The 10 Most Wanted (off the shelf) for 2010

And it's here! The list is here! And Undesirable #1 is...that gay penguin!
Yes, folks, the list of the top ten challenged books is here for last year and once again And Tango Makes Three is at the top.
Rounding off the list is a title (or two) you may find familiar from previous posts on this very blog.
2. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian
3. Brave New World
4. Crank
5. The Hunger Games
6. Lush
7. What My Mother Doesn't Know
8. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
9. Revolutionary Voices
10. Twilight

The reasons go from violence to homosexuality to sexually explicit back to violence and homosexuality. Occasionally there is some racism and offensive language.

I bet you remember my post on Sherman Alexie's book? Yes, we have gone to the clip show.

I haven't seen too much on the radar for the other books. In fact, aside from the gay penguins, the only other books I have read on the list are Brave New World, The Hunger Games, and...Twilight. I kind of hate myself for reading the last one, but it wasn't because of the violence or religious viewpoints...it was just a bad story (IMO, don't hate).

And if you are going to hate on vampires, why is this not on the list?


They look so happy. Too bad the vampire is trying to suck out their intellectual freedom.

So go forth and check these titles out at your library...you can look for the Dick and Jane book, too. It's there...lurking.

A post where I disagree with both sides...

Nonfiction film series? Check.
Focusing in on controversial films? Check.

So what is the problem with this library in Connecticut showing a movie by Michael Moore by the title of Sicko? Apparently everything. The city council and the mayor told the library that if they showed that movie all funding would be cut from the library...and that they're ugly and they don't want to play with them anymore. Ok. I made the last part up.
The mayor stated: “I don’t even know why people make these decisions to go down those paths. It’s stupid. It’s like, it just blows my mind that people try to push the envelope with the public dime,” Kaupin said. “Do nice stuff. Do uncontroversial, or if you want to step in the mode of being controversial, make sure it’s fair on both sides and it becomes a discussion.”
The underlying problem here? Health care. It is a hot topic.

However......yeah, I know, just wait for it....
I have been sitting on this blog post for some time trying to figure it out in my own little head.
The library set up a controversial nonfiction movie screening of a well known controversial movie, Sicko. We have established that.
From the article I quote "the Moore film was the second in an occasional series of nonfiction films chosen by his staff featuring subject matter ranging from health care to education and the environment. The first film, A PBS “Frontline” documentary about health care called “Sick Around the World,” was screened on Jan. 7.

Upcoming films in the series include “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s film about climate change, and “Trouble the Waters,” a documentary about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

Does anyone else see something in those movies? I see, and I am a little off from time to time, but I see movies that are a little to the left. I'll give you a moment.

Yes, movies the "liberal media" would call "liberal" are on the agenda. Hey, that crazy guy had a point...why not show both sides? Or have a time for talking points and some friendly debate of "let's agree to disagree". That would be interesting and fun.

Now, I'm not saying things are only left and right with no middle ground and I'm not saying one side is better than another and I'm not even saying that I lean more one way or another. I'm just saying let everyone have a say. If the city council and mayor are crazy about this thing, invite them to speak and get involved in the community. Hell, I'd be lucky to live in a community where the city officials cared enough about the library to threaten funding because of some movie being shown there. I think everyone is going about this thing the wrong way.
You guys don't like it over there, well we would love for you to come to the community room and discuss why. Please bring your talking points and let's make this a community event. Health care is just one of many, many things that needs to be talked about. Who knows? It could lead to people working together.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Had ya there for a second, didn't I?

Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Woo!

ALA had quite a bit to talk about at their midwinter conference in San Diego. One of the points I was looking forward to was the talks about WIkiLeaks. I have been casually following WikiLeaks, as I'm sure most people have, through the news and the talk around the proverbial water cooler. WikiLeaks is an interesting beast.

