# Reading > General Literature >  book-banning in the U.S.

## Dinkleberry2010

xxxxx

----------


## billl

Are there any banned today (besides in schools)?

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

xxxxxx

----------


## billl

Wow--books banned from certain schools or workplaces, I can maybe understand (a community feels their kids, as a group, aren't ready for the N-word as part of a lesson, for example, or a company keeping "porno" out of the office). But simply banning a book from a town or county is ridiculous. Like people can't even buy it, or read it on a park bench, or keep it in their house? I can't believe the ACLU or somebody hasn't taken that to the Supreme Court yet. That's outrageous, and a shock, definitely.

EDIT
I visited the Wikipedia page on book-banning, and it isn't super-imformative, but after reading that and looking at the OP again, I can see that banning a book here in the U.S. wouldn't necessarily entail prohibitions against the sale or possession of a book. I saw things pertaining to schools and public libraries. That is still pretty controversial, though. Maybe that's the extent of it, though?

Jermac, do you know what the post office and custom's department are doing? I think I've heard things about the government "monitoring" or "regulating" the sale of books that explain how to do terrorist activities, or violent crimes. But I'm not sure, it was a while ago.

----------


## DanielBenoit

Ridiculous. That's all I can say.

If we as a nation are still ignorant enough to think ideas should be controlled and regulated, then that's just troubling. If a county or state still has a ban on something like Naked Lunch or Howl, then they are obviously stuck in the past.

----------


## JBI

The whole notion of book banning is absurd - if there is one way to get a book emphasized and read, it is to ban it. Look what happened, for instance, when the church excommunicated Luther - since there was print, Luther's pamphlets kicked off a reformation instead of simply disappeared.

It's better to just do what media does, and simply don't mention things you don't want discussed - that's how the status quo is generally maintained anyway - banning something just pushes it into the front.

Zola was perhaps the greatest abuser of these tactics - his deliberate movement to have himself branded immoral seems to have made his early career - lesson learned - better to just not report if you want something gone than to ban or criticize it.


As for which books were banned - well, there were far more that were banned that are good - it doesn't matter anyway, now it is essentially impossible to drop a complete ban on people. The real ban doesn't come from legislature - if something is really banned, it just means people have no desire to pursue it.

----------


## Virgil

> There are still books banned in public libraries, school districts, entire towns and counties in the U.S., and in some cases state governments, the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Customs Department are involved.


Where do you get that from? Yeah, some things like pornography might not be around in a public library, but that's not the same thing as banned. Banned means it's not allowed to get published, and as far as i can tell everything is allowed to get published.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Banned means it's not allowed to get published, and as far as i can tell everything is allowed to get published.


Why, pray tell, do you insist on defining it that way? The vast majority of books are "banned" by taking them out of circulation after they've already been published. The obscenity trials of _Ulysses_, _Naked Lunch_, and _Lady Chatterly's Lover_ attempted to suppress books that were available to the public.

And, unfortunately, public pressure is still brought to bear on libraries and booksellers to stop selling certain books. The tale of _And Tango Makes Three_ is a good example. 

Because it's a children's book based on a real incident at a zoo, involving a couple of male penguins who 'adopted' a penguin chick, certain communities were outraged at the way it attempted to portray homosexual parents as actual members of society. The award-winning book has been on the most-banned list since its publication in 2005.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## JuniperWoolf

When and where was The Bible banned?

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

xxxxx

----------


## Virgil

> Why, pray tell, do you insist on defining it that way? The vast majority of books are "banned" by taking them out of circulation after they've already been published. The obscenity trials of _Ulysses_, _Naked Lunch_, and _Lady Chatterly's Lover_ attempted to suppress books that were available to the public.


They were banned not for their ideas but for whatever obscenity laws were in place. I believed those books were banned in Britain as well. They had certain sensibilities then that were different than ours today. Perhaps they were a little too strict then. But we're not talking about then here. We're talking about now.




> And, unfortunately, public pressure is still brought to bear on libraries and booksellers to stop selling certain books. The tale of _And Tango Makes Three_ is a good example. 
> Because it's a children's book based on a real incident at a zoo, involving a couple of male penguins who 'adopted' a penguin chick, certain communities were outraged at the way it attempted to portray homosexual parents as actual members of society. The award-winning book has been on the most-banned list since its publication in 2005.


It's not banned. It's free to be published. School systems decide what is appropriate for children. Certainly you wouldn't consider Hustler magazine appropriate for children. Or perhaps you would, who knows. But i and 99% of the people don't. It's not banned from being published. No one has a right to shove whatever some 1% of the public feel is appropriate for others. if you want to read that book to your children feel free. I protest you shoving it down my kid's throat. Those banned lists are created by people who hold grudges.




