centre of the universe - the dreaming: It's true. It's true.

02/23/2007: "It's true. It's true." There ees a storm blowing in.

I don't know why I mention that except to say that as much as I love the cold, blustery, grey winter, and as much as I am quite enjoying learning to play hockey and such, I am more than ready to give it all up in favour of Something Else. Spring, perhaps?

Coming up is Freedom to Read Week. It's all about reading books that have been banned in Canada, and opening discussions about why they've been banned and the whole issue of censorship and all that jazz.

I would like to punch the host of CBC's local morning show. She had a guest on this morning talking about Freedom to Read Week, and aside from continually interrupting him (which she is very, VERY good at...an interview technique that I am not fond of) and not letting him make his point, she challenged him on the whole issue of the freedom to read. I find this amusing, because she is also the host of the annual Saskatchewan Book Awards Gala. Her guest, a representative from Canada's Book and Periodical Council, was attempting to describe what has happened in the past year in the Ontario public school system with the book Three Wishes being pulled from school libraries at the request of a lobby group. The lobby group felt there was questionable content in the book, which deals with a young girl growing up in Palestine. In particular, parts of the book deal with a suicide bomber, who is a member of the girl's family. In no way, in my opinion, does this book *glorify* the act of suicide, in the name of the nation or for any other reason. What it does do, and I encourage you to read it, and everything else on the Challenged Books List (you may be surprised at some of these titles); what Three Wishes does do is present a fictional biography of a girl living in a troubled part of the world.

So anyway, the guest from the Book and Periodical Council was attempting to talk about this book, and the morning show host interrupts him and challenges him with "Well, don't you think that it's wrong to advocate suicide bombing in a book for kids?" (I'm paraphrasing here; I was lying in bed and was really, really angry....this is the gist of what was said)
The guest replies with, "That's not what this book does, and I don't think that children are going to run out and do things just because they read about it in a book..."
And the morning show host comes back with something to the tune of "Well what about all these kids that are [insert the thing kids are doing here, the latest scare craze] because they read about it on the Internet?" (I'm not even going to get into a discussion here about the difference between published books that have gone through an editorial process and most likely a vetting process by an editorial board, versus the kinds of stupid crap you can find on the Internet with just two clicks when you do a search for some obscure term like "sea monkeys fun" and the veracity of anything you read on kids' blogs and "MySpace" pages)
And the guest replies with: "I don't know about that..." And I am writhing and grinding my teeth (it's a good thing I just got a 'dental device' for just that) and yelling at the radio. Because then the morning show host says:
"Well. It's happening. So we know that kids *do* to things because they read about them." AND COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE POINT OF FREEDOM TO READ WEEK! (Note: the guest went on to say that he would encourage all children to read the book, and every book and magazine on the list, some with adult supervision, and that censorship is not the way to quell distasteful topics)

I don't like to make judgements about people I don't know very well...check that...I don't like to *publicize* the judgements I make about people I don't know very well, but that was a really horrid thing to say. Particularly for someone who hosts an annual book event. I will readily admit that I have difficulty understanding how any book lover could be in favour of censorship of any kind. Maybe there are folks out there who disagree with me; I'm sure there are. But for someone who is a rather high-profile book person to come down on the Freedom to Read week, I was shocked and insulted, and, to be honest, a little bit hurt.

So I'll just go right out there and say it : Sheila Coles, I don't understand your opinion about censorship and Freedom to Read Week when you appear to be supportive of the arts, writers, and books. Please explain to me how you can be in support of the literary arts and still be supportive of banning books and removing 'questionable content'?

Personally, if I found out that my kid's school was banning books (I haven't checked; I will call them and find out), I would be livid. LIVID. When I was a kid, a bunch of Judy Blume books were banned in my school (among others). So I asked my mum to buy them for me or to borrow them from the 'grown-up library' or from her school. She did. Willingly and gladly. When I was in high school, I had two teachers who *insisted* in teaching books that had been challenged, rather than books that were commonly accepted as 'standard curriculum'. Also when I was in high school, one of the teachers (the drama teacher, which makes this an ever more bitter pill to swallow) removed a play from the school library, and from the resource centre, because he felt it was inappropriate for high school productions, and, apparently, even for high school students to read. (The play, incidentally, was called Sister Mary Ignatius Explains it All To You. And no, the teacher in question was not Roman Catholic.