As a librarian and information advocate I say, "Yay! Transparency! Information! Freedom!" As an American citizen that loves her country and supports those who fight for it I say, "Uh, couldn't people's lives be at risk because of this information?" So there's that dilemma again. Really, we should stop meeting like this. The ALA council unanimously passes a WikiLeaks resolution at Midwinter. Basically ALA thinks the US government is too ready to classify items that really don't need to be classified and thinks that the classification system needs to be looked at and revised. Probably not a bad idea. Also, ALA thinks that the government needs to treat whistle blowers a little nicer. Yeah, they may be bringing down the people that lace that nice wallet of yours, but it's the right thing to do, not the easy thing to do. ALA "urges the U.S. President, Congress, the federal courts, and executive and legislative agencies to defend the inalienable right of the press and citizens to disseminate information to the public about national security issues and to refrain from initiatives that impair these rights" and "government information made public within the boundaries of U.S. law should be available through libraries and the press without restriction." Bingo. I like that. The first part rings of getting rid of fear. The more people know, the less likely they are to fear things. After 9/11 the nation clammed up, got scared, and got kind of dumb with that color coded threat level chart. Not only do we need to know what is going on, we need to be able to find out what's going on easily and be given the ability to judge things for ourselves and not let MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, or whoever else feed it to us with a spoon. Go information and go libraries! And if you didn't like this post, go here!

SHOOT!

I am a fan of writer Warren Ellis. He writes fun, intriguing, messed up and sometimes out right disgusting stuff, and makes no apologies for it. It's one of the main reasons I respect him as a writer. This past summer something interesting happened to one of his stories. He has written many comics of his own creation and penned those of others. He wrote for a while for the HELLBLAZER series. His stint there was cut short by one story he wrote called SHOOT about school yard shootings. This story was written well before the Columbine shooting, but was scheduled to come out not long after. At the time, DC said no, it could not be released unless Ellis changed the story. Ellis said no, he was not backing down and he quit, the story was buried and forgotten, until last July. You have to respect a writer for not backing down and editing their own story, no matter how closely it matches with something horrible that happened. As I have mentioned before we shouldn't censor events because they aren't happy and shiny. Perhaps this story would have shed a little light on the horrible subject of school shootings. Why do kids decide to borrow their grandfather's arsenal and shoot up their schools? It's not a pretty scenario, but it is something that needs to be looked at so it isn't repeated. It takes a mind of someone like Warren Ellis to get us to think about things like this.

Why do current events make us censor ourselves? Why, after something happens do we react rather and pro-act? Think about it next time your talking to someone about current events. How do you tell the story? Are you censoring yourself without knowing your doing it? It's an automatic thing for humans, to protect ourselves from harm.

The N-Word

No one likes the N-Word.
I can't help but think of comedian Louis C.K. talking about people using the phrase "N-word". You can't replace it with that phrase. You know what is being said. It was just put in your head. The word is ugly and controversial when written down (and when it's said for that matter). It is the main, if not only reason, the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn is banned in schools and libraries across the country. People don't like the word, it offends them and it frightens them. I recently came across an column through the Banned Books Week fan page on Facebook that talks about the across the board fear and loathing of this book. It also mentioned a book that is out now that tries to remedy the "problem". Take a look at this book:

Looks harmless, right? Just another copy of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. Not so. This just happens to be the NewSouth edition of the book that takes the word "nigger" and replaces it with "slave". The person that is doing it is a Twain scholar by the name of Alan Gribben. He has good intentions. He did this revision in the hopes that teachers and readers who either can't teach the book or don't want to read the book because of the language will now be able to.
Now, I am writing this as a person who has not read this book.
Yes, I said it. I haven't read this book. Now, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't read it (the original or the revised), or maybe you've already made up your mind on the matter. Not my place to say, but there are two sides to this story that I would like to point out. The column I mentioned before is aghast at the prospect of a national treasure being revised, edited and the big "C" word, censored.
I tend to lean this way. Why should we change something that was written in a way on purpose? The story isn't about pleasant country living. It's about the South, which was not, and in places still is not, a very nice place for African American people. This book gives us a look into a time, place and situation that isn't pretty, isn't nice and is not politically correct with the names of people who are not white. However, I also see this guy's intentions. He sees that people are afraid of this word, that some teachers can't even teach the book because of this word and is trying to take the fear out of it so that more people can read and be exposed to the book. However, is the word "slave" really more positive or less ugly than the word "nigger"? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. In the column mentioned above a Harvard Law professor who wrote a book titled "Nigger" was quoted as saying "I am addressing the contention that the presence of nigger alone is sufficient to taint Huckleberry Finn or any other text. I am addressing those who contend that nigger has no proper place in American culture and who thus desire to erase the N-word totally, without qualification, from the cultural landscape. I am addressing parents who, in numerous locales, have demanded the removal of Huckleberry Finn from syllabi solely on the basis of the presence of the N-word--without having read the novel themselves, without having investigated the way in which it is being explored in class, and without considering the possibilities opened up by the close study of a text that confronts so dramatically the ugliness of slavery and racism." In other words, why not study this word and the history that made it, and a good place to start is Huck Finn. Explore it, get to know its origins, learn about history, not just about the shiny, happy parts, and don't be afraid of something, even if it is ugly and controversial.