> Banned doesn't mean it's not allowed to get published; anything can be published in the U.S. Banning when it occurs comes after publication.


Ridiculous. If you want to publish whatever you wish, you are free to do so. No one has a right to force me or my children to read it.

----------


## MarkBastable

I think, Virgil, that you're uncharacterstically mistaken on this. I can't see how something could be banned by being refused publication. Pretty much by definition, a book has to be born in to order to be smothered.

As it's come up though - America gets a bad rap on this issue. Ten years ago, I wrote an article that cited the absurdity of Middle America burning chin-high piles of the first Harry Potter book. ("Pure evuhl," said Cindy Rorschach, a grade school teacher of Hays, Kansas.) I tended to agree with her - though perhaps not for the reasons she'd like. 

But, as much as it pains Europeans to admit it, the reactionary hysteria that occasionally spouts in the gut of the US like gastric reflux is the unavoidable corollary of the freedoms of speech that are intrinsic to American self-image - - and therefore to American publishing. You can say and write and publish what the f*ck you like in America. What'll stop you is not Cindy Rorschach - because by the time she hears about it, it's too late. No - what'll stop you is Vertical BookPublishing/Movies/Games/GreetingCards/NewsMedia/And Eventually Yes Okay AdvertisingRevenue Inc.

And that's what Europeans really mean when they get sniffy about censorship in America. Because we are not yet - _yet_ - so corporately owned that we feel controlled. 

(Obviously I'll have to get this post run past Legal and have it okayed by Marketing before I post it, but if I'm good with them, I know I'm in for a cut of any residuals that may accrue and I'm also first choice for the sceenplay drafts if we get any action on the movie rights.)

----------


## Virgil

> I think, Virgil, that you're uncharacterstically mistaken on this. I can't see how something could be banned by being refused publication. Pretty much by definition, a book has to be born in to order to be smothered.


Because no one has a right to have a book read. Have you read my book? How about I force you to buy it and make you and you family all read it? [I don't have a published book; just using it as an example.] Or if you're referring to getting a book published, if you have the money to lay out, you are free to publish whatever you want. You can't expect some publisher to waste his money if he doesn't think your book will make him money.




> As it's come up though - America gets a bad rap on this issue. Ten years ago, I wrote an article that cited the absurdity of Middle America burning chin-high piles of the first Harry Potter book. ("Pure evuhl," said Cindy Rorschach, a grade school teacher of Hays, Kansas.) I tended to agree with her - though perhaps not for the reasons she'd like.


That's not banning or book burning as the term is used. Those are people who used their money to buy those books and do whatever they wished with their property.




> But, as much as it pains Europeans to admit it, the reactionary hysteria that occasionally spouts in the gut of the US like gastric reflux is the unavoidable corollary of the freedoms of speech that are intrinsic to American self-image - - and therefore to American publishing. You can say and write and publish what the f*ck you like in America. What'll stop you is not Cindy Rorschach - because by the time she hears about it, it's too late. No - what'll stop you is Vertical BookPublishing/Movies/Games/GreetingCards/NewsMedia/And Eventually Yes Okay AdvertisingRevenue Inc.


Like I said no one is going to layout their money just for you. If it can't make money you will have to do it yourself, and frankly the self publishing industry has taken off in the US. 




> And that's what Europeans really mean when they get sniffy about censorship in America. Because we are not yet - _yet_ - so corporately owned that we feel controlled. 
> 
> (Obviously I'll have to get this post run past Legal and have it okayed by Marketing before I post it, but if I'm good with them, I know I'm in for a cut of any residuals that may accrue and I'm also first choice for the sceenplay drafts if we get any action on the movie rights.)


I would be surprised if there are European book publishers who will take your book thinking that it's not worth it. Are you saying European book publishers are altruistic? Has a European book publisher taken your book?

There are lots (tons actually, though the intenet is driving amny out of business) of magazines in the US looking for good writing to fill their pages. How the editors make choices is thier business.

----------


## Paulclem

They were banned not for their ideas but for whatever obscenity laws were in place. I believed those books were banned in Britain as well. They had certain sensibilities then that were different than ours today. Perhaps they were a little too strict then. But we're not talking about then here. We're talking about now. Virgil

Lady Chatterley's Lover was the subject of a hgh profile court case in England. Of course when it went on sale it sold a mint. This ws JBI's point earlier. It just served to publicise it.

----------


## Virgil

> They were banned not for their ideas but for whatever obscenity laws were in place. I believed those books were banned in Britain as well. They had certain sensibilities then that were different than ours today. Perhaps they were a little too strict then. But we're not talking about then here. We're talking about now. Virgil
> 
> Lady Chatterley's Lover was the subject of a hgh profile court case in England. Of course when it went on sale it sold a mint. This ws JBI's point earlier. It just served to publicise it.


