Children's Books discussion
Themes, Topics & Categories
>
Extra Extra: Banned Book Week
Mod
I recall that we, as a group, enjoyed & appreciated The Librarian of Basra: A True Story from Iraq, I do not remember *anything* that could be taken from it as anti-American.
I will look for Jeanette Winter's other book, too.
Mod
Thank you for posting about this important subject! I'm saddened to hear those titles are on the list. I have read them both and found them excellent and important titles, I gave four stars to each.
Mod
Not sure if the librarian one is actually on the list, but the school one, yes it is.
Manybooks wrote: "The ALA' s Banned Book Week is from September 25th to October 2nd this year, and making the "top ten" is sadly and disgustingly a wonderful picture book based on a true story of a secret school for..."Thank you for sharing this information.
It makes me sad (and puzzled) to see either of those wonderful books on the list. I am very religious but that makes me want to promote religious tolerance for others just as I would want it for myself. I don't see anything "un-American" or offensive in either of those books. And while I do wield some influence over what my own children read and prevent them (while they are young...although they are getting older now and their reading choices are growing and my involvement is lessening) from reading things that I find offensive (graphic sex, profanity, violence), I don't feel like it is my right or responsibility to determine what other people read. I am happy to make recommendations or give my opinion but the idea of banning books puzzles me. That isn't to say that I would never speak up if I felt a book they were reading in school was completely inappropriate, but I think there are ways to live what you believe without infringing on the rights of others. I hope that makes sense.There are books on the banned/challenged list that I have read and found objectionable...and others that I have read and found perfectly fine...and many that I haven't read at all..but again, I feel I only have the right to make decisions regarding what I choose to read and what my children read not what others can/should read.
Mod
I so agree Jenny that one really should only have the right to monitor what one's own children read (up to a point) and not what others are reading or what is available on library shelves.
What I have also noticed though is that some individuals seem to have less problems with graphic and gratuitous violence being read by their children than sexual themes (even sexual health) and off colour language.
And we should also remember that if parents shield or attempt to shield their children (even in high school) from any books deemed offensive, any books that are problematic, you often end up with university and college students either not being able to handle discussions of controversial topics, controversial literature or worse, thinking that they (or their parents) should have the right to dictate university reading lists (someting that has been happeing more and more, with professors and instructors even being forced to change their reading lists because of a few loud and vehement book banners).
Mod
And what about again a California school board that a couple of years ago, BANNED THE DICTIONARY from its classrooms?
Some of the books on the frequently challenged list that I know and love (and this is definitely not an exhaustive list...I have read quite a number of the children's books):A Wrinkle in Time one of my favorite books ever
The Great Gilly Hopkins
The Watsons Go to Birmingham - 1963
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and the rest of the series
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry
A Light in the Attic
and many others.
Some I can guess at the reasons why they may have been challenged (although I disagree) and others I can't fathom what reasons people have for challenging them. And I agree, Gundula, that as children grow up much of the parent's control needs to be relinquished. It is tricky...there are books I won't read as an adult because I don't want those images in my head (Fifty Shades of Gray comes to mind but it certainly isn't the only one) and I would be upset if I was forced to read something that I find incredibly offensive. But I absolutely see the value in reading things that challenge your ideas and help you see new perspectives. In high school, I clearly remember reading Invisible Man and Crime and Punishment, both of which helped me gain perspectives/insights I would not have had otherwise. I love Crime and Punishment and have reread it several times. It can be tricky to find a balance and teachers have an important responsibility to introduce kids to books and get them to think and respond to literature but to also exercise some caution, especially in the early grades, about what content they are exposing them to and when. A small example, my oldest was in 4th grade when Hunger Games came out. So many kids were reading it but I didn't feel it was appropriate for her at that age...but now that she is in 8th grade, I feel she is mature enough to handle it if we discuss it. I am so glad I read Crime and Punishment in high school but I wouldn't have been prepared for it in 8th grade. So teachers need to make decisions about when to share/require books and what content is appropriate at what age. And, as in most things, you can't please or satisfy everyone.
