The American Library Association's Banned Books is held every year the last week of September. Like most years, it came and went without my noticing. When I worked within walking distance of a bookstore and had a friend who worked in that bookstore, it didn't escape my notice because the posters would be up in the store and the past year's banned and challenged books would be taped to the counter for all to read while making their purchases. And every year I was surprised to see something I'd read, blissfully unaware I wasn't supposed to. But since I now do most my book shopping online, I miss those reminders.
For the record, I think the only censorship or banning of books that should be engaged in is in what one bans from their own personal library. Or if you are a parent, you have the right to say what don't want your children to read due to the values you wish to instill in them. Those are private matters. But no one else has a right to tell you or me we "can't" or "shan't" read something, nor do we have the right to say so to anyone else.
Thanks to the ALA, most books that are challenged are prevented from being outright banned. There are many books which I personally find distasteful or simply a waste of trees. But I dislike the notion of telling people they cannot or should not protest, even if they are protesting my own favorites. They have the same right to their opinions as I have to mine or the authors have to theirs. I often disagree with their conclusions, but they still have the right to those conclusions. My disagreement with them does not equate with me thinking they are "uneducated", "unenlightened", "bigoted", "evil" or anything else they are generally called by those who think that their freedom of expression trumps everyone else's.
On the flip side, I believe that genuine concerns, such as "inappropriate for the targeted age group", "anti-religion", "anti-establishment", "hate speech", "unduly violent", or any number of other reasons which affect not just one's own family but potentially the greater community -- I believe those things can and should be brought to attention. Whether I see it the same way or not is moot -- anything that affects other members of the community ultimately affects me as well.
Challenging ideals contrary to your own is itself the free expression of an ideal -- and should not be denied. The First Amendment which gives people the right to express ideals considered by some or even most individuals as unorthodox, controversial or just plain wrong -- that same amendment guarantees another person's right to say that ideal is unorthodox, controversial or just plain wrong
"I read banned books!" is often the rallying cry of those who participate in Banned Books Week. And I support the right to display and promote the use of bumper stickers and posters and tee shirts proclaiming that message. But I won't sport the slogan myself. I have read a number of banned books -- some before I was aware they were challenged or banned and some after -- but always because I wanted to read them, not simply because they were banned and I had "the right to". That's silly. There are so many books I want to read, and a limited amount of time in which to read them, that I'm not going to waste my time reading something I have no interest in simply because someone said I cannot or should not. Nor will I read something that I already know I disagree with just to tick off someone who doesn't want to read it for the same reasons I don't. That is equally silly. (Don't get me wrong -- people have the right to be silly, if they so chose.)
Some of those challenged and banned books I have read I didn't care for, although for different reasons than the official ones. But as far as I know, no one ever tried to remove a book from a school or public library because it was tedious or pedantic. Other books I hadn't even heard of until their challenged status landed them in the news. I must confess that there's a part of me that hopes if I am ever a published author, someone will take umbrage at my work for one reason or another, so I can benefit from the free publicity.
The crux of the matter is this. I applaud the efforts of the ALA to protect my intellectual freedom. But I don't think society is on the brink of destruction because someone is protesting a book. On the contrary, I will be far more worried for society when people stop protesting. Because contrary to popular belief, "everything goes" is the most false of ideas. There is no intellectual freedom without intellectual thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment