posted
Some of the books on the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books List amaze me. I can't even think of the possible problems with The Giver , Bridge to Terabithia, The Face on the Milk Carton , and a couple of others.
I love to read banned books. Often I find they're some of the best reading lists that exist. If it's just smut than few will bother with it. If a lot of people go through the effort of banning it, it's probably because it was pretty powerful. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's sad that any books are challenged and/or banned. But it's even more depressing to see books like I know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men are in the top ten. (I love Harry Potter too.) Come on people, these are literary classics!
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the complaints aren't more geared toward elementary-middle school libraries. Yeah, those are literary classics, but I can see (even if I don't necessarily agree with) the logic of holding off until high school (when students are eversoslightly mature enough to handle the content).
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throughout history, more and different kinds of people and groups of all persuasions than you might first suppose, who, for all sorts of reasons, have attempted—and continue to attempt—to suppress anything that conflicts with or anyone who disagrees with their own beliefs.
In his book Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, Nat Hentoff writes that “the lust to suppress can come from any direction.” He quotes Phil Kerby, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, as saying, “Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second.”
According to the The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, Challenges by Initiator, Institution, Type, and Year, parents challenge materials more often than any other group. See Background Information, below.
So, yes probably that is the reason for the challenges. However, the list is assembled from books challenged not just in schools but all libraries across the nations. It makes me sad though. My parents encouraged me to read. There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in, and I think I'm a better, more well rounded person for it.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in
Your parents were book banners. The audacity, to tell someone else what they shouldn't read. Who are they to say what are "otherwise inappropriate materials" (Just trying to stoke the fire a little).
As a teenager I wore a shirt that said "Celebrate Freedom, read a a banned book." As a curmudgeonly adult, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that parents are challenging offensive books from being included in public (particularly school) libraries.
I mean someone at a library is in charge of acquisitions, right? And that person or group of people filter what comes into the library, right? There's censorship inherent in the system. The ALA's stance against "banning" books is equivalent to them saying, "We've decided what to ban and what not. Don't disagree with us."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'm all for not banning books but there are certain occurences when I feel like a certain book was a bad choice for the age group and contained scenes (such as rape) that maybe early or pre-teens would be somewhat unsettled by. I know my mother has faced teachers over what she does and does not want my sister to read and I supported her in that particular instance; in this case it was a little like The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, where the teacher seemed to feel he was in the business of putting old heads on young shoulders. So I suppose I support "banning" (removing from being taught in that particualar class) books "unsuited to age group."
There have been other times where I have seen teen books in the children's section and have wanted to move them because I don't feel that they belong there either merely from complexity or because of content.
As a child, I read a lot of what I never would have read had my mother known the content. In fact, until very recently she insisted on getting me Historical Fiction because she thought it was safer (than Sci Fi and Fantasy, which was what I would put on my Christmas lists every year which is totally untrue if you've read much Historical Fiction, especially the adult stuff). I read lots of racy stuff by myself. Not on purpose but because some of the books I picked up from the teen or adult sections had "bits" in. However, I understand that a child or a young teen picking up a book by himself or herself is different from it being taught in school or given by a parent.
Children should not be restricted from these books but in an official position, such as school, they should read books in class that are suited to their age group. There are plenty of complex and challenging books that deal with difficult issues that are not unsuited to younger children.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just bought a banned book last night - A Clockwork Orange
I agree with the opinion that there is a difference between banning a book and removing it from the curriculum or changing the category it is listed under.
While banning books in a public library should never be allowed, it is unfortunate that there are many people that just aren't capable or mature enough to completely understand what they are reading. The first type of example that comes to my mind is books relating to the promotion of white power and Nazi propaganda. It is obviously unwise to prevent people's opinions from being voiced, but many people are fooled into incorrect thinking because of these types of books. So it's very tough to draw the line between limiting free thinking and protecting the best interests of society.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't let my daughter read the Captain Underpants books. And exactly for the reasons given for the banning. But I wouldn't try to ban the books from a library.
The Face on the Milk Carton? What's to ban there?
And I was surprised not to see Nancy Garden's Annie On My Mind on the list. Great book.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The ALA's stance against "banning" books is equivalent to them saying, "We've decided what to ban and what not. Don't disagree with us."
Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
I don't have a problem with asking a library or the ALA to change which section a book may appear under like moving it from Children to YA etc. It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pure BS in my opinion. It is a truly wondeful book. Basically if a book makes kids think outside the box, people want it banned.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somewhere in Oklahoma (no city given), a parent objected to the novel's use of terms such as "clairvoyance," "transcendent," and "guided imagery," because these are "all occult New Age practices the Bible tells us to avoid."
Wouldn't it be swell to have libraries that only had the Bible on their shelves? Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been looking through the list, seeing many familiar titles but some completely unfamiliar.
Some of them are guides/educational books. One of them is for young girls about puberty. What's Happening To My Body? and I found the amazon comments pretty interesting. I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
But my point is these are two different things. "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves. Libraries don't stock 1% of all published material. They're already "banning" most published books from their shelves. I still think that all the ALA is doing is saying with their opposition to book banning is, "don't question what we librarians decide to stock." Or, perhaps more acurately, "we oppose anyone trying to second guess our choice of which books to put on the shelves of your library."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pure BS in my opinion. It is a truly wondeful book. Basically if a book makes kids think outside the box, people want it banned.
I don't know. In my town The Giver very much encouraged thinking inside the box. It was given to us and we were supposed to agree with it and that was that. It wasn't until I reread it in college that I realized that it was entirely possible for me to prefer the world that Jonas left. As far as I can tell most people do agree with it, which is fine, but certainly isn't an example of teaching people to think outside the box.
Personally I think that OSC's The Worthing Saga and Ursula K Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" both do a much better job of getting the same point across.
Not that I support it being banned at all, I read it in fifth grade and found it entirely age appropriate. I'm just contesting the "making kids think outside the box" bit.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
You are somewhat misrepresenting the comments. This woman may be overreacting strongly but most of the comments say that some of the books content is a little strong for pre-teens. Yes, I had books with drawings of naked adults as a child but they were pretty mundane and straight forward tales about how babies were made.
I can see that maybe this book is more suitible for ages 12 and 13 or up when things like STDs (hopefully should) actually become an issue. Until then, it's perfectly acceptable to want your child to percieve sex as something that adults do.
I'm not saying that sex should be a mystery and that adolescence should be either, just that perhaps this particular book is geared towards slightly older girls.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somewhere in Oklahoma (no city given), a parent objected to the novel's use of terms such as "clairvoyance," "transcendent," and "guided imagery," because these are "all occult New Age practices the Bible tells us to avoid."
Wouldn't it be swell to have libraries that only had the Bible on their shelves?
Ah, but which Bibles. Can I ban the treifer sefer?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was fairly surprised when one parent decided that the right age for this book to be given to her daughter was 16 (!) and with the chapter on contraception removed with a razor blade.
You are somewhat misrepresenting the comments. This woman may be overreacting strongly but most of the comments say that some of the books content is a little strong for pre-teens. Yes, I had books with drawings of naked adults as a child but they were pretty mundane and straight forward tales about how babies were made.
I can see that maybe this book is more suitible for ages 12 and 13 or up when things like STDs (hopefully should) actually become an issue. Until then, it's perfectly acceptable to want your child to percieve sex as something that adults do.
I'm not saying that sex should be a mystery and that adolescence should be either, just that perhaps this particular book is geared towards slightly older girls.
It isn't censorship when a parent decides what their child can read.
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Shrug. I saw a lot of positive comments from people who read it when they were 9-10 and thought it useful and appropriate for them.
Most of the comments say that it's a great book for the age range (the avg being 4 stars I think).
posted
EDIT: I'm going by the average child here. I'm sure there are some kids who would be fine with it. I could have. I know lots of other people who would have not been. Others would not. But for an age guideline, I'm not sure 9 is appropriate.
Anyway, starLisa's right, this isn't about censorship, this is about parental decision.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves.
The outcome is the same for that particular book, though.
I am for families or people monitoring themselves. If a child is so young that the parent doesn't want them exposed to certain literature, then the answer is easy, just don't checkout the book for them. Don't buy it for them.
If you're worried about your child getting the book on their own behind your back, then you're screwed. Unless you ban the book everywhere, she's going to get it.
While I understand that some things make some people uncomfortable, the belief that exposure to certain things 'before the time is right' can corrupt children, I question this logic.
It's either through experience or strict conditioning that people understand whether something is right or wrong. If someone never has the experience that tells them that something is wrong, then when will they ever?