Censorship serves no good purpose. You might come back with "What about the case of hate literature or the promotion of hate-filled propaganda"? Look. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of who writes what, where. This is like that discussion about Faith that we had. I can read the Bible and believe every word of it (or, at least, the gist of it), and someone else will read the same book and report that it's really long and rather boring in spots, but that the bit with the lions was quite entertaining. That person, just because they've read a religious text, isn't going to suddenly convert (more often than not, anyway) simply because they've read a book. They might think about things; they might be prompted to ask questions and to learn more about the book, the culture, and all sorts of things. Chances are if you read a pamphlet or a book denouncing the rights of gays/women/Jews/Christians/different ethnic and cultural groups simply because of the nature of their sexual identity/gender/religious beliefs/cultural differences, and you agree with it on the basis of it being in print, you're already the sort of person who is going to believe everything you read. Most people; most *reasonable* people take the initiative to learn more about those things that challenge their values, their understanding of the universe around them, and their beliefs. Sure, the promotion of hatred is reprehensible, and the world would be a much nicer place if things like that just didn't happen. I can't think of a classic work of literature, though, that promotes hatred and intolerance. There are books that talk about the cultural climate of the time; you'll not have to go far before you find books that talk about folks from different cultures being 'heathens' or 'savages' or somehow sub-human. That doesn't mean they're *promoting* hatred and intolerance; you should read these books with an understanding of the cultural, political, religious, etc. climate of the time in which it was written.

And most books that have been challenged or outright banned have been seen as threatening a particular way of life or thought or ideology. Books are powerful, to be sure. Books can change the world. Books are ideas in a permanent artistic form. But here's the rub - if you don't like it, you *don't have to read it*. However, conversely, you don't have the right to tell me that *I* can't read it. I can't force you to read Gaiman and Duncan Thornton (which is a crying shame, I tell you), and you can't force me to read The DaVinci Code...of course, I probably would just to see what it's like....but that's not the point. The point *is* censorship is wrong. We have the right to speak our minds and to write our minds.

Yes, that right comes with responsibility. I wouldn't have printed the contentious Muslim cartoons in my newspaper, because I believe it would be wrong to do so. On the other hand, if you told me I *couldn't* print them in my newspaper, that's a different story. And yes, there are people who abuse the right to speak and think and write freely. And I choose not to listen and read many of those people. Maybe there are great works of literature penned by the Klan or the Heritage Front, and I just haven't come across them. I'd probably still read them, though, if there were.

How can you make an informed decision about anything if you're not properly informed?

Sheila Coles, you were wrong this morning. I have finally found the reason to turn off CBC. At least in Saskatchewan, in the mornings.

"Wayfaring" "Dropping the gloves"

19 Comments

haunting_love , on Friday, 23rd February:

Thank you for the link to the Challenged Books list. I will likely now print it off and read every book on that list (with the expception of the ones in another language). I find that censorship only peaks my curiosity. I DID read The DaVinci Code, only because of the controversy. To be honest, if you take the book for what it is and the genera in which it is intended, it is a very good and entertaining book. One of my favorites. I also just finished Stardust by Gaiman. I was a little more than suprised to see the Bible on that list, especially in Canada. I would expect to see it in, say, a Muslim country.