Yes, I'm aware of it. I actually did my master's thesis on Lawrence.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Has a European book publisher taken your book?


Er, yeah, thanks.




> There are lots (tons actually, though the intenet is driving amny out of business) of magazines in the US looking for good writing to fill their pages. .


Well, yes - them too. 

But that's not the point I was making. I'm a suppoter of the phenomenon that the tension between creative impulse and market forces produces the most interesting and commercially viable work. That's just the grown-up stuff of being a writer.

I was simply saying that although interests (hello, Cindy in Hays) outside the creative (artsy writers) and the commercial (publishing sales projections) may exercise influence on the market reaction to a published work, what really matters is the tendency of multinational monoliths to homogenise their output in such a way that it neither excites me nor offends Cindy. 

I'm all for books provoking controversy, and even bans. What worries me is that the tendency is for such books not even to get far enough to be banned.

----------


## Virgil

> Er, yeah, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes - them too. 
> 
> But that's not the point I was making. I'm a suppoter of the phenomenon that the tension between creative impulse and market forces produces the most interesting and commercially viable work. That's just the grown-up stuff of being a writer.
> 
> I was simply saying that although interests (hello, Cindy in Hays) outside of the creative (artsy writers) and the commercial (publishing sales projections) may exercise influence on the market reaction to a published work ,what really matters is the tendency of multinational monoliths to homgenise their output in such a way that it neither excites me nor offends Cindy. 
> ...


Hmm, well, I don't know how the decisions are made inside these book companies. I would venture to say that there are periods where the impulse is to homogenize and then a counter impulse builds to go away from it. I do think there are lots of avenues for people to get published. I see lots of variety on a book store tables. And look up self publishing.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Hmm, well, I don't know how the decisions are made inside these book companies.


I do. And it's actually, at the editorial level, quite sane. A balance between the commerical and the creative. It's down to the predisposition of the most influential editors. 




> I would venture to say that there are periods where the impulse is to homogenize and then a counter impulse builds to go away from it.


True. But the people who are doing well out of the swing of the pendulum one way are unlikely to invest in a swing the other way. Look, for instance, at how the major record companies fought, at first, against the rise of punk. 




> I do think there are lots of avenues for people to get published. I see lots of variety on a book store tables. And look up self publishing.



Self-publishing is not punk, I'm afraid. The dynamics are just not viable, even if the product is top class. That's not where the paradigm shift will be forced.

But - I agree with you in principle. It'd be nice to believe that something will happen to seriously worry - for which read _commercially terrify_ - the majors.

Then again, if my agent gets me a deal with Random House next year, I'm likely to stop worrying about this.

----------


## Babbalanja

> If you want to publish whatever you wish, you are free to do so. No one has a right to force me or my children to read it.


Easy there, chief. Nobody's saying you have to read it to your children. But lobbying to have it removed from libraries and bookstores smacks of "banning," don't you think?

And would you mind explaining what it is about _And Tango Makes Three_ you find so personally objectionable? I mean, it's a children's book about a family of penguins with same-sex parents. If it were anyone but you, Virgil, I'd suspect that bigotry were coming into play here. However, I know that's out of the question.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Easy there, chief. Nobody's saying you have to read it to your children. But lobbying to have it removed from libraries and bookstores smacks of "banning," don't you think?
> 
> And would you mind explaining what it is about _And Tango Makes Three_ you find so personally objectionable? I mean, it's a children's book about a family of penguins with same-sex parents. If it were anyone but you, Virgil, I'd suspect that bigotry were coming into play here. However, I know that's out of the question.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


Do people lobby to have books removed from bookstores? (If you answer yes to this question please prove some evidence). I have heard of books being challenged in libraries, but not bookstores.

I'm not sure removing a book from a library really makes a book "banned". People can still buy the book if they want, own the book, etc., if they really want the book that badly.

----------


## Virgil

> Easy there, chief. Nobody's saying you have to read it to your children. But lobbying to have it removed from libraries and bookstores smacks of "banning," don't you think?
> 
> And would you mind explaining what it is about _And Tango Makes Three_ you find so personally objectionable? I mean, it's a children's book about a family of penguins with same-sex parents. If it were anyone but you, Virgil, I'd suspect that bigotry were coming into play here. However, I know that's out of the question.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


I've never seen anyone try to remove it from bookstores or libraries. The only instance I have heard this book mentioned was in relation to a school. 

When I feel an appropriate age for my child to learn about homosexuality, I will gladly do so, and I have no bigotry toward homosexuals. I don't think kindergarden is the approriate age to learn about any sexuality.




