As I said in another thread, Toni Morrison's "Beloved" won the NY Times' best American fiction in the last 25 years. The judges were 125 literature critics, academics, authors and editors. I've read the book and liked it a lot. Here is a link that shows the runners up.

Oh my. A Chicago area school board is going to vote tonight on banning the following the books from their curriculum, based on "explicit sex, graphic violence and prolific profanity:" Toni Morrison's Beloved and Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carrried, both from the list. Interestingly, in 2003 Chicago's Mayor Daley had selected the latter book for the One Book, One Chicago city reading series.

Ummm, if you can believe it, Freakonomics, co-authored by a University of Chicago economics professor, made the list too.

Yikes!

Is this particular school in a highly fundamentalist area, or just in an area where people can't read?

While Beloved was interesting, I had trouble tracking when it was real and when it was'nt. I suppose if I'd killed my own child I'd be nuts too, however.

I very much liked Beloved. The one I can't understand is Freakonomics for heaven's sake! After all, it is a non-fiction. One might disagree with some of their conclusions, but to ban it?

It is not in a rednecked area, though there are always those sorts of people anywhere, I suppose. Apparently the meeting, which was packed, went too long for the vote to get into the newspapers; here is a Sun Times report of it.

Stay tuned...

After looking at the Sun Times article, I wonder if the word "ban" is appropriate in this context. What happened is that a list of books was selected for a school district's curriculum, about 180 in this case, and then someone complained and wanted 9 of them removed from the curriculum.

No one is prevented from reading any of those 9 books. So I don't see how they are banned.

Of course, not being on the curriculum means they will not get the publicitiy that the selected books get.

Welcome to the board Frank.
You are right, of course, that the proposed ban would be quite a narrow one in that it would affect only whether or not they are used in schools. Not really a "ban" as such at all. (Incidentally how did the vote go?) The principle is important though. Where does it stop? Don't teach (see the cunning avoidance of the word "ban", there! ) Shakespeare because it includes murder, rape, glorification of war, incest, the supernatural, religious intolerance, sex and violence?

You can't educate someone about how to combat problems without mentioning what the problems are.


Incidentally, I think that this proposed "ban" has probably done quite a lot to improve the sales of those books. I'd certainly bet that more of the general public can tell you which books were considered "inappropriate" than can say which were considered OK.

PS. I see from your profile that you are not a lover of free verse. Richard will, I'm sure, be glad of the support the next time we discuss this frequently occurring topic. (I'm on the other side of the argument.)

quote:

I'd certainly bet that more of the general public can tell you which books were considered "inappropriate" than can say which were considered OK.

I very much agree! I think one of the best ways to get people to read a book (particularly teens) is to tell them that it was deemed inappropriate for them.

Most Librarians would say that banning books is wrong. In the purest sense of the word "ban" I agree. There is no point to burning books or keeping books from people's eyes. However, to decide what goes into a curriculum and what doesn't - that is a different matter. I will often choose different kinds of books for a curriculum than I would for a library collection. They are for different purposes. If it weren't for the book discussion groups I am in, I would read almost exclusively from the list of "books I'd never put in any curriculum" because I like to read simple, formulaic books most of the time.

This is a great topic to discuss, considering the WOBOGRO book right now.

For those of you who don't know, we're currently reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi, for discussion in a few weeks. I invite you all to join us.

Caterwauller, does your library join in the ALA's "Banned Book Month?" The American Library Association holds an annual celebration of books of literary merit that have been banned by blue-noses at some point in time. Powell's Books usually displays selections from the list in its window during that time.

My slim tome, A Day in the Life of a Three-Toed Sloth has been banned from Chicago schools as well; at least, they didn't buy it. I confidently await an upsurge in sales.

"My zoology thesis was a functional analysis of the thyroid gland of the three-toed sloth." From Life of Pi

Arnie, you and Yann Martel should get along famously!

quote:

Caterwauller, does your library join in the ALA's "Banned Book Month?" The American Library Association holds an annual celebration of books of literary merit that have been banned by blue-noses at some point in time.