Manybooks wrote: "And in so many cases, school boards go way way overboard. In California, in the 90s even, the school board in I believe Culver City removed the Caldecott Honour Little Red Riding Hood..."Pretty ridiculous. I don't drink but until someone pointed out the wine bottle in Little Red Riding Hood, I didn't even notice it. And I read it to my 8 year old. She knows we abstain from alcohol and I seriously doubt that a wine bottle in a basket in a book is going to influence her much one way or the other (assuming she even notices the bottle and knows what it is). There are much more "dangerous" commercials on tv or ads in magazines... And I agree, sending a child out into the woods alone should seem even more insidious. Definitely, things are often taken too far.
Mod
But the wine was also meant as medicine, and historically, often even children were given ale to drink as water was often full of dangerous microbes (the book is not about wine in any way, it is about the girl's meeting with the big bad wolf).
Mod
Or the fact that in the Charles Perrault version of Red Riding Hood, she reamains eaten, and there is definitely a sexual undertone present.
Mod
[book:A Wrinkle in Tim..."
I have not read the hunger games, nor the twilight series, but I would not consider either as appropriate for 4th grade (not really interested in reading them either, especially twilight).
Manybooks wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Manybooks wrote: "And in so many cases, school boards go way way overboard. In California, in the 90s even, the school board in I believe Culver City removed the Caldecott Honour [boo..."I agree with what you have stated.
My daughter says she was in 5th grade when some of her friends read Hunger Games. Nevertheless, I still don't think it was appropriate for that age level. I actually really liked the series--there was a lot of violence but also some real looks at greed, power, consumerism, etc. I think there are some great messages in the books, particularly the first one...when a child is old enough to appreciate them. But upper elementary school is too early, in my opinion.
Mod
Hmm, maybe I should try the books.
Manybooks wrote: "The ALA' s Banned Book Week is from September 25th to October 2nd this year, and making the "top ten" is sadly and disgustingly a wonderful picture book based on a true story of a secret school for..."Just ordered Nasreen's Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan. And I need to get that edition of Red Riding Hood!
How often are picture books on the most banned books list anyway? I always think of books for older children (like Harry Potter).
Mod
Actually more often than you think, And Tango Makes Three, Heather Has Two Mommies are amongst the picture books most vehemently challenged and often banned, but there are many many other examples as well.
For me, even worse than the challenges are the numerous times school boards have removed books from shelves, have banned books.
I agree with everything you ladies have said! I was talking last night with some other parents at my daughter's elementary school (there was a parent night). One of the moms was new to the school and found out I volunteer in the library a lot. She asked if the kids were allowed to read whatever they wanted or if they were 'restricted' to age level reading. It appears that, in her previous school, her daughter was only allowed to check out books deemed 'appropriate to a 1st grader.' Now the mom wasn't asking for her kid to read Hunger Games as a 1st grader, she just wanted her daughter to be able to check out Magic Tree House, since that was the girl's reading level. She was so excited when I told her that our librarian lets the kids check out whatever they want to. (Although, if a kid younger than 5th grade wants to check out Hunger Games, or other books meant for upper grades, they have to have a note from parents).I agree with Jenny when she says that people should really only be able to veto what their own children read. And even then, I agree with Gundula that kids need to read different material so that they know what is going on in the world and also so that parents have an opportunity to talk to kids about their family's values and morals. Like Jenny, my family doesn't drink alcohol, but my daughter reads books where characters do so and it has given us the opportunity to not only discuss our reasons for abstaining, but also to teach acceptance of other people's choices.
I do not agree with banning books, but I do think that public schools do not necessarily need to carry all of the books in their library. I, personally, would not want to see 50 Shades of Grey in my high schooler's library. I think it is fine to be in a public library, but I also think that it is an adult book and should be viewed as such. However, if my daughter did check out 50 Shades, or any other book that I don't really think is age appropriate for her, from a school or public library, I would take that opportunity to talk with her and then we would decide, together, if that was a book that she should read. (And her opinion matters just as much as mine does).