> I do. And it's actually, at the editorial level, quite sane. A balance between the commerical and the creative. It's down to the predisposition of the most influential editors. 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the people who are doing well out of the swing of the pendulum one way are unlikely to invest in a swing the other way. Look, for instance, at how the major record companies fought, at first, against the rise of punk. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Mark.

----------


## Jozanny

> Lady Chatterley's Lover was the subject of a hgh profile court case in England. Of course when it went on sale it sold a mint. This ws JBI's point earlier. It just served to publicise it.


I tend to think the fuss over Chatterley was overblown even if one takes into account the obscenity laws that Lawrence had to skirt-- a few generations earlier, the Victorians floated so called "dirty cards" of women in various sexual poses that authors like Henry James and his realist associates were certainly aware of.

I tend to think Lawrence hit a political nerve of some sort, much like Flaubert, because the novel really isn't about why healthy sex for women is a good idea. There are other things going on in the narrative.

----------


## mortalterror

> Do people lobby to have books removed from bookstores? (If you answer yes to this question please prove some evidence). I have heard of books being challenged in libraries, but not bookstores.
> 
> I'm not sure removing a book from a library really makes a book "banned". People can still buy the book if they want, own the book, etc., if they really want the book that badly.


Well, there are certainly degrees of censorship, but should we look with a kind eye upon even the mildest of it's forms? Is it not censorship if it only effects people with no disposable income?

----------


## Red-Headed

I read somewhere about Americans burning loads of copies of _The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe_, probably copies people had actually bought to intentionally burn as a protest about something. I was wondering, if it actually happened, which State it was in? It seems the protesters believed that the books promoted a belief in the supernatural (yeah, like the Bible doesn't) & the occult. I also believe some of the _Harry Potter_ novels were burned by some protesters for similar reasons. Mind you, I bet the Potter novels make good fire-lighters!  :FRlol: 

Plus, I found this.

----------


## prendrelemick

Redheaded. I thought this sentence from your link was worth pasting on here.

The city warned me they would intervene if I burned [the Potter books]," ... "because of the toxic emissions (from) the ink.

I seems there are greater forces at work here.

----------


## Red-Headed

> Redheaded. I thought this sentence from your link was worth pasting on here.
> 
> The city warned me they would intervene if I burned [the Potter books]," ... "because of the toxic emissions (from) the ink.
> 
> I seems there are greater forces at work here.


Yes, forces almost beyond human comprehension I think...

----------


## Jazz_

Not long ago I read "Places I Never Meant to Be" (Edited by Judy Bloom). I was a collection of short stories from authors who have been censored/banned in the US. Quite frankly I found some of the reasons for censorship ridiculous - but most were banned 10-20 years ago.

About 5 years ago "Forbidden Love" was removed from bookstores in Australia - though this was due to the questionable accuracy of the facts (rather than "obscene" content). 

Other than this I only know of one other book banned in Australia - "The Peaceful Pill Handbook" - which gives instructions on how to perform euthanasia and suicide...

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Do people lobby to have books removed from bookstores? (If you answer yes to this question please prove some evidence). I have heard of books being challenged in libraries, but not bookstores.


I don't have any evidence of bookstores, your post just reminded me of something.

In my highschool library, a group of Christians showed up every couple of weeks and put little cross stickers on all of the books that they deemed "healthy" and removed the books that they deemed "inappropriate." They didn't have permission from the librarian, they just _did_ it (and the library was so small and security was so lax that the got away with it every time). We never saw them doing it, it could have been overzealous kids (but our library was also the public library at night, so it really could have been anyone). It's so irritating when you're trying to research the occult for a school project and all of the books on occultism have been stolen.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Well, there are certainly degrees of censorship, but should we look with a kind eye upon even the mildest of it's forms? Is it not censorship if it only effects people with no disposable income?


The economic element to it is a good point, Mortal. 

Personally, piggybacking off Red-Headed and JBI's comments, if I ever publish a book I would be so lucky that conservative Christians should grow angry enough that they purchased all my books for the sake of burning them. Free publicity with a touch of controversy for the newspapers, plus the idiots bought all my books and are giving me royalty money!

----------


## Red-Headed

> if I ever publish a book I would be so lucky that conservative Christians should grow angry enough that they purchased all my books for the sake of burning them. Free publicity with a touch of controversy for the newspapers, plus the idiots bought all my books and are giving me royalty money!


