I continue to be amazed that, when it comes to Polanski, the viewpoint is "a 13 year old should have said no" (lets ignore that she did, over and over) and NOT "a 40 year old should not have said yes". I mean, even if you go with the stat rape argument OR the lolita OR the stagemother argument, EVEN THEN, the responsibility is STILL put on her shoulders for "should have said no" when no one asks, "why does a 40 year old man want to have sex with a 13 year old girl."

I wonder if the people banning books hide newspapers from their kids?

Not only should she have said No - she should have apparently hit him over the head using her superior teenage strength and then flown out the window to get away.

And yes, the Gossip Girls (or Hopkins or Green or Johnson) are too scary but the news apparently is not.

I clicked out to the Leesburg article that was a little scary.

Before the mother checked out Gossip Girls for her daughter she should have taken a glimpse or asked the libraian Don't blame the library for being too lazy to parent, if you don't want your daugther to read Gossip Girls fine, but you have no right to make it harder for other teens to obtain any book they want.

I want to read a memior called
My Mom Banned Books

I can't wrap my head around book banning and I would love to see what it was like to grow up in a family where a mom or dad felt it their duty to monitor all reading material. Or, how did their classmates treat them?

No irony, my dear. God gives us full on freedom of choice. Occasionally Christians remember that. I'm glad someone opened their doors and their hearts toward Ellen Hopkins.

I wonder what it must feel like, to be challenged or banned -- I can't see me ever facing that, but I have a feeling neither did the rest of these writers.

And I'd like to know what it feels like to be in a family who challenges books. Doret, you just gave me an idea. But seriously.

Amen.

Excellent post. I got angry all over again (and again) reading it. My parents owned a bookstore when I was growing up and they never thought to check up on what I was reading. They had customers refuse to come in because of our religion and because of books we chose to stock (my father did NOT believe in banning any books--ANY). They were the same people, of course, banning both. Still, it's the prerogative of a customer to decide where not to shop (though the death threats were over the top). But for people to decide what the *rest* of us should be reading? And what our *children* should be reading... Heaven help us all. The world has turned upside down and we've lost all sight of right and wrong.

I grew up in a Christian home, a devout Christian home, and my reading was completely uncensored. In junior high when I complained to my parents that I couldn't sleep, they'd shout, "Go find a book!" I'd scour my dad's library and read most of John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee series (completely inappropriate). I read They're Eyes Were Watching God in ninth grade. I never checked it out. I just spent every afternoon at the county library reading. The Travis McGee stuff gave me a wrong idea about what it is to be a woman, but that didn't last long. Nothing else was damaging at all. Please don't blame all book banning efforts on Christians as a whole. Book banning can come from individuals in any group of people.

Hear Hear!!!

I could not have said it better myself!

Thank you for this post Colleen - you managed take this madness and make it a sane, powerful, important statement.

Thanks guys - and Tanita I totally hope you run with that idea! (I was thinking of "My Mother the Cheerleader" about the child whose parent protested desegregation in the schools. Can't think of the author but it would be an interesting book to read that is sort of in this vein.)

I did not include it in my post but I was raised devout Catholic and yet my parents never checked the books we read. I think they just trusted us and the librarians and didn't worry about it.

Trust - that is the key word here. I'll have to ask my mom about this though; it will be interesting to hear what she says.

My parents were raised Catholic and practiced their religion for much of my childhood (they count themselves more "spiritual" than Catholic now, having split from the church on doctrines relating to AIDS, birth control, and the treatment of GLBTQ people). But even at their most devout, they always let me read whatever I wanted. Their method of "controlling the effects" was to say over dinner, "Hey, whatcha reading? Is it good? What's it about? Who's your favorite character? Why's that?" Until I was almost an adult, we still took turns reading books to one another, with breaks for natural discussion about the subject matter. They imparted their values because they were present, genuinely interested, and openminded. Moms and dads reading this: Parent your own kids. It's surprisingly satisfying, and they'll love you for it.

