Hrm.

You have a point. I also am annoyed at book banning, but the people doing it also have a point. Though they do get carried away and ridiculous most of the time.

For a parent, I can see not wanting a child to read a certain book, but what if the English class had them reading that book? Or what if they don't want their child to pick something up in a school library that say...has way too many curses in it.

I'm gonna paint a scenario to explain this:

(And I'm thinking more Elementary and Middle School children than High School because from my experience kids get a lot less naive in high school whether they read books or not).

-Parent raises a child, emphasizing the importance of reading.
-Child ends up having a high reading level at a young age.
-Young child finds a book that has sex and bad words or a scene that the parents have yet to explain.
-Child comes home asking questions that parents aren't ready to explain or answer. (What's wrong with wanting a young child to remain naive and ignorant? Isn't ignorance bliss?)
-It should be up to the parents as to when they will explain certain issues; it's the reason we have movie ratings when it comes to the Movie Theater.

My opinion? Books should have similar ratings that movies do. Manga have it. T - OT - M (Teen. Older Teen. Mature). Why not every book?

Instead of banning the book, put a high rating on it and leave it up to the parents to decide what they allow their children to read. And if the child disobeys, well, that happens all the time in any situation. At least the obedient ones will follow their parent's wishes and there won't be as many book banning crazes.

~Reda~

I totally agree with you.

Book banning is ridiculous, what use is having freedom of speech if no-one ca hear you?

great essay

I'm going to be more thorough with this review, because censorship and book-banning is something I feel much more stronger about than abortion (my priorities are all askew, haha). Anyway, first off: Yes. Book banning is stupid. Wrong. Totally unjustifiable. More than anything I'm gonna try to critique your writing style, your use of arguments, etc. I like to practise doing this, so I hope you don't mind. Heh.

First paragraph: I'm a statistics kind of girl. I don't believe anything you tell me unless you've got facts to back it up. (Okay, so I believe you, but if I didn't, what would prevent me from thinking you were making this all up?) So, are teenagers REALLY reading more books than ever? Because I look around at my friends and don't see that at all. You kind of popped Hitler's name out of nowhere, and I feel like you just did it to sound like you know more about your topic than you. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, just that, as a reader, that's what I feel like when I read this paragraph. As for, 'Can one person influence a whole school or town? Is this even fair to everyone involved?' Well, isn't the point of America that one person can make a difference, if they convince enough people of their cause? Isn't taking that right away from them just as unconstitutional as the banning of books in the first place?

Second paragraph: Aye. But where did you find out that this is the form parents must fill out in order to ban a book? And how often does this really actually work, these days? I want to know, so I know what we're fighting against.

Third paragraph: 'If you look up why some books have been banned in the past it's likely that you will find some pretty crazy reasons.' Oh, oh, don't insult your opponent. You'll lose their respect. Also, it seems that by this argument, you're saying that IF there were a book with unprotected sex, and IF there is a book with "no moral fiber," it would be okay to ban it. Is it? So, what if they just put all the "dangerous" books in a section labelled "dangerous books," and a student couldn't get access to it unless their parent signed a slip that said they could? Would that be better than out-right banning the books? Hmm...

Fourth paragraph: How many people vote for the president without really, truly understanding what they're voting for? Democracy - like nine wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner, right? I think you'd be better dipping into the 'banning books is taking away the intellectual rights of citizens of the united states.' Banning books is, more or less, unconstitutional strictly because of the first amendment - your freedom of speech, your freedom of press. If certain books are banned because of their content, then that's like saying that the author had no right to write it. Had no right to speak his or her mind. No matter how ugly an opinion, in the United States, it's still allowed to be spoken, heard, frowned upon, agreed with, etc. by anyone else in the nation. You've got a point, but a useless point. Yeah, it's not fair that the people who ban those books often haven't even read them - but it's also not fair that the people who vote for the president have often not looked into his true plans for the future, his past record as a politician, etc. Life's not fair, seems to be the argument you're spouting, and it doesn't work.

