13 ms·

It was surprising to me just how many of the banned books have immense literary value. The Color Purple, The Handmaid's Tale, The Kite Runner, etc. aren't rando

by 63 1y ago

It was surprising to me just how many of the banned books have immense literary value. The Color Purple, The Handmaid's Tale, The Kite Runner, etc. aren't random books that may be a little obscene, they're literary classics. In my opinion this is what makes it obvious that these bans were made in bad faith.

bigfishrunning 1y ago
Yes, extremely bad faith. These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity, but they're not obscene.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  > These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity Funnily enough, that's exactly what "obscene" means in popular parlance. On the other hand, the legal standard for what should be considered obscene is so inherently uncertain and varies so much across time and place that it's just meaningless to say anything that purports to be definitive about that.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    No, it isn't. The modern standard of obscenity in US federal law, the "Miller test," derives from a 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the eponymous Miller v. California. I realize you're referring to some universal abstract theoretical concept of obscenity that doesn't apply or exist. The one I describe does, and I think that makes it more useful here.
    - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      The Miller test doesn’t apply to content for minors though. So even here you are oversimplifying. Especially considering this post is about school.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Why not? All three parts of the Miller test can be tailored to average reader age.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        You're quite correct that the Miller test makes no such provision, because as another commenter here has noted, it is too general to require one. Here is the text of the relevant decision, in case anyone would like to discuss that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15
btilly 1y ago
There is a lot of evidence that engaging emotionally with literature will shift people's values. In a way that engaging with intellectual ideas does not. These are not just literary classics, they carry a specific culture forward. People whose values are threatened by that culture need to not engage with them. They do so by finding things to be offended by in the books. In many cases the offence is perfectly genuine. It is caused by cognitive dissonance, and not cynical manipulation. That doesn't make it less frustrating. But understanding why people have trouble with these works helps build empathy for them. And empathy is necessary to present your points in a way that is persuasive to their views. Yelling in anger at them is easy. Actually changing their minds is far harder. And it does require trying to understand.
- tremon 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vpribish 1y ago
    he's proposing that outrage is not the best way to oppose them - that we can be more clever and effective by knowing the enemy
    - tremon 1y ago
      But the GP didn't even identify the enemy correctly, so all that effort would be wasted. The people they're describing are mere tools, only required because of the existing democratic processes in the country. The enemy are the (insert your favourite label here) at the top of the media and political landscape pulling the strings. And I guarantee you, they aren't quite so bothered by the imagery in those books as they are bothered by freedom of thought in general. They are bothered by people that dare to speak truth to power. They are not bothered by appeasement strategies such as we people trying to understand the other people they've pitted against us.
      - btilly 1y ago
        No, I've identified the enemy perfectly well. The actual enemy only has power because useful fools are willing to follow them. Treating those useful fools as enemies is a key part of the dynamic that grants the actual enemy power. I am advocating learning how to talk with those useful fools, and assist them in finding paths away from being the power base for the actual enemy.
gosub100 1y ago
I'm frankly surprised that kids read books at all. With video games and smartphones and all this attention-draining junk, I would like to see how many books are actually read per 100 kids per month. I would be surprised if it even runs into the double digits.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  it doesn’t matter whether kids read books, all that matters is parents and how they vote. also stats on book reading are notoriously cooked, look at how many books publishers claim the median American reads.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      ? Do you even know what my ideology is? All I'm saying is that these changes are pandering to voters.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Outliers skew averages. I know a couple of kids that read dozens of books per month.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Why limit it to kids? My brain and attention span is so rotted from the internet that I find it immensely difficult these days too.
- Der_Einzige 1y ago
  Most good books are subversive towards the goals of education. I couldn't believe when they unironically asked me to read "Pedegogy of the Oppressed" and than tried to give grades on it. Trying to give grades to kids for Oscar Wilde's work is fully against the spirit of his thinking. Trying to grade kids for a whole lot of modern "classics" also goes against the spirit of their thinking. Joyce was too busy writing horny smut to be a supporter of literary analysis of his work. But more seriously, most young adult fiction is pretty low quality. I cringe pretty hard when I look back at what that genre had us reading at the time. Percy Jackson and Eoin Colfer are poster children for the millennial brain rot that ended our collective love of YAF. We are a far cry from the high point it hit under the excellent writing of a certain Brian Jacques
TimTheTinker 1y ago
> these bans were made in bad faith It's possible that the worst of these bans were done in strategic bad faith in partnership with the plaintiffs: to provide standing and legal cause for the plaintiffs to sue. There may have been bans made that were reasonable but politically one-sided (perhaps an illustrated kamasutra, just to give an example), and the strategy to re-establish them was a sort of reverse motte-and-bailey -- get things that are far more innocent banned in a bid to sue and reverse all bans.
- rideontime 1y ago
