Book Burning??? Are you serious?
Jul. 23rd, 2009 10:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bewizeReading articles like this where people want to burn books both infuriates me and terrifies me. The main problem is that I can see where these parents are coming from - to a degree. They want to decide what is appropriate for their children to read.
Fine. With the issue aside that I strongly suspect they will raise intolerant children who share their same bigotry and bias, because how could they not since they aren't allowed to make up their own minds, it is the parents right to decide just this question of appropriateness.
My problem is that since when does it become the duty of the library to protect someone else's children? The library catalogs the books in the way that ALL libraries would catalog these books. (Librarians on my list, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of the current cataloging system?)
If parents want to keep their children from reading inappropriate things, then I suggest they read the books first. And if they don't like them, they can tell their kids no. Quit being lazy, intolerant book-burning freaks, and start being parents already.
Besides, parents have different views on things. To some, The Perks of Being a Wallflower may be deemed inappropriate for some children by their parents, and others might reject books where entire families are legally executed for the crimes of the father, daughters are offered by their fathers as rape victims, and innocent men are hung from crosses only to rise from the grave three days later.
My point: both books should be available and parents should get off their butts and make their own decisions and stop expecting libraries to do a parent's job. Otherwise, I suppose, we'll have to burn all the books and welcome back the Dark Ages.
Fine. With the issue aside that I strongly suspect they will raise intolerant children who share their same bigotry and bias, because how could they not since they aren't allowed to make up their own minds, it is the parents right to decide just this question of appropriateness.
My problem is that since when does it become the duty of the library to protect someone else's children? The library catalogs the books in the way that ALL libraries would catalog these books. (Librarians on my list, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of the current cataloging system?)
If parents want to keep their children from reading inappropriate things, then I suggest they read the books first. And if they don't like them, they can tell their kids no. Quit being lazy, intolerant book-burning freaks, and start being parents already.
Besides, parents have different views on things. To some, The Perks of Being a Wallflower may be deemed inappropriate for some children by their parents, and others might reject books where entire families are legally executed for the crimes of the father, daughters are offered by their fathers as rape victims, and innocent men are hung from crosses only to rise from the grave three days later.
My point: both books should be available and parents should get off their butts and make their own decisions and stop expecting libraries to do a parent's job. Otherwise, I suppose, we'll have to burn all the books and welcome back the Dark Ages.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 03:05 pm (UTC)I'm trusting you to give me the same respect I give you....
Date: 2009-07-23 03:55 pm (UTC)I am a Christian. I believe that there are some things that are inappropriate, and some things that are just flat wrong. I love God. I love His Word.
I also love words in general (well, most of them.) I love books. I'm not a staunch advocate of censorship in literature, but I am a staunch advocate of wisdom and sound judgment--I realize that people have widely different definitions of what's appropriate and when, but I also think that some people just don't *think,* or are too wrapped up in making themselves feel powerful 'sticking it to someone-or-other' to care about the fact that what they write/publish/categorize has an effect on others (but then, we live in the era of no personal responsibility, so that's not really a surprise.)
I don't think that teenagers need to be reading anything that's sexually explicit in any way from any angle--matters of sexual orientation aside, I think that their innocence is worth protecting and that it's not a real good idea to feed temptations that are already there. They need to know how to make good decisions when they're adults, and they need to be allowed to make those decisions *when they're adults.* And yes, I know (believe me, I know) that they're exposed to all sorts of stuff away from home and that some kids are going to buck the line. That doesn't mean I think we should encourage the former or make the latter easier for them.
I think that some things need to be fought for, and fought for radically.
HOWEVER, burning books, bashing groups of the population, and being publically disrespectful are immature and only feed the problems on a number of levels. I'd prefer that books (and movies and music) that are sexually explicit, or particularly sexually geared at all, were restricted to adult access. However, I am not the one making those decisions. If I ever have kids, I'll be taking seriously what they're allowed to read/watch/listen to and what they can handle. I think that you're totally right about it being the parents' job, and the parents' right, to make the decisions about what their children take in (and believe me, I have to believe that to say it because the kid in me is still screaming against it.) The one good thing I see in this broohaha is that some parents are actually taking their jobs somewhat seriously, which seems to be a huge problem in our society. I think, however, that they're not teaching their kids very good lessons by behaving the way they are. I'm not talking about their beliefs--I'm talking about their public behavior. You can believe something, believe in it passionately, be willing to fight for it, and still choose to behave like a decent human being with basic respect for other people even while passionately disagreeing with them. The thing that really bothers me about this story is that the CCLU claims to support Biblical principles but doesn't acknowledge that there is a Biblical way to do that--one that doesn't entail public suggestions of tarring and feathering.
I don't disagree with the couple who started the debate, for the most part. I disagree with how they're going about things.
Re: I'm trusting you to give me the same respect I give you....
Date: 2009-07-23 04:08 pm (UTC)I believe that there are things that children shouldn't be exposed to, and I believe that it is the parents responsilibity to ensure that they aren't exposed to it. End of question.
The library books in question were not Hustler, or Playboy, or detailed "HOW TO" guides to have sex. They were fictional stories. And for the record - I've not read the book. But I have reserved it at my library to read. (Irony, I embrace thee.)
My problem is, and always will be, that I disapprove of censorship of any kind. I decide what it is that I want to read and watch - and to that extent, I don't read romance novels and I don't watch slasher flicks. For me, there is little redeeming value in either, but I recognize that there are lots of other people who disagree with me.
When I was little, my mother would look through my library books and decide what I could and could not read. She stopped doing that when I was about 12, though, and told me that she wanted me to ask her any questions that I had and talk to her about what I read and saw, but at the end of the day I was responsible for the images I would put in my head by reading/seeing things that I didn't want.
My problem - the one that I most vehemently oppose in my comment - is the idea that the library should decide what I, or anyone else, wants to read. I did put the Bible alongside the contested work, for a reason. It's a terribly violent book, with many horrid people in it.
But I own 4 different copies of it. And regardless of what I believe about what it says, I would disagree with anyone who told me that it was "inappropriate" for a library.
Book burning, in my opinion, is the strongest form of willful ignorance. The article acknowledges that the parents who began this whole fight do not support book burning, and while I am grateful for that, my response to them does not change.
Parent your own children and don't expect the library to do it for you.
Re: I'm trusting you to give me the same respect I give you....
Date: 2009-07-23 04:32 pm (UTC)Your mom sounds a lot like mine, which I think is wonderful. We weren't repressed; our parents took a very serious role in what we were allowed to see, etc, when we were little, and they made sure to comment on things like language and behavior in the media even when we were older, but we were encouraged to talk about them, to ask questions, etc. My mom started sex ed with us when we were very young because she wanted to be responsible for what we learned and how, she wanted us to be armed, for lack of a better term, and she wanted us to be absolutely confident that we could always talk to her about anything at all, because she hadn't had that with her mother, which meant that she was never able to tell her parents about some things that happened to her when she was very young. My parents *used* books and movies and television to start conversations with us, and I will forever be grateful for that. My parents were parents, and when I got to be an adult, they trusted me more than I trusted myself.
As a writer, the idea of censorship rolls my stomach. Like I said, I lean toward judgment and wisdom and consideration. I believe that writers have responsibilities concerning what we write and what we put out for others to read, and readers have the responsibility for choosing what goes into their minds. We were created with free will and with the ability to think, and to disregard either of those under the guise of censorship is to not only rob people of valuable choices but also to thumb hairy noses at the Creator.