Yeah...there's no such thing as bad publicity!  :Wink:

----------


## JBI

> The economic element to it is a good point, Mortal. 
> 
> Personally, piggybacking off Red-Headed and JBI's comments, if I ever publish a book I would be so lucky that conservative Christians should grow angry enough that they purchased all my books for the sake of burning them. Free publicity with a touch of controversy for the newspapers, plus the idiots bought all my books and are giving me royalty money!


It's actually a strange thing even cross-nation. China, for instance bans books, but I think educated people there read a wider array of viewpoints (in translation) than, lets say the average Canadian reader, who doesn't read China at all except through a lens accepted by the American publishing market.

So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.

So, for instance, a novel with a strong capitalist agenda from the US may have been banned in China, but how many socialist novels from China ever made it to the US, or Canada?

The actual censorship is relatively irrelevant - the actual forces that control as Innis phrased it, "why we attend that to which we attend to," are the ones at the end of the day that matter.


Culture necessarily bans books. It may not burn them, but it will just push them into oblivion. Every discourse has its ideas, and only some will leak in and change the discourse - if a work isn't fitting with a criteria, naturally it bans itself.

Within the Christian context then, the discourse was controlled by a church who, importantly, were the main ones reading texts anyway, so it didn't quite matter. In the context now it is merely media giants who decide what is read anyway, and institutions like universities. To ban a book now is to praise it, to ignore a book is to kill it.

Once something is banned, it becomes a controversy - controversy reshapes culture, even if it is slightly - therefore, Thomas More for instance, taking a rather violent stab at William Tyndale in the 16th century did all that was possible to ensure his survival. Strangely enough though, their whole argument has never been published separately (outside of the collected works from what I know) and as of yet, has never been edited into modern spelling. The discourse actually reshaped the whole image of More around Utopia, ignoring the darker image, as apposed to banning it, so that nobody but academics know the text, and only as a footnote to his other works pretty much.


As it goes, usually people who come up with the ideas to burn stuff are stupid - most of the book burning crowd are, to be honest, but it doesn't matter.

If a text is relevant, it will survive any censor - Confucius, for instance, was banned worse than any author ever before or since, to the point where owning a copy, or studying him was punishable by either intense forced labor (of which many people died from) or death (the most famous of which being the live burial of the top Confucians of the era). But even then - after all that, it would appear that Confucius had influence on par with Jesus Christ after that, far more so than anybody else.

It seems that the Christian texts originally went through a similar process - whenever there is real merit, no matter how much banning, it always seems to remain and resurface twice as large.

----------


## Jazz_

The impulse to read a banned book may increase due to the controversy, but the banning would limit the amount of access to a book. Many people may not know of it's existence if it can't be found in a store or library.

The decrease in circulation may kill many books - only those which receive publicity and are available for a while _before_ being banned would have a good chance of survival. The banning itself does not ensure a books survival.

Many books which were once banned (such as Shakespeare) were already considered classics at the time, and were able to survive the period of repression. Other lesser works may not have survived...

----------


## Red-Headed

I believe that the Russian Communists had a novel approach to this predicament. Authors like Dostoyevsky weren't actually banned but, apart from not being represented in libraries, their works were made available only in expensive editions that most people couldn't afford. 

As an outsider to the USA, it does genuinely appear to be a highly censored society to me, in indirect ways, if not official censorship. I suppose a similar case could be made for any country though. At least Thatcher is not PM any more in my country & cases like this have ended.

----------


## virginiawang

May I know what sort of books will be banned? If an author does not write things that most people will agree with, will his book be banned? If he mentions a little bit about something in the evil world, will anyone in authority issue a ban on his book?

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

xxxxxxx

----------


## MarkBastable

> More books have been banned and censored by communists, leftists and progressives than by conservatives.


I have no idea whether that's true, or whether it matters, but I'd really like to know how you arrived at the two figures.

----------


## Babbalanja

> More books have been banned and censored by communists, leftists and progressives than by conservatives.


Ah, _tu quoque_, where would the Internet be without you?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Red-Headed

> More books have been banned and censored by communists, leftists and progressives than by conservatives.


I very much doubt it. What about the Nazis? What about Islamic & Christian conservatives? I would like to see some *statistics on this asseveration. 



*_Bearing in mind what Disraeli thought of statistics.
_

----------


## MarkBastable

> ....whenever there is real merit, no matter how much banning, it always seems to remain and resurface twice as large.


It would be nice to think that were true - but if it were not, how would we know?

Or to put it another way, who knows how much work of real merit has been suppressed and will never resurface?

----------


## mona amon

I'm not sure I understood the opening post. 

I remember only one book actually getting banned in my country, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The reason given was that it would create a law and order situation if the book was allowed to be sold. As far as I know the ban was never lifted, and I've never set eyes on a copy.

Was any book banned in the US in this way? Surely not?