Yes, we do displays and so forth . . . but not during a year when we're trying to pass the levy - LOL. Again, the ALA list has everything ever objected to by anyone and formally filed. It includes books that have been voted out of curriculums. As I stated above, I don't really consider those to be banned books, but I'm only one small person.

First and foremost...Welcome, Frank!!!! Please keep posting with us.

quote:

I wonder if the word "ban" is appropriate in this context.

I don't know. I had said it was "banned" from the curriculum, so I think I used the word "ban" correctly. Had I said just plain "banned," it would be a different story.

CW, while I agree that a curriculum is a "different story" when considering bans, I also think it is very wrong for parents with agendas to come in and say which books to read and not read. Let the teachers decide. If the school board doesn't trust their teachers, they have a far bigger problem than worrying about a couple of books. We had a major controversy in our small suburb when a family insisted that the holocaust didn't occur, and they wanted all information on it banned from the curriculum. See where I am going here?

quote:

My slim tome, A Day in the Life of a Three-Toed Sloth has been banned from Chicago schools as well;

Actually, Arnie, this wasn't Chicago. It was a northwest suburban school district.

quote:

(Incidentally how did the vote go?)

The ban was voted down, thankfully.

I thought it interesting that the parent complaining, Leslie Pinney, had only read passages in the books before making the very serious recommendation of keeping certain books (that teachers had wanted) out of the curriculum.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

PS. I see from your profile that you are not a lover of free verse. Richard will, I'm sure, be glad of the support the next time we discuss this frequently occurring topic. (I'm on the other side of the argument.)

Quite so. I contend that it takes more talent to write a limerick (which has to rhyme, scan and have meaning) than it takes to write five lines that do none of these things.

Much of the published "poetry" I have seen is poetry only because it's been written by a "poet". Were it not it would, quite rightly, be described as a load of cobblers.

quote:

See where I am going here?

Oh yes, Kalleh, I do agree with you there.

I also find it interesting, like you do, that the parents objecting to the books only read "passages" before speaking publicly to get rid of them. I am not one of those kinds of parents, for sure. Although there are things I prefer my son not read, I'm not going to limit his reading. I will do what I can to continue talking together about whatever he is reading and encouraging him to hold those things up against what he already knows about reality so that he can begin to use his judgement to determine what is worthwhile and honest and what is tripe.

Of course, I also encourage him to find things to read on his own that he enjoys, even if it's badly drawn and poorly written comic books.

OH yes, and those revisionist history people - don't they just drive you nuts?

I guess what I rail against is the official "banned books" list from ALA that contains everything that has ever been contested. It's remarkable and worthy to have it all in one source like that, but they're not all banned books.

quote:

Quite so. I contend that it takes more talent to write a limerick (which has to rhyme, scan and have meaning) than it takes to write five lines that do none of these things.

Oh, give me a break! I have seen some wonderful free-verse poetry, where the words just sing. Those kinds of poets have more talent than almost everyone over there on OEDILF. Let's face it, it's not too hard to rhyme lines 1,2,5 and 3&3, keep it anapest, and make it humorous. As I am sure you know, many good limericks can be written within 5 minutes. I am not saying that there aren't any talented limerick writers, but for most it's just that they've caught on to the process.

What's a poem? I'm NOT being flippant - I really wonder if ANYBODY can give a concise answer. I've read prose that seems poetic and verse that's prosaic. Free verse may have a rhythm, or an internal rhyme, and while seeming to be unstructured is actually carefully crafted. Perhaps good free verse is akin to good jazz that seems to substitute notes for the phonemes of speech, stripping the meaning, but leaving behind the pure feeling. But what do I know! Hell, I can't even write a decent limerick.

What's a poem?

