Stop Banning Books that Show the Pores in the Face of Life
“Every burned book or house enlightens the world.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
When I was in seventh grade, my two best friends and I went to the principal’s office to object to a book our English teacher had selected for the class to read — The Red Pony by John Steinbeck — because it contained the word “damn.”
It’s one of many, many things I regret from back then.
I wish I had clearer memories, but all I can say is I don’t think I actually had any real objections to the book. “Damn” is pretty mild and I’m sure it didn’t appear on every page. But it was a private Catholic school, and I guess we thought — or maybe they thought and I let them convince me, or maybe we all just convinced ourselves — that we shouldn’t be exposed to such language.
I think I went along with it because I didn’t want them to go without me. I wanted to feel like a part of it, like I belonged.
I don’t remember what our principal said. I do remember our teacher expressing her disappointment, as she should have. I think she expected us to have been more mature about it, as we should have.
The summer between seventh and eighth grade, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, which meant absolutely nothing to me.
I wasn’t allowed to read the Harry Potter books when I was growing up. My parents were still practicing Christians — now my mom says they’re heathens, but they’re still Christians — and, y’know, witchcraft and wizardry.
In high school, I read them anyway because they’re good books. They’re good stories — that’s all they are. What’s so dangerous about them?
“So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.”
— Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
That’s what people perceive as dangerous: the truths that books reflect like mirrors.
Maybe there’s not a whole lot of reflected truth in books about a boy who learns he’s a wizard and must defeat the wizard who tried to kill him when he was a toddler — it’s fiction. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the theory that they’re a Christian allegory; though if that was the author’s intent, then I find it incredibly ironic that my Christian parents initially didn’t want me to read them.
Actually, it seems that religion, morals and politics often play a role in censorship crusades:
“We’re seeing organized groups go to school boards and library boards and demand actual censorship of these books in order to conform to their moral or political views,” Deborah Caldwell-Stone said in an April New York Times article.
I read the article when it appeared in my inbox as part of my Times daily digest, and my first thought was every single book mentioned in it, I should add to my Goodreads “want to read” list just to spite those who wouldn’t want me — or anyone else, it seems — to read them.
There’s no better way to make people want to do something than to tell them they can’t do it.
Let’s take an example: the same English teacher had one copy of Nancy Farmer’s The House of the Scorpion on the bookshelf in her classroom, but she said only the eighth graders could read it. I don’t recall a reason why. So, naturally, I went home and checked it out from the public library.
But let’s revisit Ms. Caldwell-Stone’s words: “…demand actual censorship of these books in order to conform to their moral or political views.”
Correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t that, in layman’s terms, forcing one’s beliefs down another person’s throat?
Worse, it’s a person taking away another’s choices because he or she doesn’t like them. Even proselytizing doesn’t completely eliminate people’s choices of what to believe.
The New York Times article also states that a Wyoming county prosecutor’s office considered criminal charges against library employees stocking certain books; a Florida school board member filed a complaint with the sheriff’s department against a book.
“Law enforcement officials determined there was no basis for a criminal investigation in either instance,” the article says, and I really want to tack on “obviously” to the end of the sentence, but I guess if that were obvious, people wouldn’t have been trying to file criminal charges in the first place.
Honestly, America. (Why can’t we all just get along?)
“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.”
— Flannery O’Connor
I don’t know what I think until I read, whether or not I’m the one who’s written it down. I’ve written a lot of words and read a lot of words over the years, so I know that much.
For that reason, I think parents, educators and legislators should stop banning books — especially those that reflect truth like mirrors. That show the pores in the face of life.
This isn’t just about those books included in the Times article, but if we do look at those, they were all challenged for including content that deals with sexual and gender identity, including LGBTQ+ content, sexual content, racism and profanity.
Identity, sex, racism, profanity. All things people — and teenagers — will encounter and be affected by, even outside of books. Kids have sex. They use profanity. They encounter racism in all forms. They have to address identity to learn about themselves and about other people.
They exhibit the exact behavior that adults with power want to suppress by censoring the books that can help kids learn about all of those things.
Books offer language to help kids, teens and adults articulate what they feel, what they’re struggling with, what they’re confused or curious about. They can give people a sense of feeling understood.
“By attacking these books, by attacking the authors, by attacking the subject matter, what they are doing is removing the possibility for conversation. You are laying the groundwork for increasing bullying, disrespect, violence and attacks.”
— YA author Laurie Halse Anderson as quoted in the Times article
None of us can truly know what another’s life experience is like. What we can do is learn through listening and reading, and having open and respectful conversations.
When people in power seek to suppress conversation through censorship, we have to ask ourselves why.
I also have to wonder whether any of those people have read any of the material they’re trying to prevent others from reading — are they attempting to make an informed decision, however wrong it may be? Or are they jumping to conclusions based on titles, covers, short summaries?
What are they so afraid of, and why?