Paragraph five: Yes, yes, and yes. This is your STRONGEST argument, so why is it in the last paragraph? This should be the FIRST thing you say, because it's the most IMPORTANT. So why start out with your weakest arguments? It's not a good way to catch readers' attentions at all.

Anyway, good essay. I like that you've thought through what you're saying and, despite what I said about the last few paragraphs, you have come up with MORE reasons than just the constitutional reason, which is the only one I ever really hear. Still, the organization is not such that your strongest statement seems like the most important.

Regards,
Faith in Feathers

Well said. For some reason, it reminds me of a fictional book by Nancy Garden. The Year They Burned The Books. But anyhow.. I like the points that your brought out and there really wasn't any mistakes. Nice.

Another good essay. I suppose there are two issues with book banning though: the banning of a book flat out, and not allowing teenagers/children in school to read a book.

The former doesn't happen that often in my experience. I mean, even when they ban videogames and movies and stuff, people still play/watch them through online means. But the latter is a far more touchier subject. Many parents feel that children at school are much more susceptible to being misled. It is very easy to teach one side of the story to children in a classroom, their critical faculties are not as well developed as an adult (debateable in many cases, IMO) but also the teacher is viewed as an authoritative source, which is not always true. I'm a history major at university, and the number of people who have tried to disprove well researched theories ("facts" if there is such a thing in history) that have evidence and stuff by saying "but my history teacher at school said..." just proves that even into adulthood many regard their high school teachers as teaching the objective truth. This is what parents fear. That teachers will transform their children (who they really want to fall into line with their own thinking -what parent doesn't?) into disbelieving sinners who start to question parental authority and correctness.

Obviously, this parental paranoia over what their children are learning extends to books, evolution and religious topics as well. Many parents would probably feel uncomfortable having their child read about homosexuality (or evolution, religion/atheism, violence, sex, drugs etc etc) in a flattering light. Some go so far as not wanting their child to discuss issues pertaining to homosexuality (et al.) or anything against their beliefs or preferences at all. However, this attitude stymies education, we cannot tiptoe around parents who feel threatened by what their children might learn at school. Parents should harden up and teach their religion/belifes/politics to their children in such a manner that they can critically evaluate them and justify them (believe through personal justification rather than blind indoctrinated faith) and then no one need to worry.

Sorry for the long reviews. Obviously both your essays provoke thought, so I thought I'd tell you mine. And I'm in the habit of writing long winded reviews.

Anyway, thoroughly enjoyed both these pieces.

the coffee fiend

Although I agree with you entirely, but really there isn't anyone to blame for this or a way to stop book banning.

Book banning, like banning certain artworks, is based on bias perspectives. I completely agree that yes, banning books from schools is stopping individual freedom. But the fact of the matter is these days people are too fearful of what is really in front of them. They don't want to face it, so they try and ban it in hopes that it will go away. Take for example the book ban on D.H. Lawrence's book 'Women in Love' in the early 20th century. They banned it since it promoted crude portrayals of unruly women, but also promoted a 'homosexual' emergence of relationship between men. They banned it from the entire of English society. Now its deemed as one of the great literature novels about social capitalism and the relationships between men and women. Of course the ban was placed because people were scared of the rawness the book promoted about the harsh reality of Western society. There are always going to be people who disagree and who want to ban books because of their own morals and principles. I don't think this is a way to solve any problems, but simply as a means of holding power over something they know is inevitable. But as parents I believe they have a right to choose what their children can read. By banning it all together this ensures that it won't leak from another kid to their kid. The individual banning wouldn't solve much.

anyways sorry for the long rant!

down with book banning!

I do agree with this essay, more than the last one, but I thought the abortion essay was written better. I couldn't exactly tell you why, probably because the topic of abortion is a tad easier to write an argument for or against. Hard to find (normal) people in support of book banning, but obviously they (unfortunately) exist.

Just by the way, I would be fine with banning Catcher in the Rye. I think I must be the only person in the world who didn't actually like that book. :P

Anyway, still a pretty good essay.