Jenny wrote: "Manybooks wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Manybooks wrote: "And in so many cases, school boards go way way overboard. In California, in the 90s even, the school board in I believe Culver City removed the Cal..."The first 2 Hunger Games books were for me edge of the seat page turners. The 3rd was kind of a let's-wrap-things-up tale. 7th grade seems about the right time to begin following Katniss Everdeen, conflicted killing machine. Of course, results may differ according to the readiness of each child.
I work in a public library and so periodically I get to hear complaints about books. I also run into parents who expect me to know what is appropriate for their child, but of course that varies so wildly from one parent to another that I can't really determine that even if I've read the book. I've seen parents who insist that their kids only check out the early chapter books instead of YA just to avoid romance themes. Meanwhile, the kid is going to the public middle school and thus is already aware of romance, sexual activity and so on. Yeah, there's a 13 year old girl who comes in with her mother and is only allowed to read like Nancy Drew.
I just have no idea what that kind of mom is trying to accomplish. I can't imagine existing in a world where I manage to ignore what's going on at my daughter's middle school and still enforce that she read below her reading level and below her interest level to keep her from seeing the romantic situations she probably sees at school every single day.
I tell parents that I really can't be the moral compass for their family since I don't know what they find offensive and suggest that they read the books before they give them to their children. That usually cures the problem pretty fast as usually the same restrictive parent doesn't want to actually read.
It's one thing to restrict the content your own children read, it's a whole 'nother thing to try to restrict the content that other people's children read. I find that pretty much the most offensive thing there is. Whenever someone tries to control what is in a library or in a school, you can tell that they've already lost control of their own child. They don't trust their child not to read the material they've restricted, so they want everyone else to remove the book to enforce their own kid's obedience which they've already lost control of. Of course, they don't understand that there's always a way. The kids will share the material. The one kid that owns it will pass it around. Getting something removed pretty much guarantees that all the kids will read it.. lol
Oh well, that's my rant over. On the bright side, I found two more good books to read to my own kid. Picked up both of the books by Jeannette Winter at the library. :)
I find that most of the banned books are what you should be reading.. lol (Obviously, some exceptions)
When I was in junior high, Love Story was all the rage, and most of my friends weren't allowed to read the book. Illicit copies were passed around in the cafeteria at lunch. I'm guessing more girls did more reading that year because of all the fuss over "Love Story" than they would have otherwise.I let my kids read whatever they wanted, too. My oldest learned to read early and well; he could read books that weren't really age-appropriate for him. And what I discovered was that he generally *didn't* read books that weren't age-appropriate. They weren't fun or interesting. Or, if they were, it was because the age-inappropriate content was going over his head, and he was enjoying some other aspects of the story.
Of course, it's true that in the years since I was in junior high, books that include more graphic violence and sex are more readily available. And sometimes not just available, but required reading. And while I don't object to, say, Like Water for Chocolate or Of Mice and Men being in a junior high or high school library or classroom, I'd honestly prefer they not be required reading at that age. Let the kids read them if they choose. But my youngest child was horrified by having to read and do an oral report on "Like Water for Chocolate" in 9th grade. I let him decide how to handle it -- but I really did think it was an inappropriate requirement. If the teacher wanted to have them read a book of magical realism, The Master and Margarita would have been a much better choice.
Mod
I loved Like Water for Chocolate as an adult, but I would not have wanted to read this in junior high. We had to read Dickens' Bleak House in grade eight and it was too long, too boring, too difficult and completely soured me on Dickens as an author (even now). We did read some rather heavy hitting Canadian literature books in grade eleven and twelve, but we were more ready for them at that time. But a lot of it actually depends on the teacher (do not make students read Dickens in two weeks or a month, since Dickens wrote his novels as serials, have students read them and discuss them as serials, as manageable chunks). Teachers can really play havoc with how students end up perceiving reading, as something pleasureable or as an unrelenting chore.