If it is proposed that more time to condition a child to automatically see something as right or wrong is what's needed, I wonder what age people think children will believe without question what they have been taught? If the parent is a good teacher, what is the age? If the parent is a cursory or bad teacher, will they ever? What about genetics? Isn't it true that some people are just naturally more rebellious and curious than others, and therefore all the social conditioning in the world isn't going to work? I think so.
Banning books, therefore, seems to me to be impractical and unworkable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa: my first post in this thread was talking about a specific book I found on the challenges list, with a link to Amazon. Teshi and I were discussing comments that parents have made with regards to that book.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves.
The outcome is the same for that particular book, though.
No, it's not in my opinion. If the government removed all avenues of acess for a book, then it would be a first amendment violation. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that a citizen shall have free access to whatever literature they want at a public library.
If a library chooses to stock or not stock a book, it shouldn't be referred to as "banning." It's just a choice about what's in the library; one which librarians want to have exclusive control over.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my kids were in junior high, I had read The Giver and loved it, and asked the school librarian about getting it for the school (I offered to purchase it for the school).
She exploded on me and said, "That is a horrible book! I will never have it in my library as long as I'm here!"
Totally shocked and confused me, because I wasn't expecting that reaction, and at the time could not understand why anyone would not like that book.
posted
The point of Banned Books week, at least to my understanding is this.
Some of the most repressive dictatorships in the worlds history had the policy of banning books. Two examples within the last century are the Nazi party in Germany who actually burned the books they didn't want people reading, and the government of South Africa prior to the fall of apartheid who banned books, music, television shows and anything else they thought might give the people they governed the idea that there might be a better system.
Freedom to read books, any books is a freedom that should always be cherished. One of the reasons that I find banning books so appalling is that essentially we are asking for the removal of our freedoms when we do it. Any historian will tell you that once you give up a freedom or liberty it is much harder to get it back.
Parents absolutely have the right to determine what their children should be allowed to read, but only their children. One set of parents may have a completely different idea of what is appropriate from another. Rather than asking libraries to take certain works off the shelves, parents should take an active roll in what their children are reading. Go with them to the public library, and if the local school has books in its library that you don't want your child reading, ask the school if there couldn't be a way for parents to make a list of books that their child not be allowed to take out. Most school libraries are computerized now so it shouldn't be too hard to incorporate that into the database. That way the books are available to children whose parents don't object but children whose parents disapprove of them can continue to make that determination.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, it's not in my opinion. If the government removed all avenues of acess for a book, then it would be a first amendment violation. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that a citizen shall have free access to whatever literature they want at a public library.
Pardon, I should have said for that particular book at that particular library for that particular community.
However...
quote: If a library chooses to stock or not stock a book, it shouldn't be referred to as "banning." It's just a choice about what's in the library; one which librarians want to have exclusive control over.
They're just going to get the idea on their own, eh? Let's be honest, if it's 'not stocked at one library', chances are excellent it's not going to be stocked at other libraries or other bookstores because the same groups are going to have the same concerns regardless of where it's stocked.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, the ALA's stance is that no books should be banned under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.
It's banning books from a library all together that I have a problem with.
But my point is these are two different things. "Banning" a book under the First Amendment has nothing to do with asking a library to remove it from the shelves. Libraries don't stock 1% of all published material. They're already "banning" most published books from their shelves. I still think that all the ALA is doing is saying with their opposition to book banning is, "don't question what we librarians decide to stock." Or, perhaps more acurately, "we oppose anyone trying to second guess our choice of which books to put on the shelves of your library."
You're corrupting the language to make your point. "Banning" is not the same as deciding what you will order and stock on the shelves when there are limits to the amount of shelf space and resources for buying books. "Banning" a book would not mean just not stocking it in the first place, but also refusing to stock it even when requested, or pushing to make it unavailable even to those who do want this.
Additionally, I'm fairly certain the ALA doesn't tell librarians what they can and can't stock. They probably do give guidance, but that is also probably based on book popularity and critical acclaim more than some bizzare attempt to control public access to specific books.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My hometown of Spanish Fork has a fairly small library that contains what I consider to be a thin selection of the books I like to read. The libraries in Provo and Orem, and the BYU library, all have a much better selection of books. I would say that the Spanish Fork library does tend to be pretty conservative in the books they select, but overall I think it's mainly a matter of space and budget.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The point of Banned Books week, at least to my understanding is this.
Some of the most repressive dictatorships in the worlds history had the policy of banning books. Two examples within the last century are the Nazi party in Germany who actually burned the books they didn't want people reading, and the government of South Africa prior to the fall of apartheid who banned books, music, television shows and anything else they thought might give the people they governed the idea that there might be a better system.
