Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Distinguished Bibliophile
patgolfneb
Posts: 1,758
Registered: ‎09-10-2011
0 Kudos

List of banned books and reasons

List of most often banned books, and reasons. I feel like a borderline perv., I have read all but 4 of these books, I must be really bad. 

 

 

 

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned

Distinguished Bibliophile
MacMcK1957
Posts: 2,185
Registered: ‎07-25-2011
0 Kudos

Re: List of banned books and reasons

Some of these aren't suprising at all, like Naked Lunch or Lady Chatterley.  But some continue to mystify me.  Call of the Wild???? Cat's Cradle????  Also, not on this list, but often cited as a comonly banned book, is Flowers for Algernon, which has never made an ounce of sense to me.

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,607
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: List of banned books and reasons

And the top 100 banned books for the 2000-2009 decade - 

 

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/2000_2009

 

We must all hide from the horrid evilness that is Harry Potter. :smileysurprised:

Bibliophile
bklvr896
Posts: 4,804
Registered: ‎12-31-2009
0 Kudos

Re: List of banned books and reasons

I wasn't aware that Lord of the Rings was considered satanic.  I would love to know the reason behind Call of the Wild.  Ok, I found this on the banned books awareness site about Call of the Wild.

 

"So, here we are again, having an early American novel about a period in history challenged because it paints a picture of a past that is dark and bloody that we’d much rather forget about than admit to, or learn from."

 

I can understand letting parents decide if they want their children to read a certain book or not, but banning it completely.  It seems to me that reading the book and using it as a discussion topic is a better option. Banning a book because it portrays the past as it was, not how we want it to be makes no sense.  Learn from it, don't ignore it, it's not going to miraculously change because you ban a book about it.

Doug_Pardee
Posts: 5,521
Kudos: 4,013
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Not banned

[ Edited ]

It should be noted that isn't a list of "banned" books. It's a list of books that someone, somewhere, sometime, thought might not be appropriate for children. Anybody can whine... just look at these forums.

 

The number of those that were actually banned is quite small, and in modern times essentially all of those were banned from school libraries or from class curricula. Furthermore, most of them were banned many years ago, not in recent times.

 

You get a lot of junk like this one, for Catcher in the Rye: "In 1963, a delegation of parents of high school students in Columbus, OH,  asked the school board to ban the novel for being 'anti-white' and 'obscene.' The school  board refused the request." Do you really care that fifty years ago, some parents in Ohio didn't want their kids reading Catcher in the Rye? Especially knowing that the school board told them to stuff it?

 

Ooh, and here's Joyce's Ulysses: "Burned in the U.S. (1918), Ireland (1922), Canada (1922), England (1923) and banned in England (1929)." Wow! 1918 to 1923. Almost a century ago. And the "burned in..." part is just silly.

 

OMG! The Nazis burned Call of the Wild. Now that's a serious threat to our liberty. How can we let that stand?

 

Every year ALA drags out this absurd list and tries to make a big deal of it. They need to get real.

 

Hey, anyone know where I can get a DVD of Disney's Song of the South? Oh wait, Disney self-banned that. If it were a book, ALA could object to that, too.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,607
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: Not banned

Um, get real?

 

4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell

 

This is from 2000-2009 list.  It's a picture book that tells the true story of two male penguins who nurture an egg.  The fact this is #4 on that list says a lot, IMO.

 

And let's not forget #60

60. Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson

 

This is a YA book about speaking out when you've been raped.  It's been banned all over the place, because why? Teenage girls should keep their mouths shut?

 

There is a lot of very real and very wrong book banning going on, and I'm glad the ALA is tracking and talking about it.

Distinguished Bibliophile
patgolfneb
Posts: 1,758
Registered: ‎09-10-2011

Re: Not banned

If you read the OP I wasn't making a political statement just poking a little fun at our sometimes puritan leanings. There are always those who are willing to impose their values while at the same time justifying it on thebasis that you are not respecting theirs. Unfortunately the extreme right and left get most of the attention, vigilant for any possible slight, distorting the truth for power and support. I was only poking some fun, not catering to a political agenda.

Doug_Pardee
Posts: 5,521
Kudos: 4,013
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Not banned


keriflur wrote:

Um, get real?

 

4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell

 

This is from 2000-2009 list.  It's a picture book that tells the true story of two male penguins who nurture an egg.  The fact this is #4 on that list says a lot, IMO.


It wasn't banned. It was challenged. Which means someone, somewhere, didn't want their kids reading it. That's a long way from being banned.

 

Anybody can challenge any book for anything. That doesn't make it banned. Anybody can burn a book. That doesn't make it banned.

 

That's my point. Just because someone gripes doesn't mean a book is banned. Anybody can gripe about anything.

 

Personally, I think that even if some school district does remove a book from the curriculum or the school library, that doesn't constitute a ban. The kids can still get the book at the public library. And I'm not at all convinced that "inappropriate for children of a certain age" constitutes a ban, anyway. I don't consider voting to be banned in the US.

 

Doug_Pardee
Posts: 5,521
Kudos: 4,013
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Not banned


patgolfneb wrote:

 

If you read the OP I wasn't making a political statement


I'm not making a political statement, either. I just want ALA to be honest about their list, which they haven't been and continue not to be. Calling a list of "books that someone, sometime in the past century, didn't want their kids to read" a list of "banned books" is disingenuous.

 

There is room for some of the items on this list, if presented in context. It could show how sensibilities have changed over time, for example. Back in '63, Catcher in the Rye was objected to as being anti-white, but in this century, To Kill a Mockingbird is objected to as being racist and for containing "the N word."

 

I also think there should be some stratification of the list, based on the ages of the kids involved. I mean, if a teacher at your middle school had Fifty Shades of Grey as assigned reading, you might raise an eyebrow. Maybe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed without discussion. But ALA lumps everything all together.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,607
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Not banned


Doug_Pardee wrote:

Personally, I think that even if some school district does remove a book from the curriculum or the school library, that doesn't constitute a ban. The kids can still get the book at the public library. And I'm not at all convinced that "inappropriate for children of a certain age" constitutes a ban, anyway. I don't consider voting to be banned in the US.


*rolls eyes*

 

So what do you consider a ban?  You seem to have a very specific personal definition, and given the number of articles that refer to this book as "banned" it seems the press do not agree with you.

 

And just because a book doesn't meet your formal definition, it shouldn't be talked about?

 

For the record, the ALA refers to all these books as banned/challenged, so I don't get why you're so up in arms about the terms.