One of the most controversial
arguments today is whether people should have the right to ban books. Some of
the top banned/challenged books range from children’s stories like Captain
Underpants by Dav Pilkey and In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
to more disturbing books such as The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold and The
Bluest Eye by Tony Morrison, as well as timeless classics like Huckleberry
Finn by Mark Twain, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and The
Giver by Lois Lowry. While many people (especially parents) feel strongly
that certain books should be banned, many others argue that it is unethical to
restrict books. Those who believe that it is fine to ban books say that there
are parts of books that are inappropriate for any audience, challenged books
have disturbing content and language, and feel the need to take their power
away for those reasons. These are not legitimate reasons for a book to be
banned. It is unethical to ban books.
One reason why it is unreasonable to ban books is because
a lot of bias can come from reading one part out of context. Many people
misunderstand books because they only read excerpts. For example, Alexandra
Petri, the author of the article “Searching for Offense” writes that, “If you object to the
tiny naughty bits concealed in good literature, you run the risk of never again
reading classic literature…” Petri is right—one must keep an open mind and read
the whole thing before making any judgments. People who skim a text for
offensive content will find it in almost every book they read—including
well-respected classics—because they are incapable of appreciating the
literature as a whole. This can greatly obstruct their view of what literature is
and what it means to others. One can bias themselves as well as other readers
by choosing to acknowledge/share only certain parts of a book. This is not fair
to other readers because they are not being allowed to experience literature as
the author wanted them to. This is also unfair to the author because their
words are being manipulated to bias others against their work, when everyone
should be able to read for themselves and develop their own opinions.
Those in favor of banning books might argue that many
books have offensive language and content that is disturbing for the reader.
For example, Huckleberry Finn has been challenged by many for its use of
offensive language. Terms like Injun Joe, half-breed, and nigger are replaced
in some editions as “Indian Joe”, “half-blood” and “slave”. However, Mark Twain
felt the need to use these words to paint a realistic picture of the time and
place he was writing about. It is completely inappropriate to manipulate an
author’s writing. No one person should be able to limit others’ options. Mark
Twain is using very specific language to force the reader to really think about
the negative connotation of certain words. When discussing the censorship of
these words, Jones, head of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the library
he works at, says, “Twain put it there because he wanted people to struggle
with it. I think, as a country, we're big enough to struggle with it.” As a
country, we need to be able to face issues like racism that have defined our
country’s morals for a long time and contributed to our relationships with each
other. Some say that books like this set bad examples for students, but talking
through an issue like racism or death in a classroom can help students deal
with these issues when they come into contact with them.
The reason why many people ban or censor books is to take
away their power and try to shelter themselves from the issues present in the
book. However, declaring a book banned or challenged makes it even more
desirable. It makes people curious as to why it was banned, and what content it
could possibly contain that would cause it to be considered unacceptable. For
example, when Ralph Ellison’s book Invisible Man was banned from schools
in Randolph County, North Carolina, it sparked peoples’ interest in the book
because, as one reader wrote to the newspaper, there is “No surer way to elevate a book to the Must Read list
of teen readers than to ban it.” Those who are upset by issues discussed in
books that they read should stop and think about what they are reading before
they cast it aside. The reason that authors use powerful language and describe
horrifying realities is to make us stop and think about the world around us—not
hide from it. Challenging a book is a way that people hide themselves (and in
some cases their children) from the issue discussed in the book, and the
reality of hiding from conflict is that you will not be ready for it when it
suddenly appears in your life.
The issue of censorship is very
controversial, especially when dealing with banned books. It is inappropriate
for anyone to ban or censor someone else’s writing. Not banning books makes it
easier for us as readers to appreciate the literature that exists in our world.
It causes the reader to really stop and think about issues in the world around
them and face ugly conflicts in our history that may have even spilled over
into our lives today. Although there are many arguments in favor of banning
books, they can all be effectively refuted because they are based on personal opinions
which should not define other peoples’ standards.
Bibliography
1.
Moore,
Martha T. "'Huck Finn' Navigating Choppy Waters Again." USA TODAY.
06 Jan. 2011: A.3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
2.
Petri,
Alexandra. "Searching for Offense." Washington Post. 19 Oct.
2013: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
3.
Zucchino,
David. "'Invisible Man' May Appear Again." Los Angeles Times.
25 Sep. 2013: A.8. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment