Archive for the ‘Banned Books’ Category

Banned Books 2010: Living Dead Girl

Definite points for cover design

Title: Living Dead Girl
Author: Elizabeth Scott
Not to be confused with: the Rob Zombie song of the same name.
Challenged in: Effingham, Illinois at the Helen Matthes Library, 2009
For: graphic content, unsatisfactory ending
Status: Retained despite challenges

I’d heard of this book before, from librarians talking on a YALSA listserv about how much it disturbed them, so I can’t say I’m surprised it’s on this list. If librarians have trouble with a book emotionally or psychologically, it’s probably that the general public also will. I think challenges aren’t always negative for the library, since it does show that people care and allows for a conversation about books and why books are chosen for the library. I’m happy that this book was retained even though I also found it very, very disturbing, the kind of book that puts images in your mind that will probably never be erased. And, yes, that’s not happy or enjoyable, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth having in the library. Books aren’t just for entertainment. Here’s a brief plot description:

The story is told in a sparse, stream-of-consciousness from the point of view of Alice, or at least a girl who thinks of herself as Alice. Alice is not her real name, and there was at least one Alice before her. She was abducted at the age of 10 by Ray, a clever and abusive pedophile who claims that if she ever escapes or disobeys him, he will kill her parents. Now Alice is 15 and knows she is getting too old for Ray, that he’ll kill her soon and find another girl. And she can’t wait. Death is the only thing she looks forward to now. But then Ray recruits her to find her own replacement, which seems to shake her world view and her implacable desire to die.

The descriptions of Ray’s abuse, though brief and often described obliquely, are haunting. More so, Alice’s attitude towards her situation, the way she has all but given up her own identity, the way she has internalized many of Ray’s behaviors. This is not the way we want to see ourselves. We want to believe that, were we in that situation, we would fight back, orchestrate some kind of dramatic rescue, protect innocent children from being abused as we had. But Alice most often responds in the way we would actually act in such a situation: with only survival in mind. She willingly, almost eagerly accepts her role, coolly calculating which children will be the easiest to abduct, which will most satisfy Ray’s perverted desires. She acknowledges that it’s not the “right” thing to do, but admits that she will do anything to be free of Ray, even if that includes dying or hurting someone else.

So, yes, I wouldn’t recommend this book to younger teens or anyone so sensitive and impressionable that it would immobilize them through fear or depression. Some people really can’t take reading this kind of book, but I think it’s message is an important one for anyone who can stomach it. And, yes, the ending is not filled with hope. Though her situation changes, Alice doesn’t live happily ever after. And I think that’s important too.

Banned Books 2010: Baby Be-Bop

To kick off my exciting new hobby, I decided to read the book whose entry on the ALA Challenged Book List confused me the most. Here it is in full:

Baby Be-Bop by Francesca Lia Block
Harper Collins
Four Wisconsin men belonging to the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) sought $30,000 apiece for emotional distress they suffered from the West Bend, Wis. Community Memorial Library (2009) for displaying a copy of the book. The claim states that “specific words used in the book are derogatory and slanderous to all males” and “the words can permeate violence and put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.” The CCLU called for the public burning of this title. Four months later, the library board unanimously voted 9-0 to maintain, “without removing, relocating, labeling, or otherwise restricting access,” this and other books challenged in the young adult section at the West Bend Community Memorial Library.

Here were the two parts that stood out to me the first time I saw this:

$30,000 apiece
public burning

$30,000?? Because the book was on display?? I can hear what you’re thinking. “What ‘specific words’? What can be worth $30,000 just if you happen to glance at it??? This book has got to be straight smut. That deserves to be publicly burned, like a witch or a Beatles record.”

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you my friend. The words

$30,000 apiece

and

public burning

totally got my hopes up. This book did maybe not deserve either of these. Here is the basic plot, although, as a very lyrical novella, the word “plot” is used loosely:

Dirk McDonald knows that he’s gay. He’s known since he was young, when the carefree grandmother who raised him tells him it’s just a phase. He has a crush on his best friend Pup, but their relationship ends when Pup starts to date girls to hide his growing attraction to Dirk. “I love you, Dirk, but I can’t handle it.” Dirk lashes out, hiding his fear at himself and the seemingly cruel world around him by building himself an armor of punk rock persona and losing himself in music and violent dancing. Then one night after he tells some skinheads what he thinks about their swastika tattoos, he gets beaten up. Thus begins the much weirder second part of the book, where, in a weird dream/coma state Dirk’s great grandmother appears and tells him her story, and the story of his grandmother, and of his parents, two beat poets who “let go of life” one night in a car accident. Then at the end of the dream a genie appears and tells him about a man named Duck who, we’re supposed to presume, is his future love interest and reason to cling to life.