Everyone is their own person. Everyone has their own truth. Everyone has their own opinion and should be able to express that opinion and read the words of others to decide for themselves. I would really like to read Mein Kampf but that does not mean that I agree with Hitler or the Nazi movement.

cenobyte , on Friday, 23rd February:

I've read Mein Kampf and would argue that it isn't a great work of literature (I was waiting for someone to mention this book), nor a great work of political or sociological quality. It's an *interesting* book, and it absolutely has historical value, and it does have a lot of value as a book. I don't think it would win any awards, though, regardless of who the author was.

haunting_love , on Friday, 23rd February:

I only mentioned it because it was controversial and the only reason I would want to read it is because of the controversy. Its that whole "I want to see what the big deal is" thing. Just to satisfy my own curiosity. I have actually never heard anything on whether is is a great work of literature or not. Now I know that it is likely not, but, will likely make a point of reading it at some point anyway.

Drang , on Friday, 23rd February:

I'm pretty glad that I slept in today. Sheila Coles fairly regularly makes me apoplectic with her 'interviewing' 'skills'.

cenobyte , on Friday, 23rd February:

Your feeling about Mein Kampf, H_L is a classic one, I think. I was going to say, before the Gods of Clicky-Clicky made me post my comment earlier than I really wanted to, was that the reason I haven't read The DaVinci Code yet is *because* of all the controversy/hullaballoo about it, not because of the nature of the book. I'm not fond of bandwagons, and when we were in Mexico, everyone and their *dog* was reading that book (literally). It was really, really weird. Every single person around the poolside who had a book, had that one. Very creepy.

Dr. Gloomshadow , on Friday, 23rd February:

I am not here to comment on the noble and spirited discussion on the subject of limiting access to creative expression on the basis of content.

I am here to provide digital support for some sort of radio-putsch to topple Sheila Coles from her morning spot. In all my years of listening to SC (beginning with her first appearance on 540), I remain stunned that she has never been replaced. Her gaffes are plenty, her interview style patronising, her segue skills weak. In a province where I am given a choice between public broadcasting and "really crappy hits of the 50s, 60s, and also the late 60s", it behooves the PtB to put someone behind the mic who DOES NOT DRIVE ME INTO A MURDEROUS RAGE.

Admittedly, SC likely appeals to the traditional SK CBC demographic, which sadly, is not us, Cenobyte.

I will stop now before I begin to slag my more elders who find SC to be a "bit of a scamp" and find her interviews "probing."

Ban Sheila Coles now! We demand a new morning show host! (But not Ted Deller.)

Keith , on Friday, 23rd February:

Cenobyte would make a excellent host of the CBC morning show, and I mean that in all sincerity. The mothercorp would also pay much better than her last morning host gig.

cenobyte , on Friday, 23rd February:

Thank you, Keith.
I'm willing to bet that cenobyte's last morning show gig, which didn't pay as much as the mothercorp may, was more fun than almost anything else on radio, though.

Except possibly for that book show whack job host. Oh wait...that's cenobyte too. All cenobyte! All the time! On the all cenobyte network!

Keith , on Friday, 23rd February:

What do you think the 'C' in CJTR stands for?

Jason Hammond , on Saturday, 24th February:

I agree with most of what you wrote but have to call you on the "I'm not even going to get into a discussion here about the difference between published books that have gone through an editorial process and most likely a vetting process by an editorial board, versus the kinds of stupid crap you can find on the Internet".

Not sure if this is your intention but that line really comes across that you're saying that books have more value than anything you might read on the Net which is not true at all IMHO.

In fact, by (seemingly) dismissing all writing on the Net in one fell swoop, you're doing exactly what Shelia Coles did, making broad (and broadly inaccurate) generalizations.

It's called "Freedom to Read Week", not "Freedom to Read *Books* Week" and the purpose is to encourage people (adults, children, whatever) to have access to read whatever materials they may have an interest in.

Although books do get the lion's share of the attention (rightly so), the Freedom to Read Week web site says: "Books are removed from the shelves in Canadian libraries, schools and bookstores every day. Free speech on the Internet is under attack."

If what a person is reading is controversial in whatever fashion, they themselves (or the parents if it's for minors) have the ultimate responsiblity for what their kids read - whether it be Judy Blume, manga, roleplaying manuals, or bomb making manuals on the Net.