  A lot of things are "possible." Do you have any evidence to support this version of events?
  - TimTheTinker 1y ago
    Nothing specific. But generally, recent politics makes me believe that any "possible" version of events is an acceptable hypothesis to consider, no matter how egregious (and I mean this regardless of someone's political leaning). Those with any form of power in very large measure (money, fame, political power, influence) ought not to be trusted implicitly.
    - rideontime 1y ago
      A simple "no" would have sufficed.
skrebbel 1y ago
It's standard Trumpian negotiation. Ban lots of books, outrage ensues, courts get involved, some books get unbanned. But not all!
- dfxm12 1y ago
  Also par for the course: lots of wasted taxpayer money.
- zeroonetwothree 1y ago
  I don’t think Trump was directly involved in this law? We don’t need to invoke his name merely as an epithet.
  - skrebbel 1y ago
    It’s… just the common name for this way of getting things done (as far as I know at least). Propose something preposterous, so drama ensues and it gets watered down, but in the end you still get more than you would’ve otherwise. I believe the term got popular around the time Trump got his wall by saying he was going to make Mexico pay for it. Suddenly nobody questioned the sanity of building a wall anymore, the entire narrative was about whether or not he’d get Mexico to pay.
dfxm12 1y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jddj 1y ago
    Do you think the colour purple and the bluest eye should be banned from schools?
    - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      Surely it depends on the grade, right? I wouldn’t want my 2nd grader reading them
      - davorak 1y ago
        Do we need the government to write a law and ban the color purple, and similar, from being taught in second grade? I am not a fan of the government doing that level of micromanagement in most circumstances.
        tracker1 1y ago
        Are you okay putting Penthouse magazine (or similar) in elementary schools? I'm guessing you aren't... people have to draw lines somewhere on this. There's a difference between restricting by age, making available to all and actually assigning material to children. Not all materials are appropriate for elementary school libraries. And I'm not even talking about The Color Purple specifically. Also, none of this stops a parent from buying a book for their children they feel is appropriate for their child.
        kjkjadksj 1y ago
        Is the reason there is no Penthouse magazine in the school library from a law though? No, it is from common sense.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tomrod 1y ago
Absolutely. There has been an organizing current in US politics around the theology and political theory of dominionism -- that a certain set of related religions have a responsibility to take over governmental authority in order to make the law support their particular belief set so that things they view as sinful are not supported, or actively discouraged, by the legal framework. The people supporting this political wave tend to be extremely triumphalist in their personal religious zeal, unwilling to make compromises, and are iconoclastic and disrespectful to most outside their in-group. Much like other iconoclasts and zealots, they rely on the pluralistic principle of toleration to force the paradox of tolerance to bend their way. It's shame - pluralism is much more invigorating and no one forces lifestyles they disagree with onto dominionists.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  > There has been an organizing current in US politics around the theology and political theory of dominionism -- that a certain set of related religions have a responsibility to take over governmental authority in order to make the law support their particular belief set so that things they view as sinful are not supported, or actively discouraged, by the legal framework. Reading your comment, I feel like the word religion is misleading. You see the same dynamic in how progressive political ideology, despite it not having to do with a god, has been introduced into many layers of government and other institutions. All the things said here can be demonstrated for the religious right but also the non religious left. It’s less about religion in my opinions, and more about how politics is about winning by controlling institutions instead of supporting individual freedoms.
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    If by "progressive ideology" you mean "tolerance for people not in the in-group", then sure, but that's not a bad thing.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    I challenge you to make a point-for-point, truly apples-to-apples comparison. Fundamentally, there are a lot of Republican policies which attempt to force Christianity or at least Christian morals down our throats, whether it be forcing women to have children, or posting the ten commandments in schools and government buildings, banning pornography, or preventing gay marriage. I'm rather curious what Democrat policies are equivalent in your mind that would make you try and "both sides" this. And I mean actual passed or proposed policies -- not just bullshit you see from Hollywood and other media.
burnte 1y ago
[flagged]
- jchip303 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jotra7 1y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-usaid-evangelicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-usaid-evang...
    - yencabulator 1y ago
      https://archive.ph/dNYYv https://archive.ph/dNYYv
m463 1y ago
Sometimes I kind of wonder if putting important books on the list would be a measured way to overturn broken or unjust laws. Sort of like adding "Common Sense", "The Grapes of Wrath" or "The Pentagon Papers", etc.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Those three were banned? wtaf
alkyon 1y ago
I don't know if this was bad faith or not, but honestly, you need to be a bigoted retard to ban Slaughterhouse-Five of all the things. The side effect of this is that some literary classics will enjoy a brief surge in popularity among young people.
TimTheTinker 1y ago
> they're literary classics Reasonable people wouldn't ask to get these book banned. What if people colluding with the publishers got them banned as part of a larger strategy? I have no evidence to support that hypothesis; it's just very odd for literary classics to have been banned.
shepherdjerred 1y ago
Wow, I can't believe The Handmaid’s Tale was on the list. That book is excellent and not offensive at all
- AntiEgo 1y ago
  It's offensive to the people who are trying to build the Republic of Gilead.