Why you air bad things about your boss on the television...

Apparently the popular, long running show on Fox, The Simpsons, recently ran a controversial intro to the show. Now, I personally have not watched the Simpsons in quite sometime. I just lost interest. In no way am I saying the show is not good. On the contrary, it has, most of the time, been intelligent and funny and satirical all at the same time. I found an article on the Entertainment Weekly website that describes the opening sequence and it poses some interesting questions that I would like to answer. But first, the thing that got everyone all ruffled:

Now, I will be the first to say that, yeah, that was a little much. Kind of not the norm for such a show as the Simpsons. Now the article asks "How did this get to air?" Well, honestly, it was rather harmless. It's not like Banksy hijacked the intro to the show and made everyone air his intro. Someone at Fox and at The Simpsons had to have seen it and approve it. The article also points out that not only does it put Fox in a bad position, but The Simpsons as well. As we all know, The Simpsons takes some pretty nasty jabs at Fox from time to time. Granted this makes them look good and Fox look bad, but I wouldn't put it past the creative team at the show to do this to prove a point and not care who looks bad. Hell, the show has been on for over 20 seasons, what do they have to lose? However the story is, if the Simpsons are making a statement that yes the show is made in Korea(...which it is, that is old news...it's even in the credits of the show) and yes it is made in horrible conditions where pandas are made to pull carts and kittens are killed to stuff dolls and unicorns are chained up to punch holes in DVDs, then there it is and guess who is bankrolling all of that? Fox. Can the Simpsons team do anything about it? I don't know. But, I think they probably just did.

Missouri and Florida, states after my intellectual freedom heart

Wow. Missouri is quickly becoming my favorite state to write about. Once again, MO is in the news for challenging books in the school system because god forbid our little snowflakes actually learn something interesting. Apparently an assistant professor at Missouri State...yes, an actual (alleged) learned person, has a few problems with the curriculum in the Republic School district. A school district that his children don't go to. Well, his oldest did, but he decided to home school his other children. Anyway, he has a few things he wants changed in the school. Like the history class. He has a problem with the American government being taught as a democracy when clearly it is a democratic republic. I mean, come on. He also has issue with "Separation of church and state, and freedom of expression,Viewing of R-rated movies in English class, such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Breakfast Club",Science and evolution,Sex Education classes include information about condom usage, and other 'immoral' topics" Ok, you got me on the Breakfast Club...I don't really see the educational merit of that movie, but Saving Private Ryan? It is a realistic depiction of an important point in history. Maybe this guy is one of those people that denies the holocaust (I am just making generalizations now, he probably is not one of those people).
Here's another doosey. This lady in Florida is on a crusade to ban Catcher in the Rye. I know, I know, not the first time this book has been challenged. This lady's son, who is in 11th grade, brought home the book and both he and his mother were quite offended. She requested her son read a different book, and the school complied. The book that he is reading instead? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. If you know anything about banned and challenged books then this is quite funny. Here is a link to an article about the Florida woman and her problem with Catcher and her apparent no problem with Huckleberry Finn.