Good question, Asa, but probably not for this board. For me, poetry has two essential characteristics: poetic diction and form. Form is what most people think of if they think of poetry at all. It rhymes (what of alliteration and assonance?) and has meter. Worse yet, meter for most anglophones is based on stress, while many of languages use morae counting (Japanese poetry) or vowel quantity (long vs short vowels). (The Greeks differentiated between μελη (melē) 'lyric poem; song' and επος (epos) 'word; epic poem'.) Besides formal devices (or gimmicks), and probably asimportant if not more, is poetic diction, the language of poetry. The main differences between poetic and prosaic language are (a) archaic / specialized vocabulary and (b) one evokes emotions rather than stating facts. Finally, there is a huge literature in many languages of and about poetry. Poets have, over the years, developed quite a specialized vocabulary to name the constituent bits and pieces (e.g., enjambment, caesura, sprung rhythm).

Nice answer, Zmj. I believe we've discussed this in depth, with others answering the same question, but I am not sure where to look. When I have more time, I will look for those posts.

I see what you're saying, Asa, and I don't consider it "flippant." In fact, I apologize for my "flippant" remark of "Give me a break!" If I recall, someone earlier had posted that you know poetry when you see it, and for some of the free verses, that works for me.

I thought it only fair to include Lesley Pinney's explanation for suggesting those books be kept out of the curriculum. I can't seem to find her letter online to link to, so I will post it here. Sorry for the length. As you can see, Frank, she also disagrees with the word "ban."

"June 05, 2006
Do controversial books belong in school?

I would like to firmly refute the incorrect information stated and restated by the press. My efforts regarding the required reading list for classes at Arlington Heights-based Township High School District 214 have only been to urge those books that are less controversial would be chosen. The term used repeatedly and most unfairly is that I am 'banning' books from our schools. This is totally untrue. Students should be free to read any books that reside within our school libraries.

I have taken issue with certain books being assigned as required reading for certain classes.

On the evening of May 25, approximately 128 people were able to speak and about 1,000 attended a meeting that lasted into the following morning. Many who wanted to speak (350 speaking cards were issued and more were requested) could not, due to family obligations and jobs the next day.

It was good to hear what the students had to say after listening to their teachers during the school day, and after discussing the topic in class among themselves. Unfortunately most of them continued to use the phrase 'book ban' incorrectly. That group made up 40 percent of all who were able to speak.

What did the approximately 76 parents and taxpayers have to say? While 54 percent opposed the idea of monitoring and revising the required reading list, many equating this to Nazi Germany and book burning, 46 percent supported a closer watch of what our youth are assigned to read in class.

District 214 has a controversial issues policy, which the administration has been authorized to establish by the Board of Education. Within the procedures it discusses guidelines in determining whether a controversial issue or material should be presented in the context of an educational experience for a class or an individual student.

It directs the educator to answer the question, 'Can the learning outcomes of the lesson be presented differently or with different material of equal quality, but with less controversy?'

Also community customs and attitudes are to be considered.

Perhaps a discussion about how controversy is defined would be in order. I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex acts, gratuitous violence and prolific profanity are controversial.

I suppose those who disagree may say anything could be controversial.

There certainly is a continuum and we must decide where that acceptable line lies. And we must ask what would be suitable for our community of students and parents as a whole, not just people of conservative faith perspectives or those who simply hold to a higher moral standard but for all of those involved.

The fact that our district has a controversial issues policy, established in 1997, tells us that this is not a new problem. I contend that the policy is not being implemented in a careful manner and that this is worthy of review. Parents simply want to be informed fully about what their children are reading and viewing in terms of instructional media and materials. Just providing a book title is not enough.

I do hope that our district can improve in its communication with the parents and gain a new understanding of these issues and the effects that 'opting out' of certain assignments has on our students.

Leslie Pinney

School board member

Township High School District 214

Arlington Heights"

Were I to respond to her, and I don't plan to, I would with these points:

1) Surely the media were correct to call this a "ban from the curriculum," which is precisely what they called it. No place I read called it a general "book ban."

2) Reading only excerpts from these books before deciding to ban them from the curriculum is not sufficient for making such serious recommendations.