by 63 1y ago

bigfishrunning 1y ago

Yes, extremely bad faith. These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity, but they're not obscene.

zozbot234 1y ago
> These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity Funnily enough, that's exactly what "obscene" means in popular parlance. On the other hand, the legal standard for what should be considered obscene is so inherently uncertain and varies so much across time and place that it's just meaningless to say anything that purports to be definitive about that.
- throwanem 1y ago
  No, it isn't. The modern standard of obscenity in US federal law, the "Miller test," derives from a 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the eponymous Miller v. California. I realize you're referring to some universal abstract theoretical concept of obscenity that doesn't apply or exist. The one I describe does, and I think that makes it more useful here.
  - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    The Miller test doesn’t apply to content for minors though. So even here you are oversimplifying. Especially considering this post is about school.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Why not? All three parts of the Miller test can be tailored to average reader age.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      You're quite correct that the Miller test makes no such provision, because as another commenter here has noted, it is too general to require one. Here is the text of the relevant decision, in case anyone would like to discuss that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15

btilly 1y ago

There is a lot of evidence that engaging emotionally with literature will shift people's values. In a way that engaging with intellectual ideas does not. These are not just literary classics, they carry a specific culture forward. People whose values are threatened by that culture need to not engage with them. They do so by finding things to be offended by in the books. In many cases the offence is perfectly genuine. It is caused by cognitive dissonance, and not cynical manipulation. That doesn't make it less frustrating. But understanding why people have trouble with these works helps build empathy for them. And empathy is necessary to present your points in a way that is persuasive to their views. Yelling in anger at them is easy. Actually changing their minds is far harder. And it does require trying to understand.