When I was in junior high school, Judy Blume's Forever was the controversial talk of the town. I got a lot of respect from my classmates because I was able to get my mom to buy me a copy (as German immigrants, my parents had no idea about Judy Blume and that Forever was rather controversial with sexuality as a main theme). But when my mother ended up reading my copy after I had gone to university, she was a bit aghast when she realised that I had read this in grade seven or eight (the thing is that Forever is only partially about Katherine's and Michal's sexuality, much more is about Katherine's relationship with and to her friends and family and how her rather strong relationship with Michael affects these).
Mod
No rant, I think most of us are of the opinion that while you might have the right to monitor your own children's reading choices, you should not have the right to impose your views on others and on what is available on library shelves (especially public library shelves), or in a worst case scenario, what reading materials are available for purchase in bookstores.
Mod
It is surprising how many children are actually very capable of adequately self censoring. I tried to read some of my mother's German language historical romances at around age twelve or thirteen, and quickly stopped as the books were simply too full of silly romanticism and overwraught descriptions (both of events in public and in the bedroom) for me to enjoy; I was bored. However, a few years later, at around age eighteen or nineteen, the same books, while of course never classics, while not great literature in any way, proved to be much more enjoyable and readable.
Mod
Mod
For example, in recent years, well meaning but basically ignorant school boards in the UK have repeatededly banned and removed books about pigs (like Charlotte's Web, The Story of the Three Little Pigs, even Winnie the Pooh) from especially elementary school classrooms and libraries because of the fact that pigs are considered unclean in Islam, even whilst many Muslim leaders have actively condemned this move as both dangerous and counter-productive (it reminds me of the many city councils that have taken it on themselves to force people to call a Christmas Tree a Holiday Tree, often due to their own agenda and not even in response to any type of widespread criticism).
Mod
Exactly, it is a personal dialogue, not a one way street. But I would not want 50 Shades of Grey in a school library either, as while I would not want to censor a young adult reading this book, I also do not consider this as children's and even young adult literature; it is for adults (and I for one am not in any way interested in reading it).
Mod
I would probably (and in a cladestine way) suggest different types of books for the thirteen year old (if she ever came in by herself) and then finding some sneaky ways and means of hiding them from her mother, but that could likely be a potential can of worms, sigh.
Mod
But I guess GOODREADS is ignorant as well, as BOTH books are listed as being by the SAME author, or rather, there are certain editions of the Brown Bear book listed as being by Bill Martin and not, like it should be, Bill Martin Junior. Weird!
This is almost as bad as the morons in South Africa who during the Apartheid era banned Anna Sewel's famous horse autobiography Black Beauty because of the title (because according to the committee, something black could not be beautiful or positive), except that unlike with the Texas example, in South Africa, Black Beauty remained banned for quite a long time.
Manybooks wrote: "I would probably (and in a cladestine way) suggest different types of books for the thirteen year old (if she ever came in by herself) and then finding some sneaky ways and means of hiding them from her mother, but that could likely be a potential can of worms, sigh. ."Fortunately, around here I'm sure she has a decent selection in the school library. I've heard from quite a few kids that they just checked out the Harry Potter books (just one example) from the school library and just read them there when they weren't allowed to read them at home.
It seems like all the kids around here have smart phones. They are able to check out ebooks and read them on their smart phones too. The kids of today have more ways than ever of accessing reading materials. I'm sure that if that girl wanted to, she could access almost anything.
I'll help kids find anything they ask me to find. But, if the parent is there and saying they can't, then I don't go against their wishes because the library card is technically the parent's responsibility until the kid is 18. Besides, I know that they also have access to the school library and the internet as most of them have smart phones.
If a kid wants to read something, they can probably get it with a bit of ingenuity. :)
Mod
I like that, ha, and really, the parents only have themselves to blame if children who are being denied their rights to read end up going behind the former's back. Just like during the Third Reich, during Stalin's iron fisted reign, or in East Germany, even though many many authors were banned, books were being burned and so on and so on, many actually chose to still read the "forbidden" materials (often at great personal risk to both themselves and their families, but still). Reading and having the choice to read what one desires to read are for me, a basic human right (akin to freedom of expression).
