6 ms·

It's not exactly banned, but just removed from their curriculum. It will still be found in the school's library.

by BigZaphod 16y ago

sammcd 16y ago
Yup, banned is very different from 'removed from reading list'.
- anamax 16y ago
  There are lots of books that aren't on the reading list. Are they all "banned"?
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    No; however, they aren't on the reading list for potentially different reasons. This book (I have not read it) was on the reading list, but has now been stripped from the reading list because someone didn't like it and was vocal about this. A very contrived example of a similar vein would be: Cooking with a Microwave isn't on the reading list. 1984 isn't on the reading list because some bureaucrat didn't like how it portrayed the government. Again, I have not read this book and know nothing of how it portrays individuals in it, except that some person didn't like this portrayal. I know nothing of the accuracy of the portrayal, the intention of the portrayal or anything like that. I am attempting to create two instances of a book "not being on the reading list" and their absence from it being due to two starkly different reasons. Any reading beyond that is a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of what I said and attempted to say
    - pivo 16y ago
      My guess is that the sole objection was the parts that describe the casual, multi-partner sex that's encouraged in the civilized world. The author's attitude towards the practice probably doesn't matter to the people who want this to remain unread by high school students.
    - anamax 16y ago
      My point is that "banned" requires some attempt to interfere with access. Taking something off a reading list isn't interfering with access. ("They won't read it if it isn't on the list" doesn't change things as it applies to everything that's not on the list and you're arguing that the reason matters.) There's nothing wrong with objecting to how a reading list is selected, but no matter what the reason, that process does not ban anything. Yes labelling something as a "ban" has persuasive power, but that doesn't make the label accurate. Such mis-labelling actually makes it harder to get people to react to actual wolves, so to speak.
      - sukuriant 16y ago
        You're right, it isn't banning. How would you describe it? If we are to raise a banner against this person's effect on their area, we need to have a precise word that not only describes what's going on, but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance.
        Jach 16y ago
        Why do we need a banner? Is the cause so lost that we must resort to equivalent rhetoric to win the book back to the reading list? And would a banner even be useful? For something nearly equivalent to a banner, how about mailing a bunch of copies of the book to everyone responsible for getting it removed.
        anamax 16y ago
        > but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is it equivalent to "the person making the decision is a bad person and the person objecting is a good person"? If you're claiming that the reason for the decision is bad, shouldn't you argue that point with some specificity? (There are lots of reasons why a decision might be bad - surely you should mention which ones apply.)
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > This book (I have not read it) You really should. It's a very good one. But don't ask me for anti-depressants when you finish it.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Defacto ban.
- mtsmith85 16y ago
  I'm not sure why this is being voted down... maybe because there isn't anything to back it up. But, I do think in a way it is a defacto ban. There will be some kids who seek out this book, but chances are those are not the kids that need to read this book. When you take important literature out of the classroom, you are preventing the kids who would at least pick up the main ideas from getting at those main ideas.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Exactly. The purpose of removing this book from the reading list is to reduce the exposure the student body has to it. The intended effects of "removing the book from the reading list" and "banning the book" are identical. Because the intent is the same, it should be treated and vilified as a ban.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Edit: Just realized a key difference, I'm used to the GCSE reading lists not the US-style 'Required' Reading list. I remember getting Terry Pratchett novels in my reading list. A defacto ban is "We're removing it from our reading list, removing it from our library... but we not discouraging our students from reading the book". Removing it from a reading list isn't a defacto ban, it's modernization. If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. I don't care what text, even if it's one of my own beloveds just PULL IT and put in something the children will read and will learn from. Brave New World is a classic, beyond perhaps, but if kids today aren't learning from it then so long. For every new book that goes on the list, an old one is going to come off of it. I'd much rather see kids get something like Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett that they'll respond to. Fuck, give them Harry Potter or a goddamn Halo novel if the kids will actually read it.
    - culled 16y ago

It's not exactly banned, but just removed from their curriculum. It will still be found in the school's library.

sammcd 16y ago

Yup, banned is very different from 'removed from reading list'.

anamax 16y ago
There are lots of books that aren't on the reading list. Are they all "banned"?
- sukuriant 16y ago
  No; however, they aren't on the reading list for potentially different reasons. This book (I have not read it) was on the reading list, but has now been stripped from the reading list because someone didn't like it and was vocal about this. A very contrived example of a similar vein would be: Cooking with a Microwave isn't on the reading list. 1984 isn't on the reading list because some bureaucrat didn't like how it portrayed the government. Again, I have not read this book and know nothing of how it portrays individuals in it, except that some person didn't like this portrayal. I know nothing of the accuracy of the portrayal, the intention of the portrayal or anything like that. I am attempting to create two instances of a book "not being on the reading list" and their absence from it being due to two starkly different reasons. Any reading beyond that is a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of what I said and attempted to say
  - pivo 16y ago
    My guess is that the sole objection was the parts that describe the casual, multi-partner sex that's encouraged in the civilized world. The author's attitude towards the practice probably doesn't matter to the people who want this to remain unread by high school students.
  - anamax 16y ago
    My point is that "banned" requires some attempt to interfere with access. Taking something off a reading list isn't interfering with access. ("They won't read it if it isn't on the list" doesn't change things as it applies to everything that's not on the list and you're arguing that the reason matters.) There's nothing wrong with objecting to how a reading list is selected, but no matter what the reason, that process does not ban anything. Yes labelling something as a "ban" has persuasive power, but that doesn't make the label accurate. Such mis-labelling actually makes it harder to get people to react to actual wolves, so to speak.
    - sukuriant 16y ago
      You're right, it isn't banning. How would you describe it? If we are to raise a banner against this person's effect on their area, we need to have a precise word that not only describes what's going on, but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance.
      - Jach 16y ago
        Why do we need a banner? Is the cause so lost that we must resort to equivalent rhetoric to win the book back to the reading list? And would a banner even be useful? For something nearly equivalent to a banner, how about mailing a bunch of copies of the book to everyone responsible for getting it removed.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is it equivalent to "the person making the decision is a bad person and the person objecting is a good person"? If you're claiming that the reason for the decision is bad, shouldn't you argue that point with some specificity? (There are lots of reasons why a decision might be bad - surely you should mention which ones apply.)
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > This book (I have not read it) You really should. It's a very good one. But don't ask me for anti-depressants when you finish it.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Defacto ban.

mtsmith85 16y ago
I'm not sure why this is being voted down... maybe because there isn't anything to back it up. But, I do think in a way it is a defacto ban. There will be some kids who seek out this book, but chances are those are not the kids that need to read this book. When you take important literature out of the classroom, you are preventing the kids who would at least pick up the main ideas from getting at those main ideas.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Exactly. The purpose of removing this book from the reading list is to reduce the exposure the student body has to it. The intended effects of "removing the book from the reading list" and "banning the book" are identical. Because the intent is the same, it should be treated and vilified as a ban.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Edit: Just realized a key difference, I'm used to the GCSE reading lists not the US-style 'Required' Reading list. I remember getting Terry Pratchett novels in my reading list. A defacto ban is "We're removing it from our reading list, removing it from our library... but we not discouraging our students from reading the book". Removing it from a reading list isn't a defacto ban, it's modernization. If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. I don't care what text, even if it's one of my own beloveds just PULL IT and put in something the children will read and will learn from. Brave New World is a classic, beyond perhaps, but if kids today aren't learning from it then so long. For every new book that goes on the list, an old one is going to come off of it. I'd much rather see kids get something like Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett that they'll respond to. Fuck, give them Harry Potter or a goddamn Halo novel if the kids will actually read it.
  - culled 16y ago