tremon 1y ago
[flagged]
- vpribish 1y ago
  he's proposing that outrage is not the best way to oppose them - that we can be more clever and effective by knowing the enemy
  - tremon 1y ago
    But the GP didn't even identify the enemy correctly, so all that effort would be wasted. The people they're describing are mere tools, only required because of the existing democratic processes in the country. The enemy are the (insert your favourite label here) at the top of the media and political landscape pulling the strings. And I guarantee you, they aren't quite so bothered by the imagery in those books as they are bothered by freedom of thought in general. They are bothered by people that dare to speak truth to power. They are not bothered by appeasement strategies such as we people trying to understand the other people they've pitted against us.
    - btilly 1y ago
      No, I've identified the enemy perfectly well. The actual enemy only has power because useful fools are willing to follow them. Treating those useful fools as enemies is a key part of the dynamic that grants the actual enemy power. I am advocating learning how to talk with those useful fools, and assist them in finding paths away from being the power base for the actual enemy.

gosub100 1y ago

I'm frankly surprised that kids read books at all. With video games and smartphones and all this attention-draining junk, I would like to see how many books are actually read per 100 kids per month. I would be surprised if it even runs into the double digits.

whimsicalism 1y ago
it doesn’t matter whether kids read books, all that matters is parents and how they vote. also stats on book reading are notoriously cooked, look at how many books publishers claim the median American reads.
- gosub100 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    ? Do you even know what my ideology is? All I'm saying is that these changes are pandering to voters.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Outliers skew averages. I know a couple of kids that read dozens of books per month.
terminalshort 1y ago
Why limit it to kids? My brain and attention span is so rotted from the internet that I find it immensely difficult these days too.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
Most good books are subversive towards the goals of education. I couldn't believe when they unironically asked me to read "Pedegogy of the Oppressed" and than tried to give grades on it. Trying to give grades to kids for Oscar Wilde's work is fully against the spirit of his thinking. Trying to grade kids for a whole lot of modern "classics" also goes against the spirit of their thinking. Joyce was too busy writing horny smut to be a supporter of literary analysis of his work. But more seriously, most young adult fiction is pretty low quality. I cringe pretty hard when I look back at what that genre had us reading at the time. Percy Jackson and Eoin Colfer are poster children for the millennial brain rot that ended our collective love of YAF. We are a far cry from the high point it hit under the excellent writing of a certain Brian Jacques

TimTheTinker 1y ago

> these bans were made in bad faith It's possible that the worst of these bans were done in strategic bad faith in partnership with the plaintiffs: to provide standing and legal cause for the plaintiffs to sue. There may have been bans made that were reasonable but politically one-sided (perhaps an illustrated kamasutra, just to give an example), and the strategy to re-establish them was a sort of reverse motte-and-bailey -- get things that are far more innocent banned in a bid to sue and reverse all bans.

rideontime 1y ago
A lot of things are "possible." Do you have any evidence to support this version of events?
- TimTheTinker 1y ago
  Nothing specific. But generally, recent politics makes me believe that any "possible" version of events is an acceptable hypothesis to consider, no matter how egregious (and I mean this regardless of someone's political leaning). Those with any form of power in very large measure (money, fame, political power, influence) ought not to be trusted implicitly.
  - rideontime 1y ago
    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

skrebbel 1y ago

It's standard Trumpian negotiation. Ban lots of books, outrage ensues, courts get involved, some books get unbanned. But not all!

dfxm12 1y ago
Also par for the course: lots of wasted taxpayer money.
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
I don’t think Trump was directly involved in this law? We don’t need to invoke his name merely as an epithet.
- skrebbel 1y ago
  It’s… just the common name for this way of getting things done (as far as I know at least). Propose something preposterous, so drama ensues and it gets watered down, but in the end you still get more than you would’ve otherwise. I believe the term got popular around the time Trump got his wall by saying he was going to make Mexico pay for it. Suddenly nobody questioned the sanity of building a wall anymore, the entire narrative was about whether or not he’d get Mexico to pay.