Because I can't edit comments, I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting up there that moms and dads reading this *don't* parent their own kids. Just saying that it's a much more satisfying and loving way of raising them than letting someone else do it, or spreading your attention thin by trying to parent other people's kids too.

In response to LizB and Colleen, my high school students are reading "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" by Joyce Carol Oates, a classic in which 15-year-old Connie is stalked by a man in his 30s who convinces her to come outside so he won't harm her family. The ending is left to our imagination but there are hints before the final line that she will be raped and murdered.

I've had several of my students argue that Connie is to blame because she pretended to go to a movie and went to a teen carhop hangout instead, which is where this man, Arnold Friend, first saw her and told her, "I'm gonna get you, baby." She giggled and flirted with him.

In fact, my students have been having a raging debate about this issue, with several students arguing that yes, Connie was to blame for her own victimization.

I find it amazing that to this day, people still argue that the victim is to blame, but it is unfortunately a *common belief.*

I also wanted to mention that, like Ellen Hopkins, I was disinvited to speak at a private (religious) school after my y.a. novel, The Confessional (Knopf, 2007), came out. One of the teachers was concerned about the bad language and also concerned that, because there's a murder in the book, there would be a "copycat killer" if they had an event with me there.

It sparked a debate in the local papers over whether this constituted "censorship" or not. Most people who were asked seemed to agree that because it was a private school, it wasn't an old-fashioned book banning.

And, okay, now I'm getting into another realm altogether, but there was a study on rape and jurors done in Washington state that discovered there was a real consistency in how jurors viewed the rape victim and whether they convicted the alleged rapist: if the rape victim was doing what was her normal, consistent routine when she was raped, then they were more likely to convict the rapist, but if she had done something out of her ordinary routine, they were less likely to convict him. It had little to do with how she dressed or where she was at the time of the rape--it had to do with consistency. If a girl frequented bars on a regular, consistent basis, for example, and was raped at one of her regular bars, they'd be more likely to convict the rapist. If a girl regularly DIDN'T frequent bars, and happened to go to one on the night she was raped, they were less likely to convict the rapist.

I found that study fascinating for its analysis of social perceptions of rape victims...and horrifying in its implications of what we expect from young women.

I wish I could direct you to that study but I read it years ago for a graduate class....

Thanks so much for the support. Today I was informed that all my books were pulled from middle and high school shelves in Moore OK. The superintendent made that decision "as a precaution." Against what? Information that might save a child from addiction, suicide or molestation? Seriously, the problem is growing worse and will continue to do so as long as a quite vocal minority believe they should play God, or at least serve as His messenger. Not that it matters, but I happen to be active in my Lutheran church. And I believe I serve God by writing important books that can save lives.

Hi Colleen,
Craziness is a good word for it all. And I love the irony of the high teen pregnancy rates in the community that is so "protective" of what their teens read. That's a great piece of NF work you did there!
Also, thanks so much for the shout out about my roundtable with the authors who have had their books challenged recently. I've always wanted to ask them what the experience is like, and to hear how they feel about it, so it was a real honor that so many great authors participated.
Thanks for sparking such great conversation!
Namaste,
Lee

Great Post, Colleen. Yours is a unique perspective, drawing parallels that I haven't seen anywhere else.

Wanted to let you know that that's why we named this post as this week's BlogHer of the Week over on http://blogher.com.

Best,
Elisa Camahort Page
on behalf of me, Lisa and Jory, BlogHer co-founders

Thanks Elisa - that's very kind!

And Lee - I loved your roundtable! I think the only way we can be heard on banning is to keep focusing on those who are banned. You can't deny it is happening when there are authors saying "It happened to me." Great work!

And Ellen. Oh, Ellen. You had such a bad week! I wish we could do more than post and write letters. I hope that keeping what happened to you (and others) in the spotlight we can make sure that kids know about your books and hopefully, they will continue to seek them out.

I just hate this though - the whole situation is beyond crazy.