Banned Books Week
Aug. 29th, 2008 12:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vcmwBanned Books Week is coming up. Boy, if there was EVER a holiday I had mixed feelings about.
I think this Unshelved cartoon does a good job of encapsulating my response.
Basically, I think that the intent of Banned Books Week is to present books that almost everyone would identify as acceptable, point out the (hopefully trivial or bizarre or offensive to modern ears) reasons that the books were banned, and thus to encourage all people to question whether the reasons they might have for banning books won't seem similarly trivial in the future.
Or something.
But it's an incredibly divisive day because, let's face it, most of the banned books highlighted were banned by conservatives and championed by liberals, and the holiday in effect comes across to many as a smug message from a (perceived liberal whatever) to a (perceived oppressed conservative whatever): We get to keep it, na-na-na-na-na.
Me? I am all about the freedom of speech. Honestly. I want libraries to have every kind of book. But that "have every kind of book" argument is in direct conflict with a conservative position that would like us to have only certain kinds of books. Good books. Tasteful books. Moral books. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say: I feel comforted and sheltered by knowing that there are books for the GLBTQ teen in my library, I feel respected when I know that there are books about Wiccan and other pagan practices in my library. But I do know there are readers who feel differently: they feel threatened by books for GLBTQ youth, and think that pagan books tempt others to damnation.
Now, there are different kinds of conservative readers. There are the conservative readers who come in, choose the books that please them, ignore as best they can the books that offend them, and leave. Then there are the conservative readers who want to get rid of all the books that they disapprove of. There are conservative librarians too - I hear stories at conferences and meetings about librarians who sat on the Joy of Sex so no one would ever find it to check it out, librarians who locked away radical African-American novels and would only check them out to white patrons for fear of radicalizing African-American readers with Native Son and The Souls of Black Folk.
Knowledge is power. The fact that a certain book is on the shelves of the public library does change the emotional experience of the person who sees that book. When we fight to include books on issues that matter to us, we are challenging a deeply held belief on the part of others who want to exclude that book. We are doing it because we want a world of rational discourse, a world of communication between viewpoints, a world where ideas are heard and shared and challenged and discussed.
When others try to ban a book, they are acting out of beliefs held just as deeply. Knowledge is power. Access to knowledge matters. I believe that the highest minded of the people who try to ban books act out of an honestly felt protective spirit. Ideas are powerful. They shake our worlds. I think everyone who reads widely has sat down at some point with a book or essay and thought, "I wish this repulsive idea had never seen print." Similarly, I think everyone who reads widely has sat down at some point with a book or essay and thought, "this idea has made my world better."
The pearl at the heart of Banned Books Week is that our experience as readers and feelers and thinkers is so various that we never know how any given sentence or work will strike someone. A person might read a hateful speech, feel it strike a chord in a part of them that questions, experience revulsion, and resolve to be a less judgemental person. Somene might read a biography of a person who fits labels they despise, but feel moved to understand more of our common humanity through recognizing the everyday details of life in that person's history. The dialog of text and reader is rich and strange.
So I do celebrate some of the ideals that Banned Books Week represents. I just wish that a) the holiday felt less didactic, and b) more of an effort was made to include conservative perspectives.
Maybe instead of a "Banned Books Week" that dealt with national or historical issues, some kind of community dialog day on books that have troubled them? Books that some members of the community have found rewarding and other members of the community have struggled with? Or a read-across-group-lines day, where reading groups from widely different walks of life challenged each other to read books selected by other groups? Like, a more conservative church reading group would read a book selected by a more secular reading group and vice versa and then meet to discuss it? Or perhaps two very different groups would agree to read the same book and discuss it. I think something like that would better serve the purpose of highlighting the different needs and responses we all bring to books.
I think this Unshelved cartoon does a good job of encapsulating my response.
Basically, I think that the intent of Banned Books Week is to present books that almost everyone would identify as acceptable, point out the (hopefully trivial or bizarre or offensive to modern ears) reasons that the books were banned, and thus to encourage all people to question whether the reasons they might have for banning books won't seem similarly trivial in the future.
Or something.
But it's an incredibly divisive day because, let's face it, most of the banned books highlighted were banned by conservatives and championed by liberals, and the holiday in effect comes across to many as a smug message from a (perceived liberal whatever) to a (perceived oppressed conservative whatever): We get to keep it, na-na-na-na-na.
Me? I am all about the freedom of speech. Honestly. I want libraries to have every kind of book. But that "have every kind of book" argument is in direct conflict with a conservative position that would like us to have only certain kinds of books. Good books. Tasteful books. Moral books. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say: I feel comforted and sheltered by knowing that there are books for the GLBTQ teen in my library, I feel respected when I know that there are books about Wiccan and other pagan practices in my library. But I do know there are readers who feel differently: they feel threatened by books for GLBTQ youth, and think that pagan books tempt others to damnation.
Now, there are different kinds of conservative readers. There are the conservative readers who come in, choose the books that please them, ignore as best they can the books that offend them, and leave. Then there are the conservative readers who want to get rid of all the books that they disapprove of. There are conservative librarians too - I hear stories at conferences and meetings about librarians who sat on the Joy of Sex so no one would ever find it to check it out, librarians who locked away radical African-American novels and would only check them out to white patrons for fear of radicalizing African-American readers with Native Son and The Souls of Black Folk.
Knowledge is power. The fact that a certain book is on the shelves of the public library does change the emotional experience of the person who sees that book. When we fight to include books on issues that matter to us, we are challenging a deeply held belief on the part of others who want to exclude that book. We are doing it because we want a world of rational discourse, a world of communication between viewpoints, a world where ideas are heard and shared and challenged and discussed.
When others try to ban a book, they are acting out of beliefs held just as deeply. Knowledge is power. Access to knowledge matters. I believe that the highest minded of the people who try to ban books act out of an honestly felt protective spirit. Ideas are powerful. They shake our worlds. I think everyone who reads widely has sat down at some point with a book or essay and thought, "I wish this repulsive idea had never seen print." Similarly, I think everyone who reads widely has sat down at some point with a book or essay and thought, "this idea has made my world better."
The pearl at the heart of Banned Books Week is that our experience as readers and feelers and thinkers is so various that we never know how any given sentence or work will strike someone. A person might read a hateful speech, feel it strike a chord in a part of them that questions, experience revulsion, and resolve to be a less judgemental person. Somene might read a biography of a person who fits labels they despise, but feel moved to understand more of our common humanity through recognizing the everyday details of life in that person's history. The dialog of text and reader is rich and strange.
So I do celebrate some of the ideals that Banned Books Week represents. I just wish that a) the holiday felt less didactic, and b) more of an effort was made to include conservative perspectives.
Maybe instead of a "Banned Books Week" that dealt with national or historical issues, some kind of community dialog day on books that have troubled them? Books that some members of the community have found rewarding and other members of the community have struggled with? Or a read-across-group-lines day, where reading groups from widely different walks of life challenged each other to read books selected by other groups? Like, a more conservative church reading group would read a book selected by a more secular reading group and vice versa and then meet to discuss it? Or perhaps two very different groups would agree to read the same book and discuss it. I think something like that would better serve the purpose of highlighting the different needs and responses we all bring to books.
