My thoughts on the matter of banned books haven't changed much since I posted about it a couple years ago. I don't like it. But the same freedom of speech that gives people the right to write and speak the things I find offensive gives me the right to object. Sometimes those standing up for freedom of speech and freedom to write whatever they want forget that.
Banned Books Week is a bit of a misnomer anyway, and has been for years. Books are very seldom pulled from shelves. Yes, they are often challenged, and sometimes by people who are acting from what they think they heard from someone who heard from someone else who read the back cover of the book ten years ago - rather than read the book themselves - but that's a different animal. It's short sighted, but it's not inherently evil of them, nor inherently stupid, unenlightened and uncivilized of them, as those who challenge books are generally portrayed. Generally, they are objecting because they have beliefs every bit as strong as those who write the things they object to. And that's wrong? I think not. It's wrong to say "You can't write that, you can't think that, you can't publish that." But you know what? The vast majority of the challenges every year are simply people - usually parents, vile creatures that parents tend to be - saying, "I don't want my child to read that. I don't want them to be forced to read that." But under the guise of protecting free speech, people come along and say, "How dare you object! Get with the program and think the way we do!" Poppycock. (Whoops, I shouldn't have written that - anyone who knows the literal translation of that word will surely be offended and have my blog banned!)
Too many people are interested in freedom of speech only if it's their own speech that's free. Everyone else is wrong. I am glad the American Library Association fights for freedom of speech. I hope they do for many years to come. But I get annoyed when snide remarks are made about not the challenges to the books themselves, but rather the challengers. In doing so, they are - intentionally or unintentionally a moot point - denying the right to object. I find that every bit as scary as having some of my favorite reads some day become unavailable. It's the exact same narrow minded thinking which leads to challenging and banning in the first place.
The very fact that challenges continue to happen tell me our freedoms are still vibrantly healthy. Nobody is disappearing following their speaking out and the populace is not being told they never existed in the first place, as in George Orwell's 1984. No one is having their homes raided and all their books burned by the Firemen, like in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I think I can understand why people are afraid of the slippery slope which could lead to such dystopian societies. But just because something could conceivably happen, doesn't mean it already has. It doesn't mean that if they believe a school library should have such a book, that they have the nefarious intent of undermining society. Nope, they only have the nefarious intent of protecting their own families. Educate them. Tell them why you think the book is important, even what merit you think it has. Even if they think their rights trumps yours, explain why that isn't so. But to tell people they don't have the right to object? Uh-uh. You do. They do. Simple as that.
Another thought. I've read a number of blog posts and editorials suggesting we all "should" read banned books - even providing suggested reading lists - as if doing so carries some sort of badge of honor. Pfft. Myself, I read the books I want to read. Occasionally someone has said I shouldn't, but they usually say so off stage, and I read it in utter ignorance, only learning of my folly when the ALA release the next "Most Frequently Challenged Books" list. Sometimes the controversy has lead me to a book I wouldn't have known about otherwise, but even then, I read it because it piqued my curiosity. Many of those books I'm "not supposed to" read I don't want to read anyway, because they have no appeal for me - not because I'm unenlightened or afraid of having my beliefs challenged.
It's downright silly to read a book you don't want to read because someone else didn't want to read it either. This proves.... what exactly? Read to enlighten your mind, to learn new viewpoints, even to see what all the hullabaloo is about. But most of all, read because you enjoy reading, and read what you want to read. Read Huckleberry Finn. Read The Adventures of Captain Underpants. A Child Called It. To Kill a Mockingbird. The Chocolate War. Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Of Mice and Men. A Wrinkle In Time. The Catcher In the Rye. Breakfast At Tiffany's. The Great Gatsby. A Separate Peace.
Some of those in the list above I have read a half dozen times and I love them. Some I have read and personally loathed. Some I have never read and do not plans to. Read them anyway. Because I told you to! No, seriously, read them. Or don't.
Pick up a book everybody loves, read a few pages, decide it's not for you, and burn--- I mean, calmly put it back on the shelf for the next person to read. Pick up a book everyone hates and read a few pages and decide that that everyone is correct, the book actually does indeed suck. Or buy it because you fell in love with the first page.
If someone wonders why you didn't like a book, tell them. Maybe doing so will offend them. People sometimes take it personally if your tastes don't match theirs. Apologize and buy them a hot cocoa. If you think it's inappropriate for your child to read an assigned book, call the school and ask for an alternate title. If someone else in your community objects, support their right to exercise their right to do so - even if you disagree with them. Support their freedom, even if you don't support their viewpoint.
Because freedom of speech shouldn't be limited to the printed word, nor to a bestseller list, or a banned books list or any list at all. It shouldn't be confined to the recommendations of talk show hosts and Hollywood shills or political pundits. Nor should it be dictated by controversy. Freedom of speech - indeed, all of our freedoms, carry with them the responsibility to protect those freedoms, not just for ourselves, but also for those we disagree with. The minute we attempt to silence those whose opinions we disagree with - and those disagreeing with us - we grant permission to others to silence us.
No comments:
Post a Comment