Mod
Something similar happened with Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. Well known psychologist Bruno Bettelheim (who as an academic really should have known better) criticised and condemned the book as being dangerous for children (causing abandonment fears) WITHOUT having actually read it. And unfortunately, due to Bettelheim being rather well known and influential, the criticism stuck. I do not know if Where the Wild Things Are was ever banned and censored due to Bettelheim's ignorance, but I do know that especially in the Southern US states, it was and sometimes even still is challenged and even banned due to supposed witchcraft and the fact that Max yells at his mother (strangely enough, it has also been banned for "child abuse" as some consider Max being sent to his room without his supper as abusive parenting).
Mod
Unfortunately, some over puritanical librarians have (over the years) taken it upon themselves to "sanitise" the nudity aspect of the book by basically defacing and vandalising it (drawing diapers and other forms of pants onto Mickey's nude body). Now I am sure that librarians are not the only individuals who have engaged in this type of iconoclasm and vandalism with regard to In the Night Kitchen, but since they are librarians and thus the custodians of books, they really should have known better and they also should have been very severely punished for this (definitely a more than adequate reason for someone to be fired).
Mod
[book:A Wrinkle in Tim..."
Jenny, during university (I have a PhD in German literature), I had to read quite a number of books that while I appreciated them, were also very offensive in places (much post WWII German literature is heavy themed). But I would NEVER have considered asking for alternative assignments and am glad to have been exposed to many different types of literature. But that is precisely what has recently been happening on university and college campuses, namely that students and often their parents are trying to get books they deem as offensive and inappropriate removed from reading lists, classrooms.
And in some cases, the administrations are actually caving in to this pressure, which is totally unacceptable and basically spits on the very concept of what university is supposed to be (universal education, discussions, for adults). While I can see a student who has faced sexual assault being given an alternative assignment if the class is reading a novel that features this, I DO NOT ACCEPT books with controversial themes being removed from post secondary reading lists and classroom discussions simply because some students have issues with these or find them offensive (and parents should have NO BUSINESS whatsoever demanding that books be removed from their children's university and college classes, as their children are now ADULTS or at least, they are supposed to be).
Are you sure it's librarians sanitising "In the Night Kitchen"? I would just like to throw it out there that we sometimes receive books back that have been altered like that. Of course, if you ask the person who checked it out, they say it was like that when they got it. For instance, someone edited "The Jolly Postman" by crossing out the word wine. Couldn't prove who did it. The library near us had the movie "The Pineapple Express" and pretty much all the copies ended up stolen. I believe that got traced to an Evangelist group. I think they assumed we would blame stoners, but, it wasn't stoners stealing the movies. Just all the good little Christians.. LOL
If you see an altered book, I wouldn't necessarily blame a librarian. We have very few copies of "In the Night Kitchen" left in our system. If coloring pants on him would prevent the rest of them from being stolen, it may be worth it. You know what I mean? It would be better to be able to experience the book than to have all of them stolen by the morality police. So, if a librarian has colored one in, I really couldn't blame them. It was probably a last ditch attempt to protect the book from theft.
Manybooks wrote: "Some of the books on the frequently challenged list that I know and love (and this is definitely not an exhaustive list...I have read quite a number of the children's books):[book:A ..."
Is there a public list of books banned in Germany? I read that there is such list but it is not open to the public in order to avoid marketing them
Mod
That is what I read online, that at least in the beginning, it was mostly a few librarians doing this. As I said I seriously doubt it was and is only librarians doing this, and I do not automatically blame librarians but for the Night Kitchen books there unfortunately were a few librarians who not only admitted to alterning the book but were quite proud of the fact.
Mod
[boo..."
I would not know that but perhaps you could research it.