----------


## Virgil

> So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.
> 
> So, for instance, a novel with a strong capitalist agenda from the US may have been banned in China, but how many socialist novels from China ever made it to the US, or Canada?
> 
> The actual censorship is relatively irrelevant - the actual forces that control as Innis phrased it, "why we attend that to which we attend to," are the ones at the end of the day that matter.


That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?




> I'm not sure I understood the opening post. 
> 
> I remember only one book actually getting banned in my country, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The reason given was that it would create a law and order situation if the book was allowed to be sold. As far as I know the ban was never lifted, and I've never set eyes on a copy.
> 
> Was any book banned in the US in this way? Surely not?


No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.

----------


## JBI

> That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?
> 
> 
> 
> No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.


It isn't ridiculous - the media giants are synergies. So they may not make money on a book, but another one of their companies may prosper. What people know about is severely monitored by the medias from which they receive it - print media is no different. If I wrote a book criticizing Disney, for instance, all the publications owned by Disney, including news papers and magazines either would ignore the book completely, or try to discredit it - there is a lot more political and structured scheming behind the scenes than people know.


Benedict Anderson (and he isn't a post-modern theorist so don't even go there) argues that mass print is responsible for a collective consciousness of people, and inevitably is the driving force behind nation - in that sense, the force that is banning books is necessarily tied into it. The force that decides which books are read is part of the same process - if a small press publishes you, may you will be lucky enough that a few readers notice you - there is no way to break a major market on a small press, so ultimately, except in select circles, small press books go ignored - the same is with self-published books.

As time progresses, from what I understand of the industry, the game becomes even more difficult, as things are heading toward a 1000 authors with ten sales each instead of 10 authors with 1000 sales each market. What that means is there is a bigger burden on gaining exposure.

Naturally, things like best seller lists come into play - but what exactly goes into them? They are based on the amount of books BOOKSTORES buy of said book - meaning, unless you are published in mass volume, you aren't a best seller no matter what, and even then, there is a selection process within the periodical putting out the list itself which essentially edits the books they want in there.

That is why people don't really seek to too outwardly ban holocaust denial, and racist books with any enthusiasm - any real press won't publish them, and the only people who really buy them are bigots in the first place - they become functionally harmless.

The only reason why books make the ban list in the first place is because they are promoted by other medium. The content at this point needs to display something that is controversial, yet at the same time a little bit true.

It's the same with Jesus, for instance - the Christian faith posed a contrary message than the traditional Roman doctrine, and as such, sought to undermine the authority of the empire. Numerous cults and beliefs popped up, but none showed such radical threat. None were as progressive at this point, with any political strength.


Twain is challenged, because Twain shows a portrait that people would rather forget. One would think David Duke would be on top of the most protested books, but, ironically, Judy Blume is the very top - a children's author of merit.

Why then do we challenge the books that we do? Why do we read that which we read? What makes a book challenge-worthy, or ban-worthy? 

I wager it needs a little press time before it gets there, something reliant on the six media giants I mentioned earlier, and their power in determining what is read.

----------


## Virgil

> Benedict Anderson (and he isn't a post-modern theorist so don't even go there) argues that mass print is responsible for a collective consciousness of people, and inevitably is the driving force behind nation - in that sense, the force that is banning books is necessarily tied into it. The force that decides which books are read is part of the same process - if a small press publishes you, may you will be lucky enough that a few readers notice you - there is no way to break a major market on a small press, so ultimately, except in select circles, small press books go ignored - the same is with self-published books.


That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a business decision. If you and someone esle writes a book on the same subject with essentially the same ideas and he has selling power and you don't, you lose. Grow up and face reality. It wasn't banned. This is so childish. Publish your own book. 

The criteria for banning is whether a subject is prohibitedly not allowed to be published. I see no such subject in modern day western nations.

----------


## JBI

> That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a business decision. If you and someone esle writes a book on the same subject with essentially the same ideas and he has selling power and you don't, you lose. Grow up and face reality. It wasn't banned. This is so childish. Publish your own book. 
> 
> The criteria for banning is whether a subject is prohibitedly not allowed to be published. I see no such subject in modern day western nations.


Oh yes, so what is the criteria to ban Twain? And why hasn't Duke been banned? Can you explain that?




As for an above poster on the rates of banning in communist countries - outside of academic circles, I have never really heard much about texts from communist countries other than Russian ones (and even then, it is through a lens of selection that texts seem to surface here). 

So, for instance, much Western stuff was banned during the cultural revolution in China, but how many books from the Maoist era have made it to the West? How many have you guys read in the first place? It seems that in translation, there is a somewhat huge gap between May Fourth Movement authors, and contemporary authors - as if the Mao years never happened, and nothing was published. And even then, that which we have now is a minimal fraction, even of the "accepted texts".