3) You say, " I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex acts, gratuitous violence and prolific profanity are controversial." Clearly Freakonomics has none of those elements, so your definition of these subjects is way too broad.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Thanks, Kalleh, for providing the other side in your last post.

I think it is clear from Leslie Pinney's letter that the issue was about "required reading" rather than a book "ban". Also, Kalleh, I don't see any meaning in the phrase "ban from the curriculum". The correct word is "remove" not "ban". But labelling this a "ban" successfuly degrades a minority position and portrays that position as contemptible. It is nice to verbally abuse weaker opponents before defeating them. Perhaps it's the American way.

Let's see, where have I seen something like this happen before?

Ah, I remember!

Do you recall the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Do you recall the verbal frenzy three years ago? Weak evidence, but a lot of negative, fighting words. No one cared about truth. As I said, it's nice to portray the people we are going to beat up, no matter what, as evil.

-----

Now to get back to something interesting. You said that you know of some free verse that "just sings". Do you remember the name of the poem and the author?

Frank, as you may have read above, I don't know the definition of poetry, but here's one in free verse that grabs me. I had the pleasure of hearing it from the author's lips a few years ago:

The Forgotten Dialect Of The Heart

How astonishing it is that language can almost mean,
and frightening that it does not quite. Love, we say,
God, we say, Rome and Michiko, we write, and the words
get it all wrong. We say bread and it means according
to which nation. French has no word for home,
and we have no word for strict pleasure. A people
in northern India is dying out because their ancient
tongue has no words for endearment. I dream of lost
vocabularies that might express some of what
we no longer can. Maybe the Etruscan texts would
finally explain why the couples on their tombs
are smiling. And maybe not. When the thousands
of mysterious Sumerian tablets were translated,
they seemed to be business records. But what if they
are poems or psalms? My joy is the same as twelve
Ethiopian goats standing silent in the morning light.
O Lord, thou art slabs of salt and ingots of copper,
as grand as ripe barley lithe under the wind's labor.
Her breasts are six white oxen loaded with bolts
of long-fibered Egyptian cotton. My love is a hundred
pitchers of honey. Shiploads of thuya are what
my body wants to say to your body. Giraffes are this
desire in the dark. Perhaps the spiral Minoan script
is not language but a map. What we feel most has
no name but amber, archers, cinnamon, horses, and birds.

Jack Gilbert

PS: Michiko was his late wife.

And another one:

Sex Without Love

How do they do it, the ones who make love
without love? Beautiful as dancers,
gliding over each other like ice-skaters
over the ice, fingers hooked
inside each other's bodies, faces
red as steak, wine, wet as the
children at birth whose mothers are going to
give them away. How do they come to the
come to the come to the God come to the
still waters, and not love
the one who came there with them, light
rising slowly as steam off their joined
skin? These are the true religious,
the purists, the pros, the ones who will not
accept a false Messiah, love the
priest instead of the God. They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health--just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time.


Sharon Olds

quote:

I think it is clear from Leslie Pinney's letter that the issue was about "required reading" rather than a book "ban". Also, Kalleh, I don't see any meaning in the phrase "ban from the curriculum". The correct word is "remove" not "ban". But labelling this a "ban" successfuly degrades a minority position and portrays that position as contemptible. It is nice to verbally abuse weaker opponents before defeating them. Perhaps it's the American way.

Once again, as we've often talked here, it depends on how one is using the word. Surely the use of "To prohibit, especially by official decree" may be too strong for this, though I am not even sure about that because the vote of the school board does make it an "official decree." However, for the sake of argument, let's say that's too strong. Yet, is the definition "censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion" too strong? I think not. I think that's precisely what Leslie Pinney was seeking. To simply say, "Let's not make that book required reading" is too soft for what occurred. She sought to vote on not allowing the professional teachers to put books on the curriculum that they deem to be essential reading.

Perhaps, though, "ban" has become one of those inflammatory words and shouldn't have been used. I do think that Leslie's words are more inflammatory: "I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex acts, gratuitous violence and prolific profanity are controversial." Show me any of that in "Freakonomics."