Tuesday, September 24, 2013

7 Reasons Your Favorite Books Were Banned

By Maddie Crum - Huff Post Books -


Risqué-averse readers, cover your ears. Sunday marked the beginning of this year's National Banned Books Week, for which libraries and bookstores across the country will promote and celebrate commonly censored titles. The organization calls its cause a "celebration of the freedom to read."
According to BannedBooksWeek.com, 11,300 books have been challenged since 1982, when the event was launched. What constitutes a "banned" book, as opposed to a "challenged" book? The American Library Association explains:
A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.
Last year's most frequently challenged or banned titles included a mix of Young Adult books, literary classics and romance novels, such as "Gossip Girl," "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Fifty Shades of Grey."
This year's list includes a few stalwarts, such as Sherman Alexie's "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian," and Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed," and a few titles that have recent or forthcoming film adaptations, such as Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" and Stephen Chbosky's "The Perks of Being a Wallflower."
So why are these stories, many of which are venerated award-winners, being scorned, and in some cases, pulled from shelves? Here are some of the reasons that have been cited:
More
at

1 comment:

  1. Elaine Housby10:36 pm

    In 2012 there was a fantastic exhibition at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh about the history of banning books, with some of the titles mentioned in this article being on display. It was very thought provoking.

    I was very surprised to read here that 'Nickel and Dimed' was the subject of a banning attempt. It contains none of the usual justifications for censorship so I can only think that Walmart et al felt it showed them in a bad light.

    ReplyDelete