I hear Socialist Realism from Russia is becoming accessible, though I have yet to hear about much besides a few cliche names outside of academic settings. 

If we are going just within the nation though, it is clear that that which is published is that which fits the publishers agenda - equating the banning, or not publishing of books to a flaw in communism is as absurd as claiming it never happened, or happens in Western countries. Simply put, people were persecuted for being reactionary in China, or for being reactionary in Russia, but Bertold Brecht, Arther Miller and others were also brought before panels. 

Where is the credibility in the argument?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.


Actually I thought everyone was originally talking about the kind of petty censorship that happens in libraries when redneck conservative Christian demands they remove Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies or liberals want books removed from library shelves because it caricatures or is belittling to a racial group (yes, liberals censor too).

----------


## Virgil

> Oh yes, so what is the criteria to ban Twain? And why hasn't Duke been banned? Can you explain that?


What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.

----------


## JBI

> What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.


He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.

----------


## Virgil

> He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.


Are you talking about Huck Finn and the use of the word "nigger"? I supposed some schools and libraries have refused to use the book or stock it because of it (completely misguided) but I suppose schools and school libraries make decisions on books and the appropriateness of the language used. You guys are using the word "banning" inappropriately if you are referring to that. When people are referring to a society banning certain books they are referring to a complete excise from society or even being published. The only book ban that I have ever heard in contemporary life in a western country is I believe that Germany has gone to the extent of banning Hitler's Mein Kampf. How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.

----------


## Babbalanja

> How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.


It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.

I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## mortalterror

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have. 

Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.

As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.

Despite it's popularity, selling 60,000 copies, bookstores won't carry John Ross' Unintended Consequences. A friend of mine had to buy it at a gun show. There is censorship in the West.

----------


## OrphanPip

Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion  :Rolleyes: 

Geez when I was growing up TQS, a French language basic cable channel, used to show soft-core porn at 11 on Saturdays. The English language channel Show Case had the decency to wait until after midnight.

Moreover, Sopranos and the Osbournes were shown uncensored by CTV, a public network.

----------


## mortalterror

> Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion


You're right. I was just checking Wikipedia to find out when that happened.

"After a delay and outcry from Canadian subscribers, Sirius Canada added Howard Stern's Channel 100 to their lineup in early 2006."

Do you also get the Opie and Anthony Show now too? I know Michael Savage is banned from even entering the UK; so I assume his program doesn't get any radio play there.

----------


## OrphanPip

I have no idea, I take public transit so I never listen to the radio.

----------


## stlukesguild

JBI- So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.

Virgil- That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning". As an artist I am largely free to create any form of art I desire (although I might suppose I should be the one complaining considering that as a result of my career in education I am actually subject to a degree of limitations of my access to "freedom of speech"... both in and outside of school... that is not applied to others). Again... I am free to create as I will; I am not assured the financial support of corporations, wealthy individuals, or the public for such work. Or are we to assume that the public... the wealthy individuals... and the corporations should be expected to support every work of art... no matter how antagonistic it may appear to their interests/beliefs/values... no matter how bad it may be...? Certainly, this is a form of self-justification for one's failure: "The publishers won't publish my books or the galleries won't show my paintings because my work is too daring... too cutting edge... it threatens the powers that be. Woe is me... poor oppressed artist that I am." :Rolleyes: 

I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"... literature that is often quite demanding and as a consequence has a rather limited audience. Having said as much, why should we concern ourselves over the fact that the biggest publishers may not support certain forms of literature that they suspect will be less than financially successful... or with the fact that the audience for certain forms of literature may be limited by not having the support of such? I suspect that a great deal of the literature I have read from over the centuries had a rather limited audience in its time... and in many cases (Baudelaire, Zola, Verlaine, Voltaire, the whole of British theater during the Interregnum under the Puritans, etc...) was actually blacklisted or truly banned.

Again... my question is what would be the ideal? Certainly, relying upon the market system alone leads to a gross support of those works of art that meet the demands of the largest audience... but at the expense of more experimental, challenging... or even unpopular works. Of course the wealthy patrons are always free to support those works of art and artists that they deem "best"... and this is largely the system still dominant in the traditional visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) which explains the lack of concern among such artists for accessibility or the wants of the mass audience.
But what is the alternative? Support through public money of works of art that may not merely be less than popular but also antagonistic to the very populace paying the taxes? And who decides what works of art get this support and which ones do not? If we decide upon a committee of artists or writers to decide upon which works of art... which musical compositions... which theatrical productions... which works of literature are deserving of public support do we not face a situation just as biased and open to abuse and neglect of truly deserving works of art as we find in a pure market system... or under the patronage of the very rich?