And the best way to do this is to be aware of and talk to your kids about what they're reading, *not* go through their books with a black marker and *not* by installing NetNanny on your computer.

One other thing - I, too, read "Mein Kampf" in Grade 8. I was (happily) shocked to find it in my school library and felt like it was somehow "illegal" to even take it out. But then I read the first chapter or two and went "man, this sucks." and took it back. Freedom to read works again! If I hadn't been allowed access to it, I'd probably still think it was closer to the latest Thomas Harris thriller than what it really is - random, confused scribblings.

(Completely off-topic, is there any way to request the comments box be widened on your site? I find it very narrow but perhaps am just not used to it.)

Jason Hammond , on Saturday, 24th February:

Forgot to mention...

The Pelham Library in Ontario has issued a challenge to readers to set a goal to read a certain number of challenged books by June 30/07.

More info:
http://canucklibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-challenge-you.html

Amy , on Saturday, 24th February:

I *love* the way you write, and I am so in agreement with what you say here.

Not too many things make me really cantankerous, but this issue is one of them. I'll be blogging about Freedom to Read week all this week at my books blog.

I blogged today about the challenge Jason mentions, and tomorrow I'll be posting my list of books I'm going to read for that challenge.

BTW, I agree that cenobyte would make an excellent CBC host.

schmutzie , on Saturday, 24th February:

Here, here, cenobyte. Here, here.

I am horrified the Sheila Coles would actually stand on the side of banning questionable material.

cenobyte , on Saturday, 24th February:

Jason, I didn't say that the stuff that's written on the Internet has no value. I was making a point that published books in most cases go through a vetting process whereby their construction and (usually) their content is edited. This isn't the case in the majority of Internet publications. I didn't say that you shouldn't read stuff on the Internet.

I never said the Internet should be censored. First of all, it'd be impossible, secondly, impractical, and thirdly, Just Wrong.

The point I was making was that in comparing a book that has gone through an editorial process and has been vetted by librarians (who, I would argue, know more about books than your average Joe) and/or by boards of education, to a bunch of posts on (largely)unmonitored and (mostly) unrestriced blogs and Internet sites, you're comparing apples to oranges. I don't think it's fair to compare them.

But I didn't say anywhere in that post that I thought writings on the Internet are not worthy of reading, nor that they are not a different form of publication, nor even that they ought to be censored or restricted.

"And the best way to do this is to be aware of and talk to your kids about what they're reading, *not* go through their books with a black marker and *not* by installing NetNanny on your computer."

Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!

As a matter of fact, this discussion prompted my father to ask a bunch of questions about roleplaying games (and the prerequisite "aren't they and that Goth thing triggers for people shooting other people up", to which one replies, "well, I'd argue that relatively simple access to illegal *guns* are the trigger that causes unstable people to shoot things up"), and I got out my RPG books, and found my Da reading them this morning.

YAY, FREEDOM TO READ (EVERYTHING) WEEK!!!

Jason Hammond , on Saturday, 24th February:

And I never said that you said that stuff written on the Net has *no* value or that it should be censored or that it wasn't worthy of being read. ;)

I was just trying to a) clarify what you meant (which you did - for you, Net v. books is an apples v. oranges issue, not that one is better than the other) and b) pointing out that I had a different view in that I don't make any distinction between these two forms of communication (or graphic novels or roleplaying manuals etc.), at least when it comes to Freedom to Read issues.

To bring it back to a library context, librarians have training to vet materials they acquire but at the same time, they also have that same type of training in vetting Internet sites/writing (and deal with the same types of challenges.)

Should a public library have a copy of Madonna's "Sex" book? Should a library allow patrons to look at a pornographic web site? I think you know *my* answer to both of these questions. Your local library's policies may (likely will) differ.

>> well, I'd argue that relatively simple access to illegal *guns* are the trigger that causes unstable people to shoot things up

Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!! (careful, or this will turn into a "When Harry Met Sally"-inspired thread and require censoring.)