Mod
I was doing a research project on alternative family units (picture books) a couple of years ago and ALL of the illustrated books except for one that featured homosexual or lesbian couples were missing from the public library. Yup, probably some misguided puritans (but let us not mince words, this is criminal behaviour in my opinion).
Mod
Actually, I do see what you mean, grudgingly and sadly, I guess an artifically altered book is still better than no book at all.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Hmm, I should also check if this book has ever been banned in British Columbia, in towns that are basically logging towns (would not surprise me one bit if that were the case, but need to do research on this).
Mod
I have fond memories of Judy Blume's Forever. It has (ever since my first read at around age thirteen or so) been a novel to appreciate and read over and over again, especially since it is still considered so controversial that an unfortunately high number of ranting parental ignoramuses (often the puritanical religiously fanatical types) continue to desire the book to be universally banned, namely that they want not simply their own children, their own teenagers to NOT be allowed to read Forever, they basically strive to undemocratically and dictatorially deny ALL children, ALL young adults across the board, the basic right of freedom of choice, the freedom to read. Please bear with me if this review might not be as coherent and as "organised" as some of my other offerings (I often have issues posting about my personal favourites and with many of the latter, I actually am much happier and more comfortable presenting general musings and personal reactions).
I remember first reading Forever in the early 80s when I was in junior high school (in Calgary, Alberta, to be exact). It was all the rage in my class and since many of our teachers were categorically against us reading this book at school (or at all), it not only made Forever incredibly enticing, it also (of course) made us clandestinely take copies of the novel to school, not only to read on the sly so to speak, but also to allow those classmates who were not allowed to read Forever at home the chance to do so (I got my first dose of respect from my erstwhile bullying classmates when they realised that I had actually managed to entice my mother to purchase a copy of Forever for me). Now my mother thought this was simply a book about first love (and I definitely made sure not to mention in any way that Forever was considered quite massively controversial by many, both publicly and privately, because while my parents were generally not all that worried about my reading choices, as Germans of the immediately post WWII generation, they also at that time still had the unfortunate tendency to consider books deemed controversial publicly and especially by my teachers, to be at best potentially problematic).
I do strongly (and with a sense of annoyance that has lasted for decades) remember how everyone (from my teachers to even many of my classmates) were constantly talking and pontificating about all of the sexuality presented and featured in Forever and especially the fact that Michael had named his phallus, almost as though the whole book, the whole novel was only, solely about sex, sex, and more sex. Well, I when I finally read the book, I honestly did not understood (and still do not really quite understand) what all of the fuss was about. Forever is most definitely NOT primarily about sex, it is about two teenagers falling in love, engaging in their first heavy duty relationship, and while sex is an important part of that relationship, it is by no means the only theme presented in the novel. In fact, I think the main points of consideration are the many interpersonal relationships, Katherine's relationship with Michael, her relationship with her friends and immediate family, and also importantly, the loving and sweetly nurturing, emotionally sustaining relationship she has with her grandparents. The silly and yes, majorly and utterly frustrating part about all these so-called do-gooders who wanted to and still often continue to want to ban and/or censor Forever, is that their rantings somehow made (and continue to make) the novel appear as though it was (it is) some pornographic trash, when it is, in fact, for the most part a tender and compassionate love story about teenage relationships, feelings, school, choices (puberty and all the ups and downs this can easily cause for both girls and boys).
After perusing a number of comments from individuals and special interests groups desiring to universally and categorically ban and censor Forever (many of these comments unfortunately being nothing but rather offensive and braying tirades) one of the main points of contention on which the latter always seem to harp, is usually the possibility (and for them actually the absolute probability) that the sexuality, the sexual relationship between Katherine and Michael could (and generally would) entice especially female teenage readers into similar such relationships. But personally, I more than realised after reading Forever the first time, that my teenaged self was not in any way ready or even willing to engage in that kind of emotional, heavy and problematic sexual relationship, or any sexual relationship for that matter (even with those very few boys at school whom I found physically and emotionally attractive). The candid way Judy Blume describes the ups and downs of Katherine and Michael's relationship, the responsibility required to prevent unwanted pregnancy (condoms, but particularly how the use of birth control pills is really seen as the sole responsibility of the woman), and especially, what happened to Erica's cousin Sybil (teenage pregnancy), made me realise that I absolutely wanted and needed to wait more than ANY sex education class, any adult preaching abstinence, any condemnation from conservative church groups ever could even remotely have achieved.