dfxm12 1y ago

[flagged]

rayiner 1y ago
[flagged]
- jddj 1y ago
  Do you think the colour purple and the bluest eye should be banned from schools?
  - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    Surely it depends on the grade, right? I wouldn’t want my 2nd grader reading them
    - davorak 1y ago
      Do we need the government to write a law and ban the color purple, and similar, from being taught in second grade? I am not a fan of the government doing that level of micromanagement in most circumstances.
      - tracker1 1y ago
        Are you okay putting Penthouse magazine (or similar) in elementary schools? I'm guessing you aren't... people have to draw lines somewhere on this. There's a difference between restricting by age, making available to all and actually assigning material to children. Not all materials are appropriate for elementary school libraries. And I'm not even talking about The Color Purple specifically. Also, none of this stops a parent from buying a book for their children they feel is appropriate for their child.
        kjkjadksj 1y ago
        Is the reason there is no Penthouse magazine in the school library from a law though? No, it is from common sense.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tomrod 1y ago

Absolutely. There has been an organizing current in US politics around the theology and political theory of dominionism -- that a certain set of related religions have a responsibility to take over governmental authority in order to make the law support their particular belief set so that things they view as sinful are not supported, or actively discouraged, by the legal framework. The people supporting this political wave tend to be extremely triumphalist in their personal religious zeal, unwilling to make compromises, and are iconoclastic and disrespectful to most outside their in-group. Much like other iconoclasts and zealots, they rely on the pluralistic principle of toleration to force the paradox of tolerance to bend their way. It's shame - pluralism is much more invigorating and no one forces lifestyles they disagree with onto dominionists.

SilverElfin 1y ago
> There has been an organizing current in US politics around the theology and political theory of dominionism -- that a certain set of related religions have a responsibility to take over governmental authority in order to make the law support their particular belief set so that things they view as sinful are not supported, or actively discouraged, by the legal framework. Reading your comment, I feel like the word religion is misleading. You see the same dynamic in how progressive political ideology, despite it not having to do with a god, has been introduced into many layers of government and other institutions. All the things said here can be demonstrated for the religious right but also the non religious left. It’s less about religion in my opinions, and more about how politics is about winning by controlling institutions instead of supporting individual freedoms.
- alistairSH 1y ago
  If by "progressive ideology" you mean "tolerance for people not in the in-group", then sure, but that's not a bad thing.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  I challenge you to make a point-for-point, truly apples-to-apples comparison. Fundamentally, there are a lot of Republican policies which attempt to force Christianity or at least Christian morals down our throats, whether it be forcing women to have children, or posting the ten commandments in schools and government buildings, banning pornography, or preventing gay marriage. I'm rather curious what Democrat policies are equivalent in your mind that would make you try and "both sides" this. And I mean actual passed or proposed policies -- not just bullshit you see from Hollywood and other media.

burnte 1y ago

[flagged]

jchip303 1y ago
[flagged]
- Jotra7 1y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-usaid-evangelicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-usaid-evang...
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    https://archive.ph/dNYYv https://archive.ph/dNYYv

m463 1y ago

Sometimes I kind of wonder if putting important books on the list would be a measured way to overturn broken or unjust laws. Sort of like adding "Common Sense", "The Grapes of Wrath" or "The Pentagon Papers", etc.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Those three were banned? wtaf

alkyon 1y ago

I don't know if this was bad faith or not, but honestly, you need to be a bigoted retard to ban Slaughterhouse-Five of all the things. The side effect of this is that some literary classics will enjoy a brief surge in popularity among young people.

TimTheTinker 1y ago

> they're literary classics Reasonable people wouldn't ask to get these book banned. What if people colluding with the publishers got them banned as part of a larger strategy? I have no evidence to support that hypothesis; it's just very odd for literary classics to have been banned.

shepherdjerred 1y ago

Wow, I can't believe The Handmaid’s Tale was on the list. That book is excellent and not offensive at all

AntiEgo 1y ago
It's offensive to the people who are trying to build the Republic of Gilead.