In my Junior year of high school, I had to obtain a permission slip to read Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 and the teacher warned up front that very few who started the book ever finished it. I distinctly remember my jumble of emotions from that time. First, I knew, without a doubt, my permission slip would be returned signed. My parents believed in my reading as widely as I could. In fact, my dad had the book already and told me good luck because he couldn’t get through it. I’ll admit to a little flutter of worry over that one. My dad loved reading about World War II, or really war books of any kind, and at the time was on a John le Carré binge. All I knew about the book was it was set during the war, and I am not a fan of reading gore, so wondered whether the war scenes were graphic and that were the reason for the permission slip and why people couldn’t finish. But if my DAD couldn’t finish a war book … maybe I didn’t want the permission slip signed after all.

There was, of course, an alternate text for those who did not receive permission to read Catch-22, although I don’t remember what it was — probably The Scarlet Letter as it so often is the alternate. Even at that age I questioned the need for the permission slip. How beneficial was it for the class to be reviewing two different texts simultaneously? Especially when the majority of the class was reading one. And how would it feel to be one of the kids who DIDN’T receive permission to read the book their peers were ALL reading?

There were three students in the class who did not receive permission to read the book. What I remember from that? The silence. At a time when you’re desperately trying to fit in and be part of a group, these three were segregated. They were forced to sit through several hours of discussion where the entire rest of the class discussed a topic they weren’t privy to. They had no voice. While not overtly shunned, they were shunned through exclusion — mere ghosts in the class, forced to attend, while we went through the course of reading and discussion over a book they were not allowed to read. A definite DOWN side to the permission slip coin.

And what did reading Catch-22 do for me? I consumed that book. I finished it in a little over a day because I enjoyed the read so much and became a confirmed fan of Joseph Heller’s work. At my first opportunity, I went out and bought another of his books because that is what fans do.

The permission slip and response are pictured below. (Click the image to enlarge)

The post The Slippery Slope of Permission Slips appeared first on Be the Cat.

A second-hand book shop in Wellington, New Zealand wound up with a copy of Bloody Mama by Robert Thom, a book published in 1970 about Ma Barker and her sons. According to Radio New Zealand News, it was removed from the book shop by the Department of Internal Affairs.

What???!!!

To say I am appalled is an understatement. As a teenager, I’m used to (sad to say) books being challenged by parents and removed for review by the schools. And I’ve even heard of a book being banned in a town before (although not recently), but that today, in 2011, a book can be banned for an ENTIRE COUNTRY is beyond belief. The book was confiscated from a second-hand bookstore by an arm of the government… not taken off the shelves of a school, which means that the government has decreed that the book should not be read — even by adults. Really New Zealand??? That people think that teenagers cannot make an appropriate decision, is maddening to say the least, but that the government has decided that ALL of the people in an entire country are incapable of handling the contents between the covers of a book is absurd. Maybe the most disturbing of all is that the Department of Internal Affairs arrived at the second-hand bookstore after an anonymous tip.

So, what is sooooo bad about Bloody Mama that a country is not allowed to read it? I couldn’t find a book blurb, but the movie, also made in 1970, had a write up:

A psychological gangster film based on fact. Machine gun totin’ Ma Barker lead her family gang (her sons) on a crime spree in the Depression era. Her loyal brood have every perversion imaginable. The sadistic Herman sleeps with his Ma. When Fred Barker is released from prison, he brings home his cell mate/lover Kevin Dirkman, who also sleeps with Ma, much to Fred’s chagrin. Lloyd Barker is a spaced-out drug addict who sniffs glue if nothing better is around. Ma kidnaps happy-go-lucky millionaire Sam Adams Pendlebury and holds him for ransom. Arthur Barker – Ma’s wallflower son – and Herman’s hooker lady friend Mona Gibson also figure in the story. The bloody finale is virtually choreographed and a visual stunner. Filmed in the Ozarks.

Apparently, the suggestion of incestuous relationships is what caused this book to be banned. Again, really??? The book has now been passed by the Department of Internal Affairs to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to see whether they feel it can be removed from the list. On this whole thing, I have to agree with Mr. Hollander, the bookstore owner, “…people should be free to read any book.”

The post Banned in New Zealand appeared first on Be the Cat.

School district stops what’s offered
   I may have read Vonnegut’s book when I was a kid because it was on a school reading list. I don’t remember it though. Regarding censorship, the school district obviously isn’t censoring what high school students can read.
   School districts should only spend their precious resources to make available books that directly serve an educational purpose, and they along with parents should decide whether a particular title should be purchased for that purpose.
   Students who want to read a novel for entertainment can go to the public library or download it to their Kindles. There is no censorship involved in this decision.

That particular quote came from LakeNewsOnline.com but it is not the only comment which expressed the sentiment that “there is no censorship involved in this decision.” It amazes me that people think that simply because there are other means to obtain the material no censorship has been involved. What about the kids who do not have the means to go to the public library, or who don’t have a Kindle? Is it censorship for them? I think we may have forgotten the definition of censorship which is the act of censoring. And according to Merriam-Webster it is: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable.

