A Powerful Guest Post Against Book Banning

When I created the Banned Books Reading Challenge earlier this month, I sent out an informal open invitation to anyone who would like to write a guest post on the subject of book-banning and censorship. Alison of the blog Alison Can Read responded with a personal experience. Her story is moving and eloquent in its frankness, and it certainly has motivated me to never stop fighting against censorship. I encourage you to give Alison your time and read her story below.

-

I'm Alison of Alison Can Read. I've been blogging for a little over three months. My blog features young adult and middle grade books. When Steph posted about the Banned Books Challenge, I immediately hopped on board. I've always had the privilege to read whatever I chose and cannot imagine flatly denying other people the opportunity to do the same.

Any discussion about banned books always brings a particular book to my mind. I fell in love with Judy Blume's Fudge series in fourth grade. Naturally, when I finished those, I moved on to her other books. In fourth and fifth grade, I read Forever; Tiger Eyes; Just As Long As We're Together; Blubber; Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret; and Deenie. Most of these books faded from my mind quickly after I read them (even the salacious Forever), but Deenie stayed with me.

Deenie is a 13 year old girl defined by her pretty face. As her mother likes to say to complete strangers: "Deenie's the beauty. Helen's [her sister] the brain." While Deenie senses that her mother's statement is wrong, or at least embarrassing, she still buys into the importance of her own looks. Her mother's plans to turn Deenie into a model are thwarted when Deenie is diagnosed with a severe case of scoliosis. She must wear a back brace for at least four years to prevent permanent deformity. Suddenly, Deenie is more of a freak than a beauty. Deenie shows how adversity can transform a shallow, selfish beauty first into an emotional wreck but ultimately into a more complex, sensitive, and thoughtful young woman.

Deenie came at the perfect time for me. I was diagnosed with scoliosis shortly before reading the book. Fortunately, the only inconveniences I experienced from the condition was an annual doctor's visit four hours away and an admonition not to run marathons or go horseback riding. But with my penchant for hypochondria, I was certain that my back was going to twist into a new and extreme shape at any moment. Reading about a character with scoliosis was therapeutic. Unlike Deenie, I thought the idea of a back brace sounded interesting, or at least dramatic (I imagine I would have felt differently had I actually been required to wear one). I also loved reading about Deenie's typical adolescent issues, particularly any and all references to her period. Few things were more exciting in my pre-pubescent mind than menstruation. It was certainly a lot more interesting than boys.

I read and re-read my elementary school library's tattered copy of Deenie and encouraged my friends to do the same. I was shocked when my friend's grandmother called the school and demanded that the book be removed from the library. Why would anyone want to keep such a wonderful book out of the hands of kids? I didn't see anything wrong with it. This was my first experience with banning books. The idea that one person could keep me from reading a book, any book, that I might care about seemed horribly unfair. Who were they to decide what I or anyone else was entitled to read? My school declined to remove Deenie from its library, and I was glad.

I picked up Deenie last week. It's been almost twenty years since I last read the book. I knew Deenie was frequently on banned book lists, along with many of Judy Blume's books, but still didn't understand why. All I remembered of the book was Deenie's scoliosis, her shrew of a mother, and references to menstruation. I re-read Deenie in a few hours. To be honest, I was disappointed. I didn't remember Deenie being such a shallow brat before developing scoliosis; she would have tormented a plain-looking, quiet girl like me. I also thought the characters were flat and the writing was too simplistic (which explains why I was able to read it easily at 9 years old). It felt reminiscent of the cookie-cutter after-school movies.

Now, I definitely understand why Deenie makes banned book lists. There are several references to masturbation. A few are very subtle, but there is also a clear definition of what it is and a discussion of its morality. It was just thrown in there, like a public service announcement. I almost laughed out loud when reading it. My 9-year-old brain completely skipped over this. It was so blatant that I can't believe I missed it, especially given how many times I read the book, but it clearly was too far above my maturity level to be absorbed. I imagine Blume included it in there, because few books of the time (or even now) discussed masturbation at all, and she thought teens should have a safe place to learn about it. It certainly didn't further the plot.

Does Deenie deserve to be on the shelf of a school library? Yes. I don't believe that any book should be flatly banned from shelves. That being said, if I had a 9- or 10-year-old daughter, I would probably not let her read Deenie. It really is more appropriate for a 12- or 13-year-old girl. But I think it should be up to a parent to decide for his or her own child. You may just have a young girl with scoliosis desperate to read everything she can about the condition who also happens to be so naive that she skips over any material inappropriate for her age. Individuals differ. What is inappropriate for one person may be just what another person needs to read. Banning books unfairly assumes that what is right for one is right for all.

