiheit**, you’re making the mistake of using common sense and logic. The banners are using hysterical emotion and, like I said, looking for hidden meaning in ANYTHING.
…and then amongst the literary greats in the Forbiden Library we can also find: Clan of the Cave Bear, Challenged, but retained…despite objections that it contains “hardcore graphic sexual content”.
What happened to the challenge that it should be removed from a recommended reading list on the ground that it is unadulterated dreck?
(Not to say that it should be banned… but actually “recommended”?) 
On the other hand… Twelfth Night, Removed… because of a policy that bans instruction which has “the effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.”
Twelfth Night? Homosexuality? Did we read different plays?
(Cross dressing by the heroine to protect her virtue, and some mistaken gender identity on the part of Olivia, sure… but what were they objecting to?)
Well, maybe I’m already corrupted, but I just read Dracula for a college class and the sexual subtext was very nearly text. And it wasn’t just Drac’s exploits either…after all, all 4 men “filled” Lucy withtheir blood, and it was linked to marriage/sex more than once in the text itself.
Of course, I agree that you already have to be fairly corrupted if you catch the subtext in Dracula, which means, it’s too late to ban it…
Well, at least now I see why some people might be offended, although I think “pornographic” is still far to strong a word for Mosaic I.
This is true, however I find myself nearly as irked when a book is challenged for a stupid reason as when one is banned (for any reason). I also think that kids are much more perceptive than is generally believed.
It weirds me out that someone actually noticed this in the first place. I can barely find Waldo in that crazy book.
Heh, I remember the whole class bursting into giggles while reading the first few pages of Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade and then stopping to explain all the jokes to the few kids too slow to understand them.
They censored Farenheit 451?
Excuse me while I sit in stunned amazement for several moments.
Then photocopy the page of my dictionary that has the definition of ‘irony’ on it, and send it to those folks.
Oh, Le Morte D’Arthur was challenged for being ‘junk’. Good reason as any, I guess.
There was a parent of a student in my sophomore english class who wanted us not to read All Quiet on the Western Front, because it depicts the German WWI soldiers as real people. Oddly enough, I kind of thought that was the point of having us read it. :rolleyes:
Go read it again, or watch the Trevor Nunn movie, which did a fair job of playing up some of the gayer elements. ‘Twelfth Night’ is one of the sources that people point to when arguing that Shakespeare was gay.
It’s pretty clearly implied that Sebastian is in love with Viola’s brother. He as much as says so when he follows him into a potentially dangerous situation just so they won’t be separated.
Orsino begins to fall in love with Viola long before he finds out that she’s a girl- that’s why he’s so relieved and happy to propose to her the second he finds out she isn’t a boy, and while she’s still in disguise.
Mind you, it’s a good play, and I think it’s ridiculous to ban it. But it does have a gay subtext so close to the surface it’s practically text.
Oh well I must be a bit dense. I’ve seen the Trevor Nunn version a couple of times (particularly memorable for Ben Kingsley’s excellent Feste, and Nigel Hawthorne’s Malvolio) and I’d never picked up the subtext.
Though, if people use this to argue that Shakespeare was gay because some of his characters might have been, then either they are seeing what they want to see, or there are an awful lot of modern authors “in the closet”.
Ah yes, as lampooned in Blackadder Bells. But if Orsino is relieved to find that Viola is a girl, it is hard to see how the play would meet the banning criterion of showing a homosexual relationship as OK… never mind, I keep forgetting that we’re not talking about rational and critical people here who would carefully weigh the nuances of the work before demanding it be burnt.
First time I saw it as a play was as a high school production, being put on by the “sister” school to the all boys high school I attended. So the entire cast was female… some then dressed as male for male roles, and Viola of course disguised as male.
(Bit of a reverse of the original – where the part of Viola would have been played by a boy, dressed as a girl and then disguised as a boy).
It added a nice additional touch of farce to the whole thing.