You missed the Soviet Union and Communist China, both significantly more dedicated to censorship than either Nazi Germany or Apartheid SA, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Rather than asking libraries to take certain works off the shelves, parents should take an active roll in what their children are reading.
Of course, I could do both. The point is that in requesting the library remove a book from its shelves, I'm not infringing on your right to read it. Go to a bookstore and buy it. Borrow it from a friend. Go to another library that does stock it. You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
The whole issue of "banning" books is rhetoric, meant to elicit a knee-jerk comparison with Nazi Germany. Asking a library to remove a book is essentially nothing like state-sponsored book burning. The one is a violation of freedom of speech. The other isn't.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, I could do both. The point is that in requesting the library remove a book from its shelves, I'm not infringing on your right to read it. Go to a bookstore and buy it. Borrow it from a friend. Go to another library that does stock it. You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
No, you're right, but I do have the right to read that book. In telling me to go and buy it, you are assuming that I have enough money to do so. Perhaps, I am someone who can't afford to purchase books, and I utilize the library as my only outlet. Maybe none of my friends own the book so I can't borrow it. And just maybe the only other library is far enough away that I can't get to it. Maybe it requires three bus transfers and I don't have the money.
In addition, the vast majority of public libraries are funded by their local governments which means that by asking to have a book banned you are asking a branch of the government to take away a civil liberty and violate the First Amendment. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: "Banning" a book would not mean just not stocking it in the first place, but also refusing to stock it even when requested, or pushing to make it unavailable even to those who do want this.
Alright. But how many requests should I be allowed to ignore before I'm forced to order it? I mean, obviously the library can't service every request. Furthermore, why is it that once a decision is made, that's the end. Maybe it was a mistake and the shelf space could be better used with something else. If I ask a book to be removed to make room for another, is that "banning?"
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Additionally, I'm fairly certain the ALA doesn't tell librarians what they can and can't stock. They probably do give guidance, but that is also probably based on book popularity and critical acclaim more than some bizzare attempt to control public access to specific books.
I didn't mean to imply this. I'm not picturing the ALA as some powerful cabal. I just figure it's librarians treating public libraries as if they belong to them, much like the librarian in Farmgirl's response stating "Not in my library." It's not their library any more than it's my library, and when it comes to content I should have a voice.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder what a library would be like after every group that had a beef with certain subjects or themes got through with it. No OSC, because he's dirty. No Jews, Catholics, or negroes because the white supremacists and other groups don't like them. No Harry Potter because it's satanic. No books on evolution. No Mormon books. No pro-gay or anti-gay books. No pro-capitalism books or anti-capitalism books. No pink books. No pro-Christianity books. No anti-Christianity books. No pro/anti Muslim books....
See, SenojRetep, if you go with the idea that a library should bow to the will of anyone who has a problem with a book, what's left? You say that some books should be left on the shelves? Well, who are you to say what a library should stock? You have no gauranteed right to be able to checkout a book from the library.
How does a library decide what's on the shelves when everyone is against something?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: See, SenojRetep, if you go with the idea that a library should bow to the will of anyone who has a problem with a book, what's left? You say that some books should be left on the shelves? Well, who are you to say what a library should stock? You have no gauranteed right to be able to checkout a book from the library.
How does a library decide what's on the shelves when everyone is against something.
I'm not arguing that I should have a veto. I'm saying that it's hysterical to elevate a parental or patron complaint into something equated with Nazism. I've never said that because I find a book offensive it should be removed. All I've said is that librarians should not have a monopoly on deciding what's stocked and what's not.
Who am I to say what a library should stock? I'm as good as the next guy. Aren't you? I think so.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have no guaranteed right to be able to check out a particular book from the library.
But I have just as much rightas anyone else does, as an individual, to request that a specific book be available to me in my public library since I pay as much for all the books as anyone else does.
It may not be unconstitutional to request a book be removed from library shelves, but it is censorship. You are specifically making it harder for others to read something that you, personally, do not like. I have no problem with people policing their own reading habit or those of their children. However, I think it is dispicable to attempt to remove other people's access to a work you, yourself, object to. If you feel so strongly that a work should not be read, write a review of it and tell people why they shouldn't read it. I'd support the idea of taking a wall in every library for people to post reviews of books they want to warn other people about.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I ask a book to be removed to make room for another, is that "banning?"