-

Have something about censorship and book banning that you'd like to share? Email me at stephxsu at gmail dot com. Thanks to all who are supporting the freedom to read and speaking out against censorship during these weeks. You are the ones who will define the future, and I am glad for it.

SPEAKing Loudly

As always, I am a little late to talking about this. On Sunday, fab YA author Laurie Halse Anderson brought to the world's attention an op-ed article written by a certain Christian parent and professor named Wesley Scroggins, who talks about the anti-Christian-ness of the inclusion of Anderson's Speak, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, and Sarah Ockler's Twenty Boy Summer on his school district's required and recommended reading lists. Scroggins calls Speak "soft pornography", Slaughterhouse Five a raucous indulgence of curse words, and Twenty Boy Summer a celebration of drunken teen parties and hookups.

I'm not sure how much more there is to say that other people haven't said already, or that I haven't already said in posts past. So let me talk about some slightly different things in this post, things that I wonder why people like Wesley Scroggins never realize when they voice their opinions in support of censorship.

1. Out of dissent, heartbreak, and attacks against basic human rights is born community.

When LHA blogged about the Speak issue, hundreds of blog posts from supporters poured forth. I feel like I've been reading such posts nonstop since Sunday, and have teared up more times than I can count. For there is no good way to describe the sheer number of people who shared things about their past that, in most other situations, they would've rather not had to think about. Stories of sexual/physical/mental abuse, depression, suicidal thoughts, mental illness, and more poured forth, which not only makes the message of Speak loud and clear, but has completely backfired against Scroggins' design: these so-called taboo subjects are experienced by all, and (sadly) for many people who've experienced these things in their lives, the YA lit community has been the most open, the most loving, supportive, and healing. I think Scroggins would do well to consider the fact that, from the looks of things, thousands of teens and adults who still remember being teens take comfort in the written words of people they may never have met before, rather than from their own local community.

2. Adult lit contains "smut" too.

Oh, no no no. Excessive smuttiness:
bared shoulders. Must. Ban!

Young adult literature frequently comes under fire for containing controversial material: teen sex, teen pregnancy, drinking, cursing. Let's have a look at some of the other books I read for school, shall we?

• Tess of the d'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. Teen virgin gets raped by sleazy older guy.
• The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel. Rape, and lots of it. And the girl is, like, 10.
• Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Murder!! And guy steals from lady he murders!!
• Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Kids going crazy and killing other kids.
• Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. Incest and patricide.
• Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Murder of a mentally disabled person.
• Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Double suicide at approximately 14 years old in the name of love.
• The Stranger by Albert Camus. MURDER! And not feeling bad about it.

(Please note that I DO like most of the books I just listed above.)

What's the difference between these classics and the YA books that are so often being challenged? One cannot even argue "different audiences," for a large number of teens will read one or more of the books listed above for school. And, Scroggins (I refuse to address you with the prefix because you are attempting to deprive others of basic human rights of education and knowledge, which is, as far as I'm concerned, ungentlemanly behavior), don't even think of accusing me of approaching these book descriptions "narrow-mindedly" if you're going to describe Speak as porn on account of a rape scene.

Not to mention the utterly bewildering fact that references to sex, whether consensual or nonconsensual, in YA lit is a no-no, but it is totally okay to teach dozens of books containing homicide, suicide, fratricide, patricide, matricide, prejudice, sexism, etc. in the approved secondary school English curriculum. Killing someone is okay; having sex for the first time with your long-term partner isn't. By Scroggins' definition, we've been reading lots and lots of porn in high school, and generations' worth of teachers, librarians, and academic scholars have been praising this pornographic reading list. Ole!

3. Therapy plz?

Well, that helps.

Scroggins (haha, now this is making me laugh; I feel like I'm in Harry Potter's world. Which is--gasp!--another book you'd label as un-Christian on account of its portrayal of witchcraft and sorcery), I'm a little concerned that you'd consider rape pornography. Exactly what kind of porn are you availing yourself of there?

I'll be less snarky. Let's draw some attention to the fact that you now claim you never called the books you are challenging "soft pornography," despite the, uh, obvious fact that, er, it says so right in your original article. So now we have a case of someone with questionable sexual thoughts, who's denying responsibility for something for which evidence is being shoved right in his face that he is responsible for doing. Sounds like the faltering defense of someone who is badly losing his case in court. See you in therapy, Scroggins. It sure would be embarrassing to be related to you right about now.

Okay, that ended with copious amounts of snark. Whatever: I'm getting tired of dealing with the same type of people each time this issue comes up in the same way. Let others be the mature ones in this argument. I'm going for ridicule this time.