10 Banned Books that May Surprise You...from Christian Science Monitor

I was intrigued by our discussion on banned books the other week in class, so I did a little internet sleuthing to learn a bit more. I found this article on the Christian Science Monitor and thought it might be of interest:
10 Banned Books that May Surprise You

The list includes: James and the Giant Peach, Where's Waldo, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, Harriet the Spy, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The dictionary (yes--the dictionary), Grimm's Fairy Tales, A Light in the Attic (Shel Silverstein poems), and A Wrinkle in Time.

Yes, this list is pretty surprising. But even more surprising are the reasons behind the bans. Tom Sawyer and Harriet the Spy were both banned because the protagonists weren't good examples for children. Though both books contain valuable moral lessons and are excellent examples of children's lit, the fact that some of the characters can be a bit naughty (spying on your friends, bending the rules) is enough to get them taken away from school and public libraries. Sylvester and the Magic Pebble--an animal realism picture book--was banned because it depicted pigs in police uniforms. This could've been a harmless choice by the illustrator, but even if it was purposeful, what's the big deal? God forbid we encourage students to question or mock authority in any way. Even the dictionary has been banned before because it includes sexual definitions. Like it or not, parents, the words "penis," "sex" and "vagina" do exist in the English language, and sheltering your kids from the entire vocabulary probably won't prevent them from learning them.

I understand the need for children to read developmentally appropriate material--but removing valuable learning tools from entire libraries is not the way to make it happen. Parents, instead of spending their time whining about what books exist in the world, should instead focus their efforts on encouraging their children to read what they think is appropriate, and not ruin it for the rest of us.

So, what do you guys think? Are there any books on this list that really surprised or angered you? Or do you think banning books is OK?

Immediately Proceed to the Capitol: Are Interactive Books Taking the Focus Away from Reading?

I'll admit it: I'm a huge Hunger Games fan. Absolutely love it. So when I saw last week that I could go to www.thecapitol.pn and register as a citizen of Panem, and get assigned a district and an occupation, I couldn't resist. Sure, it's kind of stupid, but hey, any way to incorporate a little more Hunger Games into my life is a welcome thing for me. So, I registered, was assigned District 3, and promptly forgot all about it. Until, a few days later, I received an e-mail that read: "IMMEDIATELY PROCEED TO THE CAPITOL FOR CITIZEN REGISTRATION." Needless to say, I was startled, but then I got totally excited: this was truly an interactive experience! Not simply a one-visit thing, I would be interacting with this website in ways I hadn't originally expected. I signed back on to The Capitol, received my occupation (I'm a technician, if anyone's interested) and my citizen number and proceeded to look around the website a little more. I truly felt like I was--at least in part--re-living the experience of the book.

That experience got me thinking about the relatively new trend of pairing books--particularly children's and young adult books--with technology in some way. There's the new Harry Potter website Pottermore.com which allows you to re-read the books with added information and actually mixes the social networking experience with the books; there are books with less-involved websites, and of course, the endless amount of movies being made from books. It all got me wondering: do these additional experiences outside of the reading of the actual book add to or take away from children's (or our own) experiences with literature? On the one hand, they may encourage reading in general and increase children's enthusiasm about and engagement with particular texts. On the other hand, I think these new technologies may unconsciously pass on the attitude that a book alone is not enough to entertain and delight kids--that they need something in addition to a good book to make it worthwhile.

Overall, I really enjoyed my Panem/Capitol experience and look forward to more from the site. I think in general, these additional book experiences outside of the text are positive for both children and adults; however, there may be a dark side that takes away from the simple experience of reading a book and leaving it wondering what might happen next. When you're not provided with a slew of other interpretations and options, it leaves you with only your own imagination--an experience that I think is good for all of us.

Can Everyone Be Authentic?

I was intrigued by our discussion on cultural authenticity in class on Tuesday as it related to "The Rough Faced Girl" by Rafe Martin and illustrated by David Shannon. There seemed to be little argument that this picture book was not authentic. But then I got to thinking...could it ever be authentic if it was not written by an Algonquin author?

I'm sure this is not going to be a popular opinion, because no one likes being told what they are and are not able to do. But I think there's a lot of truth to the argument that cultural products cannot represent a culture authentically unless they are produced within that culture. Take a simple example: In Schuler's (my local bookstore of choice), there is an African-American literature section. As a white person, I will never be published in that section, even if I wrote a novel with exclusively African-American characters, themes related to the African-American experience, etc. Now, this does not mean that I cannot incorporate African-Americans or elements of the African-American experience in anything I choose to write. However, I cannot claim to speak for them or presume that I understand what it is like to be Black in America today; I don't, and I never will.

So--what do you think? If David Shannon had just done a little more research about how to depict the Algonquin people, he would have succeeded in creating a culturally authentic work? Or is it simply impossible to successfully represent a culture that you are not a part of?