When I was recently rereading Forever for something like the tenth time, I immediately noticed that while I was still absolutely loving and engaging with Katherine as a character, I did tend to find Michael (and actually many if not most of the presented teenaged male characters, including Michael's friend Artie) more than a bit lacklustre, basically stock-like, stereotypical, rather flatly conceptualised, less nuanced and developed, and thus also much less interesting and intriguing than particularly Katherine and her best friend friend Erica (even Erica's cousin Sybil appears more fleshed out, and no pun is intended here). Now I am not sure if this is relevant or even a correct (and acceptable) observation, but I have always had somewhat of a feeling that Judy Blume often seems to do a better job depicting, writing about female characters than male characters, that her female characters (such as Katherine, Margaret, Deenie, Rachel etc.) are on the whole more fleshed out and wholly believable than many of her male characters. And even as much as I have always enjoyed reading about Peter Hatcher and his brother Fudge, I actually do tend to think that Peter's nemesis Sheila Tubman is a much more interesting, nuanced, albeit I agree, massively annoying and infuriating character. In Forever, both Michael and by extension his often depressed and lonely friend Artie are not nearly as complex and interestingly depicted, presented as Katherine, Erica, and even Katherine's kid sister Jamie. And then, when a basically stock character like Artie is described as having tried to commit suicide, you end up with a bit of a potential problem. Artie is simply not nuanced enough and developed enough as a character; there is not enough to him, and the suicide attempt thus has the unfortunate tendency to feel a bit as being a tacked-on afterthought (which I actually find more potentially problematic in and of itself than ANY of the sexuality issues and scenes).
My original copy of Forver was a white paperback with a girl in a simple locket as its front cover (unfortunately it fell apart due to multiple rereadings). In the version I have now (and am reviewing) one can see that the cover image has two sets of legs on a bed (Katherine's and Michael's, I assume). Personally, I find this particular cover rather unfortunate, as strengthens the presumption that the whole plotline of Forever is about what goes on in the bedroom, that the whole novel is about sex, when it so clearly is not (it is about Michael and Katherine falling in love, and later out of love, and sexuality is simply part of the equation).
With regard to the general themes and issues presented, I tend to actually think that Katherine and Michael for the most part have a much healthier relationship than what is depicted in many more recent YA novels, certainly a lot healthier and normal than many of the romances featured in series like Sweet Valley High and especially Twilight. They are perhaps a little too much into each other, but that is not abnormal and actually rather common in teenage romances. Neither Michael nor Katherine are (and fortunately) depicted as being either paragons of depravity or paragons of virtue; they are just a pretty standard teenage couple experiencing their first heavy duty relationship (I think Michael is perhaps a bit more emotionally immature, as well as a bit more sexually experienced than Katherine, but that is rather standard as well, unfortunately). Katherine and Michael thus (at least in my opinion) certainly do not have an inherently unhealthy relationship; they have a relatively standard and normal teenage romance type of relationship, a love that in the end proves not to be as long-lasting, as forever as both protagonists originally thought and hoped.
Frankly, I am (personally) unfailingly glad that Judy Blume wrote Forever realistically, that she did not strive to make either Katherine or Michael into some kind of teenage role models. Sometimes you just want to (and need to) read a realistic story, a story that also does not shy away from showing the ups and downs, the problems and joys of being a teenager and experiencing love, lust and hormones. And this was (indeed) one of the main reasons I enjoyed Forever so much as a teenager (it told an interesting and engaging story, spoke realistically to me, and covered areas and issues that I would have felt weird and uncomfortable asking my parents about, areas and issues hat my parents also likely would not have enjoyed discussing with me).