PS - thanks for the wider comments form. I get quicker feature updates here than on my own blog!

cenobyte , on Saturday, 24th February:

Jason raises an interesting point; one which His Nibs and I were argu...discussing yesterday. It comes down to : "Is censorship *ever* okay?" I think it is never okay. You should have *access* to everything. You should be able to choose to read whatever you want to read. Just because a bunch of people (or just one person) may think what you choose to read is no good; that of course does not mean that it should not be read.

I think the jorb of the librarian is rapidly evolving, and has been doing for the last probably fifty years - with new technology, in particular. A librarian friend of mine was telling me about some of the issues she faced working in a public library in a rather large US city; some of the issues dealing with patrons who wanted to use the library free Internet access to view pornography. I asked her how she dealt with it. "I was *supposed* to tell them that that sort of business was not permitted, and I did. But eventually, I would let them go for 15 minutes (if there were no children around), and then tell them their time on the terminals was up."

Here is a question for you, Jason - how do libraries deal with issues like censorship and boards of directors who are acting "in the public good" (include air quotes with those quotes) and think their jorb is to save the world from itself by removing items or just banning certain subjects or topics or items from public access?

When Sheila Coles denegrated free access to books like Three Wishes and suggested that kids who read about suicide bombers would go out and try it, "just like the kids playing that choking game that's going around on the Internet", she was coming out in favour, I thought, of removing 'questionable content' from the hands of babes....Personally, I don't care where you think people are getting their ideas from; if they're the kind of people who would believe anything they would read (regardless of where they read it), I don't think it would matter what they read...does that make sense? Those folks don't need censorship; they need a sense of reason. Or common sense. Or both.

Jason, who gets the say in most libraries about what they ?stock? is it up to the librarian, the board, some combination of the two? Or is it different depending on how your library is structured?

Thunderhowl , on Sunday, 25th February:

Censorship=Boo.
I get quite angry when someone tells me I can't read something. If they were to tell me "You won't like that, just so you know", I'd maybe pay attention and pass on a particular book/internet site, but to tell me that I can't? How DARE you/they presume that I'm too stupid or gullible to read something and decide for myself. Especially since after looking at the Challenged List I found that so many of those books were so useful as jumping points for discussion. How can you learn about anything if you aren't ever exposed to it? Censorship makes for stupid civilizations.

laura , on Monday, 26th February:

I have to say that i've learned so much more today about Freedom to Read ANYTHING week in this comments section. Thank you for this discussion, and for the link to the Challenged List. Rock on.

Jason Hammond , on Monday, 26th February:

Well, as you know, I'm just a baby librarian with a wee bit of book learning and not a lot of direct exposure to how it works yet. But from what I've seen, libraries are very similar to the non-profit (or any board driven) organization, namely, the board comes up with policies and staff implements them.

Because the boards are comprised of people who are pro-library, I don't think you run into too many instances of boards trying to control/censor materials (although you might have individual members who feel this way - especially those who are nominated because of their position such as city councillors or possibly reps from school boards.)

Librarians are trained in collection development (and the related issues such as dealing with controversial materials) and solely responsible for making purchases but within the constraints of their collection development policy which was developed (or at least approved) by the board.

As far as I know, collection development happens in two ways - either there is one collections development department who does all purchasing or there are subject specialists who are responsible for their own areas. Some libraries may be a combination of the two - subject specialists for non-fiction and children's and foreign languages and other media/magazines but a regular collections development department to focus on the purchasing of fiction works. (I guess these librarians could be considered "fiction subject specialists" but I don't think they're referred to that way.)

With all of that said, self-censorship does happens. Do you want to buy a book if you know it's going to cause an uproar and might cause more work for your superiors or board who have to answer for your decision?

That's why you'll probably never find a public library that subscribes to Playboy. There's no reason that they shouldn't but you know it's going to cause problems with parents who don't want their kids to even have a chance of seeing it and perverts who don't just read the articles (or even look at the pics) but feel compelled to "take matters into their own hands."

So, in the end, it's simply easier to not have Playboy in the library.

distractions