Adventures of Banned Books

I started a book club. Not just any book club. A virtual (through Facebook) Banned Books Club. 
I got the idea after reading this book:



I don't remember what it was that got me reading that book, but I felt obligated. I read it. I loved it. I knew that it was on "The List" (meaning the banned/challenged books list) and thought that, especially today with all the media bullying is getting, and just how awful the bullying problem is, that middle schoolers and high schoolers should read this book. The book gave such a great lesson and was written with such conviction and reality that I thought it would do people good to read it. I wonder what other books people may be afraid of that are actually fantastic and poignant and can teach me a lesson about life and how to live it?
I know! 
I'll read down the list of the most challenged books of the last decade! Brilliant!
But I don't want to do it alone. Who will I talk to in order to discuss how wonderful or awful the books are and talk about why they were banned and perhaps get a good debate going? Also, how can i drum up support for local libraries?
Ah Ha! Shout out on Facebook! Now I have a great group that discusses books in an intelligent and very cool manner and checks them out at their various libraries. Win and win. Best part is, they don't have to live by me. Some of them do, but some of them don't. It is completely virtual. Another tip of the hat to technology. 
Our first book was Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck. I was excited to read the book. I had heard about it, it has been on the list since it was published and people just generally get nervous and upset when the book is around. Perfect. I want to know what it is that gets their knickers in a wad.

A cursory glance at why it has been challenged (I always give the members of the group a heads up, so if they feel they don't want to read it, guess what? I make them. *Just kidding. They don't have to if that don't want to* Just wanted to put a little irony in there) lists that the book was reviled for racial slurs, vulgar and offensive language and sacrilegious reasons. That's a good start for me. It's got everything but homosexuals (which really gets people riled up, but we'll get to the gay agenda later). 

So we read the book. It is quite a short book. I read it in a span of a couple of days. The consensus of the group?.......it was depressing. HA! No mention of the language, no mention of racial slurs, no mention of sac-religiousness. Just "wow, those characters were sad, lonely and that book was depressing". Love it. Interestingly enough, the bulk of the conversation centered around Curley's wife and how insignificant she was and felt and how badly she wanted to be someone else and somewhere else and how she loved to create drama and how naive and misunderstood her character was. It was a great start. 

Now, the gay agenda:

Oh, don't let those cute, cuddly penguins fool you. 
This book has more controversy surrounding it than...well...I don't know. It's pretty controversial. And Tango Makes Three is Undesirable #1. 
See those two penguins? Yeah, they are both males. See that adorable little fuzzy baby penguin? That is their adopted baby. The two males raised that penguin as their own. 
Some of the controversy surrounding the book:

Candi Cushman from Focus on the Family Action swears that the book is pushing a gay political agenda on to small children. (I'll let you think about that for a minute...kinda hurts your head, doesn't it?)

In Shiloh, Illinois, some parents of students at Shiloh Elementary School requested in November 2006 that the book be placed in a restricted section of the library and for the school to require parental permission prior to checking the book out. The school's superintendent resolved instead to keep the book freely available.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, Peter Gorman, the superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, ordered the book removed from school libraries on December 20, 2006. Gorman agreed to let a committee review the decision due to concerns that the policy on challenging books was not followed.

In Calvert County, Maryland near Washington, D.C. a mother requested that the book be removed from the children's section and placed in an area specifically for books about "alternative or non-traditional families." The library board of trustees denied the request, concluding that libraries should disseminate information fairly and without bias or judgment. Shortly thereafter, in November 2008, the Calvert County Library Board of Trustees heard another challenge to the book. A parent, describing the book as presenting issues of sexuality to children too young to understand them, asked that the book be removed from the library, shelved with adult books on sexuality, or marked with a "red dot" to alert parents to its controversial nature. The parent charged that the book's statement that penguins Roy and Silo "slept together" is a reference to sexual behavior between the birds.

After the case in Calvert County, Maryland ACLU got involved. So this book was PERFECT! What Of Mice and Men lacked in controversy, And Tango Makes Three definitely made up for. 

And the conversation did not disappoint. We had an intelligent and divided conversation about the book. There are people of different lifestyles and religions in the group and I was totally impressed with what everyone had to say. The members talked about as being mothers what they would want for their children regarding the book, but as for telling other people, what right did that have? Yeah, they think it is inappropriate, BUT know that they don't have a right to tell someone else that it is. It was great! Faith in humanity restored (that may be an overstatement). 
I may be updating from time to time on conversations we have, the books we read or just basic intellectual freedom news. 
I know I'm not consistent, but I'll try to humor you a little more often, if you'll humor me. 
Peace out!

SOPA, PIPA, and an angry librarian's rant.

