So I Forgot One...

Remember yesterday's list of weird banned books stories? Well, I left one off...

2010: A California school district pulled the Merriam-Webster Dictionary because a parent complained that it contains the term "oral sex."

Really?

Of COURSE the dictionary's gonna contain the term "oral sex." The idea behind a dictionary is to provide a definition for EVERY word or phrase in the English language. Banning dictionaries because they contain an idea you find offensive or innappropriate is an Orwellian level of stupidity.

There are always going to be ideas out there that we disagree with for moral, intellectual, or political reasons. It's right and natural for us to be upset - and, sometimes, even offended - by these ideas. However, we can't PRETEND that they don't exist and hope they go away, even for the sake of our children.

Heck, I'm going to say ESPECIALLY for the sake of our children. If you want to share your values with children, it's important for you to be able to explain those things that go AGAINST those values and talk about them in a way that's meaningful, respectful of the subject matter, and accurate. And, yeah, that means that you'll probably have to use the words "oral sex," "marijuana," and, on occasion, "Ke$ha."

Commentary: Banned Books

In celebration of "Banned Books Week," I took a look at a collection of book lists from the past five years or so. I have to say that I think I understand why people would try to get books banned from school libraries. I don't necessarily AGREE with those efforts - especially when they try to ban books like The Diary of Anne Frank - the most significant first-person account of the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.

And, yes, people are STILL trying to get The Diary of Anne Frank banned. In 2010. On the grounds that it's a bit lewd and endorses homosexual behavior. Even I find that kinda backwards - and I'm actually a bit of a prude.

Anyway, I found a couple of other standout entries from the banned book lists of the recent past.

2006: I'm completely mystified by the continued efforts to ban the Harry Potter series from public schools, but the 2006 entry from the above website has this one little tidbit that I can' leave without commentary. So the book was targeted for possible removal from the Wilsona School District along with twenty three other books. One book had "an unsavory hero who made a bad role model for children; another was about a warlock, which they said was inappropriate; and others were books with which they were unfamiliar and didn’t know whether they promoted good character or conflicted with textbooks" [emphasis added].

It's one thing to attempt to ban a book that you've read and found unsuitable for your children. It's another thing to target a book that you've never read, but has a bad reputation. It's SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY to target a book simply because you don't know what it's about.

Oh, and proof that they didn't know what they were doing: "Rejected titles included three bilingual Clifford the Big Red Dog books [and] Disney’s Christmas Storybook."

OOH, SHOCKING!!!

2006: Someone tried to ban Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 for “discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, ‘dirty talk,’ references to the Bible, and using God’s name in vain.” Which is totally missing the point of the book, but... whatever.

The REAL joke here, of course, is the banning of a book about the dangers of banning books. It's delicious, crunchy, toffee-crusted irony at its finest.

2007: The father of two teenage boys requested the city government fine a library in Bentonville, Arkansas, for allowing The Whole Lesbian Sex Book onto the public access shelves. He asked for $10,000 for each boy.

Here's one case of censorship I thought I could get behind. See, I'm mainly opposed to censorship on an artistic level - blocking material the creator deems relevant to the experience of a piece of art is destructive to the imagination as a whole. Now there is NO WAY a couple of teenage boys would be interested in The Whole Lesbian Sex Book for the purpose the author intended, so I don't blame the father for getting a little indignant that the library would allow his children to check out what, for their intents and purposes, would be smut.

However, nowhere does it say the children actually REQUESTED this book, only that the father wanted to keep that book out of their hands.

Oh, well. At least somebody "thinks of the children."

2008: Librarians in an Oregon High School had to restrict access to The Book of Bunny Suicides :

I guess some mother was so offended by this book that she threatened to straight up burn it rather than return it to the library. I mean, yeah, I'm all against animal cruelty and mutilation and whatever, but vandalism's a crime, too.

Oh, and in a pure fit of 21st century anti-Puritanism, the library soon after received 24 donated copies of The Book of Bunny Suicides. That just goes to show that centralized censorship is not only bad for the intellectual well-being of a community, but it just plain doesn't work, either.

And here's my favorite:

2005: A Montana middle school received complaints that the book On the Bright Side, I'm Now the Girlfriend of a Sex God: Further Confessions of Georgia Nicholson was dangerous, not because of the content, but because "an unstable person seeing a girl reading the book might think from the title that the girl is promiscuous and stalk her."

So the next time you're reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and someone asks you to take a look at their car, now you'll know that person's unstable.

Religion, Death, and Cartoons

There's been a lot of controversy recently surrounding cartoonists who have decided to draw pictures of the prophet Mohammed - and the sometimes violent reaction from devout Muslims who consider such portrayals a form of blasphemy. Here's the short version: The creators of the ever-irreverent South Park received death threats after irreverently portraying Mohammed. In response, cartoonist Molly Norris decided to organize a day when cartoonists all over the internet would draw pictures of Mohammed to protest what they see as a suppression of their right to free speech. Death threats and controversy coninue to this day.

Now, I'm seriously torn on this issue. On the one hand, I'm a fairly devout Mormon (how observant I am may be up for debate, but I try), and I have similar religious observances that I feel are too sacred to make fun of. I get upset when I hear of people sneaking cameras into temple ceremonies and posting the videos online - almost to the point where I'm personally insulted.

At the same time, though, I'm very much opposed to censorship (an appropriate topic, considering it's Banned Books Week). I feel that a work of art - a book, a painting, or whatever - should be experienced as its creator intended. I had this conversation with a friend the other day: If I want to watch A Clockwork Orange, I had better be prepared to watch a woman get beaten to death with an oversized statue of a phallus. Yeah, that scene is shocking and violent, but that's part of the point. If I find that type of thing too offensive to watch, I'd better find a different movie, because I don't really want to watch A Clockwork Orange.

But is it art? I mean, do these cartoonists and illustrators really NEED to draw some depiction of Mohammed to make their point, or are they just shaking up a beehive to hear the buzzing? Is it a point that even needs to be made? Yes, TECHNICALLY, in this country, people have the right to say what they want, but we still discourage the idle usage of terms like "fag" and "nigger" because those words do more harm than good.

Except... well, the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn uses the word "nigger" a lot, but within a historical context that works to undermine both the negative power of that one word and the racist attitudes of the time - at least, that was the idea.

So, yeah, I'm really of two minds on this issue. Personally, I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, nor would I encourage others to do so, because I feel that would be disrespectful and rude.

Should other people have to fear for their lives for WANTING to draw Mohammed?

No.

SHOULD they draw Mohammed?

I'd say no. But who am I to tell them they can'?