Yes, if your motive is the removal of a specific book. If your motive is genuinely making space for a book to add then you have no interest in which other book gets bumped. In such a case, a wise librarian would keep a list of least checked out books and see which ones of those are least likely to have archival value for the community that the library services.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I do have the right to read that book.
I don't think you do have the right to read that book. That book has a right to be read. That's free speech. But the state has no obligation to connect you with your preferred reading material.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: In addition, the vast majority of public libraries are funded by their local governments which means that by asking to have a book banned you are asking a branch of the government to take away a civil liberty and violate the First Amendment.
If I went to my municipality and requested that no copies of "The Chocolate War" be allowed in city limits, and if they complied, they would be in violation of the First Amendment. Availability of a particular title at a library is not a civil liberty.
If I write a book, and I think the library should stock it, and they say no, are they violating my civil liberties? No, that's absurd. Maybe the book sucks. But, if I write a book and the government says to me, "you can't distribute that" then my civil liberties are infringed.
quote: I'm not arguing that I should have a veto. I'm saying that it's hysterical to elevate a parental or patron complaint into something equated with Nazism. I've never said that because I find a book offensive it should be removed. All I've said is that librarians should not have a monopoly on deciding what's stocked and what's not.
I agree with you that librarians should not have exclusive say about what is stocked. They should stock what people request. On the other hand, they shouldn't remove books from the shelves for the reasons that I've given.
quote: Who am I to say what a library should stock? I'm as good as the next guy. Aren't you? I think so.
So, again, you're left with a library that offends no one--an empty library, basically.
Senoj, you haven't really addressed my points from a previous post. The bottom line is, why can't you police what you and your child read yourself without involving the library and having a book removed from the shelf? Why do you need to?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some might say that it's for the same reason that a gay person shouldn't be openly gay. It allows the public to see something that they don't want accepted as normal.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am absolutely for the policing of what should be read being done by the parents - in other words, if I don't want my kids reading Harry Potter, I'll tell them so and I don't think it's right for me to make that decision for every other parent by forcing a school to remove the books from the library.
I do however, think there are times when a parent should speak up if they think inappropriate material is made required reading by the teachers. I would speak up if an assigned book contained explicit sexual content I don't want my young child reading. However, that doesn't mean I don't think the book should be removed from the library, there's a big difference between not wanting your child to be forced to read something and not wanting your child (or anyone else's child) to have access to something.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just figure it's librarians treating public libraries as if they belong to them, much like the librarian in Farmgirl's response stating "Not in my library." It's not their library any more than it's my library, and when it comes to content I should have a voice.
This perfectly illustrates why it is wrong to ask for a book to be removed. After all, why should you have any more ability to prevent others from reading something than the theoretical "my library" librarian you mention. The civilized answer isn't that you have just as much right to ban books as the librarian. It's that no one has the right to ban books. Books should be made available to the community based on what the community wants to read within the budget of the library, not what certain members of the community want other people not to read.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: In such a case, a wise librarian would keep a list of least checked out books and see which ones of those are least likely to have archival value for the community that the library services.
The benevolent dictator. How Platonic
Why should how many are checked out be the metric (or the librarians sense of "archival value")? What makes that decision choice theoretically better than say the book that is in the worst shape, or the one most people find offensive, or any other criteria or mix of criteria.
I'm fighting harder than I want to. I'll quit soon, and you can all chalk me up as a fascist. Can I question the First Amendment soundness of Public libraries in the first place? Maybe that will reinvigorate things Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about deciding whether a particular book should be purchased in the first place? Should the community have a say in which books get purchased using community resources?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often the local library does have "sales" on books they have gleaned off the shelves in order to make room for new ones (that's how I got my copy of Wyrms).
So how DO they decide what to glean??
I can't believe it would be by "least checked out" -- because your stupid romance novels will be MOST checked out, and some reference books will be least checked out, yet they have more validity than the prior.
posted
Just talked to my wife on the phone. She said she can see both sides. Then she said, "If the library had a book I didn't like, I'd just steal it. They never replace stolen books."
It was much funnier on the phone.
*DISCLAIMER: The poster is not advocating theft*
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
My parents encouraged me to read. There was little (obviously not porn or otherwise inappropriate materials) they wouldn't let me poke my nose in, and I think I'm a better, more well rounded person for it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Just trying to stoke the fire a little).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