It's a little late to the ball as it were, but SOPA and PIPA were rampant in the news lately. The most visible of the protests against these bills was the blackout of Wikipedia (which wasn't really a blackout, you could get around it). The thing that irked me the most about this was not really the bills themselves (I'll get to that later) but the comments made both online and on the news about Wikipedia's blackout. "Oh wherever will people get information today? The library? Ha!"

Umm, yes, people can get information about things at the library. That is what a library is for, in fact. I was appalled at the negative vibe that was being sent out about libraries. No, people weren't saying that libraries were bad, it was more along the lines of libraries are jokes.
How did this get put into our culture? And how does the way we see libraries change so damn quickly?
Just recently, with the economy being in the crapper and people losing jobs and cutting costs every way they can, libraries were heralded for being there for the community. For free, libraries let you check out books, movies, games, and you can use the computer to update your resume, check your email and apply for jobs. People got rid of their Internet at home to save money and used the library as a way to stay connected. They stopped spending money on Netflix and Blockbuster and Red Box and Barnes and Noble and started using the library.
Libraries are being cut when we need them the most--they all cried.
I did see fellow librarians, me included, post that if someone needed some information that they thought they could only get through certain websites that were participating in the SOPA/PIPA blackout that you can get that information from the library (call, email, text or chat, people!). But was there a story about that? Was there a surge in people seeking out their local library to find information? Probably not.
More has to be done to show people that libraries are important in communities and you can't believe everything you read online.
Example: SOPA is dead!!
No, it's not. It's on the shelf. It will be revised and brought back probably under a different name, but the dangers of censorship will be there, and all because that movie executive and that music executive won't get to buy their 5th car and their 3rd home this year.
Try living on a librarian's salary and see how far you go.

In between researching and researching

I am of that lovely age of remembering what it was like before computers were in every home (I was 8 when my family got one) and the Internet was not accessible (or not easily accessible). What did I ever do in order to research? Old school- went to the library and pulled out that card catalog and searched for what I was looking for. For those of you who do not know or remember what a card catalog is, let me refresh your memory:

That is an actual card catalog that I used over the summer. There was no way to electronically to look up books in this library, it was all in that cabinet, and that monstrous piece of furniture taught me how to research. As I said, when I was in grade school, in order to do any kind of research I had 2 options. 1. Go to the outdated encyclopedia I had at my house and look up the subject and hope there was at least a small paragraph about it, or 2. Go to the library and look it up in the card catalog and find a plethora of information on the subject. More often than not I went to the library.
Now, this taught me how to phrase search strategies in my mind. I had to narrow down what I was looking for, think of alternate terms in case there was more out there to be found. I learned how to differentiate between a good, let's say "scholarly" source, and a not so good source.
I hear the phrase "Well, just Google it" quite a bit. I like Google. I don't really have a problem using the word "Google" as a verb, except for one thing. There is a difference between "Googling" something and "searching" for something. Using Google is great for phone numbers, directions, reviews...however, if you are trying to find good, reliable information, Google is good for that, too, you just have to know how to use it. Herein lies the difference between my generation and the generation that has come after me (and some of my generation have become complacent and have forgotten what it was like to actually search for something). Searching now takes little to no time. You want to know something, type it and hit enter and BAM there you go. However, how good is that information? Is it as good as going to the library of 10-15 years ago and looking it up in the card catalog? I'm going to guess, no. Did typing and hitting that enter button get you the information quickly? Yes. Would looking for that information in the library of time gone by be quick? No, but it's fast.
When I was working in a library, when someone would ask me a reference question, more times than not, if i didn't rattle the answer off the top of my head as soon as they asked the question, they would walk away. Yes, I could have given you the quick answer, but would it have been right? Same thing with the Internet. Yeah, it can give you a quick answer, but is it a right answer? If you spent a little more time looking around and digging into the material, would you have found a better answer? Probably.
I recently finished my comprehensive exam for my MLIS degree. I had to answer several questions about librarianship, one of which was about the reference interview. I see both sides to the reference interview. Yes, it is necessary in getting information out of the library user in order to properly ask the question, but most of the time, at least when I conducted reference interviews, it was like pulling teeth to get the actual question out of the user. For example, a question I got a lot of was "Do you have any books about nursing?" Now, I had to ask the first question: The profession or the act of breast feeding?" Most of the time it was the profession. Then, "What are you looking for, text books, overview, career guides...." then "What type of nursing are you interested in, pediatric, practical, registered, specialist...." Most of the time you know what the answers were? "I just want a book on nursing". Yes, that is all well and good, but I can't get you what you need until you tell me what it is you want. I usually end up handing them about a dozen books and then ask them what it is they're looking for. That usually startles and answer out of them. People think in generalizations, not in specifics. Librarians need specifics so we are trained to get them out of the user, but if the user isn't knowledgeable or doesn't know how to express themselves beyond the generalities, then perhaps Google is a good place for them to start. We can all work together to find good, reliable information, and we may be able to use Google to find it.

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.