Aaaand that plot description was about five times racier than the book actually is. It’s only about 100 pages, and most of that is lyrical description. He doesn’t even say the word “gay” until he admits it to a ghost/hallucination of his father on page 86. There’s no sex, certainly nothing described graphically. Dirk mostly contents himself with yearningly thinking about kissing or just not being alone all the time. The word “faggot” is used a few times, mostly by the skinheads who beat him into unconsciousness. So I can’t really decide what “specific words” are “slanderous to all males”, especially if the people objecting and demanding $30,000 for emotional damage didn’t read the book carefully but only glanced through it since it was on display. Unless ladybugs and butterflies are slanderous to all men, because there WAS an awful lot of bug metaphors. Oh, and symbolic dancing. And beat poetry. So, yeah, public burning totes justified.

Seriously, I can’t even really find any “juicy parts” to quote. Unless you count this passage from the beginning, which is something he imagines while playing with his toy trains:

“He was on a train with the fathers–all naked and cookie-colored and laughing. There under the blasts of warm water spurting from the walls as the train moved slick through the land. All the bunching calf muscles dripping water and biceps full of power comforted Dirk. He tried to see his own father’s face but there was always too much steam.”

Later, he dreams of the same train, but instead of water coming out of the shower heads, it’s deadly, deadly gas. There’s a light sprinkling of anti-Nazism running through the book which seems slightly strange just because it remains unelaborated upon. I liked the language of this book. I was able to read it in about an hour, and it was almost like reading poetry. I was afraid it was going to be an angsty typical teen-problem novel, and, although the themes were similar, it had a very light touch, the exact opposite of the usual heavy-handed teen problem fare.

The worst I can say about it is the cover’s kind of blah:

Banned Books 2010: My New Hobby

To give myself a hobby besides complaining about the irrelevance of grad school, I’ve decided to read every book (well, almost every book) on the ALA’s bibliography of banned and challenged books from May 2009-May 2010. This list, which they’re showcasing for Banned Books Week, is slightly arbitrary, in that it only includes titles written up within the year in Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, but any banned books list is going to be somewhat arbitrary, as it will only discuss reported instances. I’m going to concentrate on the ones which were challenged in public libraries, since that’s my area of interest, and because I find the morality of most school-challengings somewhat murkier. If someone (usually a parent) wants to restrict all children who may or may not share their own beliefs from access to information, I can listen to their objections, go through the process, and generally fight censorship like the idealistic librarian I am. It’s when students are forced to read certain titles in class that I am slightly more uncomfortable. I personally can’t picture myself ever getting uppity over a required text, but I can understand the motivations of people who do. They just want what they think is best for their kids–as opposed to the public library cases, where they just want what they think is best for everyone’s kids. Natch I also don’t agree with helicopter parents constantly overriding teachers’ authority and judgement, and I’m happy to see that in a lot of instances discussed on this year’s list, everyone was content after alternative titles were made available if students decided to choose them instead.

A few titles on the list were challenged because parents thought that they were too easy for minors to get their hands on them on the library shelves. These include:

Joy of Sex by Alex Comfort
Sex for Busy People: the Art of the Quickie for Lovers on the Go by Emily Dubberly
Lesbian Karma Sutra by Kat Harding
Mastering Multiple Position Sex by Eric Garrison
The Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein

In most of these cases, the library involved decided to implement special library cards for minors which would only allow children to check out restricted titles with parents’ permission rather than remove the books from their catalog. I’m sorry to report that I will not be reading these titles as part of the challenge, partially because my library owns only Joy of Sex for whatever reason, partially because of the massive Check Out Embarrassment Factor (no, librarians are not immune), and also because I am way more interested in the children’s/YA titles on the list. Also, I will not be looking at:

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, which was “pulled from the Menifee, California Union School District [this year] because a parent complained when a child came across the term ‘oral sex’. Officials said the district is forming a committee to consider a permanent classroom ban of the dictionary.”

Maybe it’s been awhile since these people were kids, because I’m shocked that they can’t remember that looking up dirty words is practically what the dictionary is for until you start studying for the SATs and need to know what adjuration means.

Anyway, I’m sure I will think up other credible excuses why I can’t read things as this project progresses. Each review will include a brief summary, why it was challenged, if I think it really should have been, and a mostly fabricated list of other reasons why I think the book might offend you (including awful cover art). I will try to include quotes of the juicy parts so you don’t even have to read it for yourself to find them!

Site and contents are © 2009-2024 Patricia Ladd, all rights reserved. | Admin Login | Design by Steven Wiggins.