----------


## mortalterror

> While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".


I'm not trying to say that unpopular speech should receive the same publicity as popular speech. What I object to is the government regulations that interfere with the market, and unfairly prejudice certain types of work, rendering potentially lucrative works unprofitable.

----------


## Virgil

> It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.
> 
> I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


That's right, because books aren't banned. I would agree with you if every single library in the country excluded a book for political reasons but that is not the case. If you think any book is banned, just look it up on Amazon and I bet you can buy it. No book is banned in the US today.




> While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".


Thank you StLukes.




> I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"...


Haha!!! Yes, if anyone is a book banner her on lit net it's JBI!!!!  :FRlol:   :FRlol: 

JBI, when are you going to start that bonfire for the Twilight books!!!  :Tongue:

----------


## sixsmith

> I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have. 
> 
> Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.
> 
> As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.


I'm not so sure Mortal. If one of the major television networks felt they could make money of shows like 'Deadwood' or 'The Sopranos' they would have no hesitation in pushing them into prime time, language and violence be damned. They don't because people, by and large, are too soft-headed to appreciate quality art. People desire the tawdry denouements of 'Law and Order' or the excessive forensic bull**** of 'CSI': they have neither the ability nor the inclination to absorb the meandering beauty of a show like 'The Wire'. Russell Brand has his own show. Sam Kinison (RIP) is still largely unknown. We live in the age of morons.

Of course, the schlock that gets served up year in year out plays a significant role in promoting the need for superficial gratification and thereby keeping quality art and programming out of the mainstream. But at the end of the day, money is king.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption.


Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.

----------


## Virgil

> Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.


Completely agree with you Bien. There are decency standards on the public airwaves.

----------


## Drkshadow03

List of the 100 most challenged Books between 1991 - 2000 for those who were curious.

----------


## mortalterror

> Completely agree with you Bien. There are decency standards on the public airwaves.


HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher, they have a variety of intellectual and downright artsy programming. The Angels in America, Band of Brothers, and John Adams mini-series all came out of HBO. They also regularly adapt pulitzer prize winning plays into films for television such as Dinner With Friends or W;t. It is a watershed and refuge for out of the norm and experimental televised art, a place where risks are still taken.

----------


## OrphanPip

> List of the 100 most challenged Books between 1991 - 2000 for those who were curious.


The most confusing appearance on that list is _Where's Waldo_ at 88.  :Confused:

----------


## Virgil

> HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher, they have a variety of intellectual and downright artsy programming. The Angels in America, Band of Brothers, and John Adams mini-series all came out of HBO. They also regularly adapt pulitzer prize winning plays into films for television such as Dinner With Friends or W;t. It is a watershed and refuge for out of the norm and experimental televised art, a place where risks are still taken.


I'm not disputing that. What's that got to do with banning? HBO bought the rights to those programs. It doesn't mean they were banned from regular TV.

----------


## Red-Headed

> Actually I thought everyone was originally talking about the kind of petty censorship that happens in libraries when redneck conservative Christian demands they remove Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies or liberals want books removed from library shelves because it caricatures or is belittling to a racial group (yes, liberals censor too).


I think that there are two debates here, one of the pettily tendentious fringe (Christians, fundamentalists, etc) & the other of the possibilities of some form of corporate censorship. Both are worrying.

----------


## Quark

> HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher


Never use the words nudity and Bill Maher in the same paragraph, mortal. Oh, that's unpleasant. 

As for the issue, I have to agree with mortal that the ratings system can unfairly push good entertainment out of the public eye. The argument has been made so many times that's it's almost banal now, but I guess it's worth repeating that ratings systems employ very superficial standard to the shows and movies they come across. Sometimes it's merely a quantitative measure of how much blood in a firefight is seen or how many thrusts in a sex scene occur. A good example of the system's shortcomings is actually the movie "Obsessed"--a so bad it's good movie starring Beyonce (really, it's hilarious). A woman--not Beyonce--sexually assault the protagonist several times in one-hundred minutes, but the movie received a PG rating merely because it wasn't graphic enough. If a nipple had escaped during the rape scene (okay that part probably wasn't hilarious), maybe the movie would have a drawn an R. As it is, almost anyone can walk into a theatre--although, this was probably straight to video--and see some pretty disturbing things. Meanwhile, tasteful nudity or poignant violence gets put on a high shelf above everyone's head. 

That's the usual jab at America's rating system, and there's something to it. Sorry for the unoriginal thought, but I had to do something to get the mental image of an X rated Bill Maher out of my head.

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

xxxxxx

----------


## Dinkleberry2010

bumped

----------