Hmmm, seems a little familiar. And in the above quote, the decision was not being made about whether to purchase the books or not. That decision had already been made. In fact, Slaughterhouse-Five was a part of the curriculum. But the books were then removed from the classrooms and the library and made unavailable to the students in the schools. Or to put it another way, the books were suppressed. First as a result of the challenge, and now as a permanent removal.

By the suppression and removal of the books from the school, the school district is obviously censoring what high school students can read. If the books were never available, then the argument would be a completely different one. They were available, and they were deleted from the curriculum and library as objectionable — which is the very definition of censorship.

Thomas Andrews wrote a thoughtful opinion piece on the banning and requested that Republic, MO repeal the ban. The comments in some cases bordered on farcical. The very first comment derided Andrews right to his own opinion stating, “The school board made the right decision after considering community input yet you somehow think your opinion should override that of the community of Republic.” Another stated that since Andrews was an undergrad, that he only wrote the piece at the behest and the opinion of a professor and that nothing in the piece could be considered his own opinion. I was glad to see a few comments supporting his post.

My hope is that ultimately, while the books are banned for now, the people of Republic will come to their senses or that the case will continue to be pursued until a court overrules it. The banning of books has been overturned in the past, including Slaughterhouse-Five in New York in 1982. Let’s not take a step backwards in time. Let’s stop the insanity — Now!

The post Stop the Insanity – Part II appeared first on Be the Cat.

It is particularly appalling because of the board members who voted to ban, only ONE had read all three books according to UPI. How can you possibly cast a knowledgeable vote if you haven’t read the material? Did they decide that one person reading the books was sufficient? The vote is said to be about policy and not a criticism of the books in question. “Were not making a judgment call on if the book is good or bad, we just want to make sure it’s age-appropriate,” Duvall said. I find the whole age-appropriate rationale a bit baffling. My understanding is that these books were available in high school, not middle school or elementary.

Slaughterhouse-Five is considered not age-appropriate because it deals with the shocking realities of war — apparently our tender teens just aren’t ready for that. But from seventeen-years-old on, they are eligible to enlist in the military and the military would laugh if you told them it wasn’t age-appropriate to send the tender teens into battle zones. So a year or two prior to being able to experience the front line themselves, it is not appropriate for them to read? Reading about the realities is a form of preparation. By removing the books, you are removing the chance to explore the situations and bloodshed in the safety of written format.

As far as the sex in Twenty Boy Summer, I feel like heads are being buried in the sand. Teens have sex. Not all of them, but some — and they always have. And to deny that it is happening doesn’t change reality. So let’s look at age-appropriateness again. In high school where some teens are having sex, they shouldn’t be able to read about it? Oh and just to be clear, we are talking about a scene and NOT the overall message of the book — which is about grief and how two girls deal with death of a loved one.

Does this mean that we should allow teens to read any and every thing they want? I think it depends on the teen and the family. When I was a teen, the answer to that question for my family would have been yes. That was my family’s decision — they had the right to make it. Wesley Scroggins chooses no — which is well within his rights for his own family. I still have a very hard time with the fact that Scroggins led this charge to remove these books from the school system where his children aren’t in attendance. If his own children were in the public school system in Republic, then I might have a little understanding for a father trying to protect his children. He wasn’t trying to protect his own. He was assuming that all parents in Republic were unable to protect their own children according to his standards… and were I a parent in Republic, MO I’d be angry with his assumption and his actions.

As usual, when wound up about a topic, I become long-winded. I have more to say, but will save it for another post for tomorrow. Please check back and find out more about the insanity of banning books.

The post Stop the Insanity – Part I appeared first on Be the Cat.

When I saw someone called BookBurninParty start following writers on Twitter, my head nearly exploded. I mean, seriously, who outside of librarians and teachers, love books more than writers? Why would some idiot talk about burning books to writers????

I couldn’t help myself, I had to look into it to see whether or not it was some sick joke. And found out that it wasn’t… not in so many words. They have a facebook page and started posting signs like the one above all over Troy. But when looking at their Facebook page, I saw that it was actually part of some sort of political argument about taxes. I kinda went off on a rant to Sarah about the whole thing because I couldn’t understand why someone urging people to vote to raise taxes to save the library would threaten to have a book burning party if it failed. Does that make sense??

Sarah told me that it was a misguided attempt on the part of library supporters to use reverse psychology to sway people into voting to increase taxes. How stupid is that? Besides, what if there is a bunch of people who followed them because they thought they were going to actually get to burn books. They are going to be sadly disappointed because the last tweet (as of this moment) on the twitter account of these lunatics is:

There’s no book burning party. There never was. But now there’s awareness. Vote YES Aug 2.

I know I’m not old enough to vote, but trying to sway my vote that way would make me very angry and might even make me vote the opposite way. I don’t want to see a library closed. There are too many closing these days, but to think that someone would have the nerve to even suggest burning books as a plausible response–even if they really didn’t mean it is sick. Now it’s being called a hoax… I call it dirty politics. Is this really what we’ve come to in politics? And what happens to the people who tried to sway the public by lying to them? What example does that give us? That it’s okay to lie as long as it gives you the results you want? That sounds like Harvey’s logic to me. Disgusting is what I call it.

And NO friend of the library would ever think about burning books.

The post A Disgusting Show Of Politics appeared first on Be the Cat.