And I would like to just reiterate the following. While I consider Forever a wonderful and in many ways even important novel, I do recognise the fact that it is controversial and that many actually despise the book and consider it anathema. But while I can both understand and even appreciate this, I can NOT and will NOT accept in any manner, in any way, those individuals, those so-called special interest groups who (that) have over the years challenged the novel and attempted to have it banned, removed from library shelves and so on and so on. You have the right to monitor and even restrict your own child's reading choices, you do NOT or rather you should NOT have the right to impose this on others (book banning is dictatorial, and those who attempt to get books banned and censored are undemocratic, Fascist, Stalinist, you name it).
I've been looking at lists of challenged and banned picture books the last few weeks. Where's Waldo? Goodnight Moon. The Lorax. In the Night Kitchen. The Rabbits' Wedding. And so many, many more. But one list will have listed one handful of books, and another list will have a different handful. They seem to be naming just a few as examples. And so I was wondering -- does anyone know of a comprehensive list of challenged picture books? The ALA site, as best as I can see, doesn't separate out picture books as its own category.
Thanks!
Mod
The ALA list seems to be the most "official" one, but like you, I have always felt they should have separate lists for picture books.
Hmm. Maybe we should scour the ALA lists, and make our own list of challenged and banned picture books? As a public service, a project for Banned Books Week.I can't work on it today. But I could totally pitch in and do some work on it later this week. What do you think?
Mod
I can't work on it today. But I could ..."
Good idea ...
Mod
Nasreen's Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan
King and King
In the Night Kitchen
And Tango Makes Three
Uncle Bobby's Wedding
My Mom's Having a Baby!: A Kid's Month-By-Month Guide to Pregnancy
Daddy's Roommate
Heather Has Two Mommies
Halloween ABC
Mommy Laid An Egg: Or, Where Do Babies Come From?
These were either on the older list of the 100 most frequently banned books on the ALA site, or on the list of frequently challenged children's books. I'll work on it some more later! The Story of Little Black Sambo
Where's Waldo?
Draw Me a Star
Hop On Pop
Pinkerton, Behave!
My Princess Boy
The Librarian of Basra: A True Story from Iraq
In Our Mothers' House
Baseball Saved Us
Children's Books
Books mentioned in this topic
Meet the Austins (other topics)Charlotte’s Web (other topics)
Baseball Saved Us (other topics)
Hop On Pop (other topics)
Draw Me a Star (other topics)
More...
This is a wonderful story about a girl who has not spoken since her parents disappeared (likely killed by the Taliban) being by her brave grandmother sent to a secret school for girls in defiance of the Taliban's ban on education for girls and women, and the fact that there supposedly are quite a number individuals in the USA who would strive to like a bunch of Fascists and Stalinists have this important and evocative book banned (simply because Nasreen and her grandmother are Muslim, it seems), well that is not only sad, it is dangerous, as it shows that intolerant Taliban like attitudes are alive and well in parts of the United States, that those who attempt to get books removed and banned, are not only undemocratic, they are the American counterparts of the Nazis, Stalin's Russia, the East German Stasi, and yes, ISIS and the Taliban.
I will be posting more banned and challenged picture books in the next few days. Please do add and discuss picture books that fit the example, that have been either challenged or banned recently and not so recently (and while the ALA Banned Book Week is mostly about books banned in the USA, we should also add picture books that have been challenged or banned in other countries). It would be nice to start a list, for both discussion and yes, specifically what books to consider reading and popularising in defiance of the book banners/burners.
Another book by the same author that has also received some very very nasty and unwarranted criticism (there are number of extremely hate filled tirades on Amazon) is The Librarian of Basra: A True Story from Iraq (again, much of the criticism is about the fact that Jeanette Winter is paying homage to Muslim woman and that some believe the book to be anti-American, it is not, but it does and rightfully show that war is destructive, not just for people but for cultural heritage, that war is NOT ever positive).