I prefer to stay away from the whole argument about the definition of banning/censorship etc because for the most part, those arguments are usually a sideshow to the actual incident(s). Hey, I'll concede! Gimme another word to use. Usually, tho, the "it's not banning" goes arm-in-arm with "and what happened here isn't a bad thing, oh no, not at all" instead of what you say "not banning, but still bad."

Anyway. One thing that I find interesting is how many people chime in without looking at the larger picture. For example, one comment to the article at kentucky.com says that AP Students are never reluctant readers. Which flies in the face of studies/personal knowledge of "smart" kids who have given up reading for pleasure -- so, yes, reluctant readers. Or the idea that an English class should only "teach to the test" and ignore something like, oh, making someone a lover of literature.

And, as always, I also look to see who doesn't say something about this. There are those who won't because its "just" teens and teen books; and those who won't because they agree. And those who won't because they don't realize that the books are just one part of the book/lit blogosphere; it's also about access, and how books are and aren't used in classrooms, etc. (And of course those who won't because they've already posted several times or are on vacation, I'm not totally judgmental!)

oh, and I think the "it's not college prep" argument isn't legit. It's a superintendent/vocal minority who want those books out, period, and are scrambling for a way to do it.

this month, it's college prep. and them thinking "oh look at how clever we are, this argument is so nice and objective and doesn't have anything to do with the books being trash."

next month, when that argument doesn't work, it'll be something new.

Great post, Colleen. Thanks.

To be clear, these books were originally challenged for "racy" content but the parents challenging the books lost. So, they've come up with an alternative way to keep the books out of the classroom: challenge their academic validity. It's just a sneaky way to follow through with their original intent.

What bothers me most are the negative attitudes about YA literature that have surfaced as a result of this publicity. Some of the comments in the original article are a good example, but this blog post: http://bit.ly/6zQrvD (hope that links works), is particularly disturbing. Troubling attitudes indeed.

Best,

Jo Knowles

There is a vigorous opposition to literacy at work in this case; it's masquerading as a defense of canonical literature, but that doesn't change the impulse. Limiting access to books is an instrument of control.

Thanks for the clarification Jo - so maybe this will be the new way to go about banning/censoring? Say the books aren't college-prep or academically worthy and thus do not need to be available or assigned to students?

Have them all read Shakespeare and Chaucer and who...the Brontes or Austen? Seems like Fitzgerald and Hemingway can get a bit racy sometimes so they might need to be pushed out as well.

I guess the message is that the only "worthy" literature is dead and everything else is a waste of time.

***head hits table at this point***

Do the books make the kids think? If the answer to that question is yes then does it really matter how it is classified. Should they read classics? Of course. But they might also learn and learn better by reading something other than just the classics. My seniors (English is their second language) watched Shrek as an introduction to talking to themes in poetry. I then used Shrek as an example through out the poetry study. Today several of them told me that that really helped them understand the poetry. These are bright kids. If they think we have won.

What is ridiculous is the so-called experts deciding "young adult" means "fifth or sixth grade." Hello? They read middle grade books (though some good, sneaky readers might find a way into young adult lit). Oh wait. Because it's YA, neither is it "literature." Hmmm... This is ignorance, clear and simple. The kids reading those books are so much more knowledgeable than the people making short-sighted decisions about their education. Reading for pleasure is every bit as important as reading "to the test," something even AP kids realize. Take that away, they'll quit reading.

Most Hemingway novels have a 4th grade "reading level" because the sentences are short, and there is a great deal of dialogue. Readability formulas were invented to assess TEXTBOOKS, not novels, and there use to determine reading levels of fiction is educational malpractice.

This *is* a book banning, by the way. Anytime a student is forbidden to read, it is a banning.

Yes, David - I agree. It is banning books from the classroom. I hesitate to use it here however as we then get bogged down into types of banning as Liz points out. We get lost in that discussion which is what the folks doing the removal want in the first place.

But yes. It is.

When I was teaching history I used pop culture all the time - Star Trek, The Undiscovered Country for the fall of the Soviet Union, X-Men for the communist witch hunts, etc. It was used to spark discussion and help my students wrap their heads around information they had never cared about or concerned themselves with before. And it was pretty awesome when they realized how much they did want to know.

Mostly what really bothers me in this all this what Ellen writes the notion that books written for teens or contemporary titles are not as important or worthy. Every classic starts as contemporary once - but how easily we forget.

I'd find your views more valid if you kept politics out of it. There is more than one kind of writing. No censorship except for those who disagree with your standards? It works both ways.

"Grannie Elbow": I'm not sure what you are referring to as politics in my post. I presented this as a conflict between the validity of contemporary YA lit vs classic titles, with no mention of liberal vs conservative texts. (Because really there is no reason to.)

Are you perhaps pointing to my mention of Sarah Palin? Discussion over her advance is not new - it is only the latest big advance for a politician or entertainer and I could as easily have mentioned Bill Clinton in my statement and meant the same thing.

As for an aside about Palin actually writing her book - well, I'm an Alaskan and that means I get to gripe about my former governor. It has nothing to do with this post though and reading more into it than that is your political maneuvering and not mine.

I expressed myself badly. I looked for any possibility that you were being ironic by mentioning a work you find unworthy while you're complaining about others who find works unworthy. I didn't find it so I assumed you were serious. My bringing up the political angle was inappropriate and obscured my point. Sorry.

i recommend that granny greases her elbow before she shoots at you again, colleen! lol. i'm glad grannie expressed a sincere apology. : D