Banned book week

[RandallFlagg19]

Its Banned book Week Sep. 27 – Oct. 3; defend your right to read, go read a banned book.

My choice - Lord Of The Flies by William Golding

Another banned book I have read; Rage by Stephen King.

Yes I know it’s against the author’s choice that people read this book, but my reasoning for my choice to read this book. I was not a direct victim of the columbine shootings in 1999 but I was a middle school student in the neighboring Colorado school district, when the incident took place. I then became part of a labeled generation, any non-conformed student I went to school with including myself, would be subject to comments, by students and staff, that “Oh that kids going to be the next shooter”, “that students unsafe (simply by wearing dark clothing. or listening to rock music), they should be sent to the schools counselors/therapist, and often time were – for frivolous reasons such as dark cloth and an interest in rock music, or a students saying "I'm going to get you" was treated as a terrorist threat and lead to heavy disciplinary actions, even when saying those four word competitively amounts friends playing football.

If I am subject to live this culture in reality, shouldn’t I be allowed to explore it through literature?

 

[GNTLGNT]

....here's mine.....

...(say sorry, couldn't resist)...

 

[GNTLGNT]

...the idea of banning anything just makes those of us with any intelligence that much more curious what the hullabaloo is all about...stupidest concept ever....

 

[skimom2]

Its Banned book Week Sep. 27 – Oct. 3; defend your right to read, go read a banned book.

My choice - Lord Of The Flies by William Golding

Another banned book I have read; Rage by Stephen King.

Yes I know it’s against the author’s choice that people read this book, but my reasoning for my choice to read this book. I was not a direct victim of the columbine shootings in 1999 but I was a middle school student in the neighboring Colorado school district, when the incident took place. I then became part of a labeled generation, any non-conformed student I went to school with including myself, would be subject to comments, by students and staff, that “Oh that kids going to be the next shooter”, “that students unsafe (simply by wearing dark clothing. or listening to rock music), they should be sent to the schools counselors/therapist, and often time were – for frivolous reasons such as dark cloth and an interest in rock music, or a students saying "I'm going to get you" was treated as a terrorist threat and lead to heavy disciplinary actions, even when saying those four word competitively amounts friends playing football.

If I am subject to live this culture in reality, shouldn’t I be allowed to explore it through literature?

I don't think Mr. King doesn't think people should read Rage; my take was that choosing not to include it in future printings was a step to protect himself from litigation, should someone attach his story to a school shooting. It was the right thing for him to do, financially. A writer writes what he or she has to, and most want others to read what they wrote. Right or wrong, though, there is a measure of risk in publishing something controversial, and Mr. King has a life, family, and staff to think of. There was no 'slash and burn' policy; the story is still out there, and not difficult to obtain. He just made the decision to mitigate the risk. It's understandable.

 

[RandallFlagg19]

I don't think Mr. King doesn't think people should read Rage; my take was that choosing not to include it in future printings was a step to protect himself from litigation, should someone attach his story to a school shooting. It was the right thing for him to do, financially. A writer writes what he or she has to, and most want others to read what they wrote. Right or wrong, though, there is a measure of risk in publishing something controversial, and Mr. King has a life, family, and staff to think of. There was no 'slash and burn' policy; the story is still out there, and not difficult to obtain. He just made the decision to mitigate the risk. It's understandable.

say true, do ya.

Rage was published 22 years before the Columbine shooting; even so I agree with your reasoning about legal litigation and protection, however I am not sure if that was Stephen Kings only intent on discontinuing the print of the book: or if he also didn't want people to continue to read Rage, at least during times more recent to the Columbine shooting.

I do not actually care if Stephen King does or does not want people to read Rage I was just sharing my story and motives for reading that particular book; just for the sake of sharing a reading experience and starting a discussion, other than that I have no agenda with why or why not people should or should not read Rage or other banned books.

...the idea of banning anything just makes those of us with any intelligence that much more curious what the hullabaloo is all about...stupidest concept ever....

When people throw books into fires, they throw fire into readers: and promote the reading, not the destruction, of books.

 

[Tiny]

Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 | Banned & Challenged Books

Judy blumb is always the winner!

 

[Tiny]

WAit... King only took rage put of print because he was afraid of
Being sued ? The ISNOT what he said... He said he well... He thinks that
It's an excelarant to murder and mass shootings... He said that...
Well...damn , we know what he said.

 

[prufrock21]

Justine by the Marquis de Sade.

 

[Tiny]

I don't think Mr. King doesn't think people should read Rage; my take was that choosing not to include it in future printings was a step to protect himself from litigation, should someone attach his story to a school shooting. It was the right thing for him to do, financially. A writer writes what he or she has to, and most want others to read what they wrote. Right or wrong, though, there is a measure of risk in publishing something controversial, and Mr. King has a life, family, and staff to think of. There was no 'slash and burn' policy; the story is still out there, and not difficult to obtain. He just made the decision to mitigate the risk. It's understandable.

This is not what mr KIng has said over the years, including what he said in Guns"

say true, do ya.

Rage was published 22 years before the Columbine shooting; even so I agree with your reasoning about legal litigation and protection, however I am not sure if that was Stephen Kings only intent on discontinuing the print of the book: or if he also didn't want people to continue to read Rage, at least during times more recent to the Columbine shooting.

I do not actually care if Stephen King does or does not want people to read Rage I was just sharing my story and motives for reading that particular book; just for the sake of sharing a reading experience and starting a discussion, other than that I have no agenda with why or why not people should or should not read Rage or other banned books.



When people throw books into fires, they throw fire into readers: and promote the reading, not the destruction, of books.

 

[Tiny]

I choose the Giver, even though I read it 4 times

 

[skimom2]

This is not what mr KIng has said over the years, including what he said in Guns"

This is his quote:
“My book did not break [these teenagers] or turn them into killers; they found something in my book that spoke to them, because they were already broken,” [my note: Thereby distancing his story from their actions--covering his legal butt, and rightfully so] he said. “Yet I did see ‘Rage’ as a possible accelerant, which is why I pulled it from sale. [my note: Thereby showing positive intent and sensitivity to the parents of all the kids involved, but still not ceding responsibility. Also a smart legal move]You don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it.”

Legal issues are a big part of decisions like this, whether you want to believe it or not. Yes, he can see that some troubled kids have used his book as an excuse, but if altruism was the entire reason for his decision, he'd have to pull pretty much his whole catalogue. Nearly every book/story has something that is violent or subversive. It was because this particular story was cited by 4 different kids who did unspeakable things. It was only a matter of time before he was cited in a lawsuit (and who knows? Maybe he has been and we haven't heard about it. Not my business). If he did it for purely humanitarian reasons, boffo for him, but I suspect it's not the case.

 

[Tiny]

Some of us believe it is damn poor logic to compare works of art
To guns or cans of gasoline. Kings ideas about"self censorship" as being OK
Do not hold water or gas. The logic is off . And I know that IRL mr king
Is wicked smart....he knows better. I am now thinking he was
....watching his back
Which is fine, god bless him

 

[swiftdog2.0]

Remember this line,

"It was a pleasure to burn...."

Anyway, I took a class last year called "Banned Books and Dangerous Ideas". It was pretty cool. I did my paper on A Clockwork Orange. Which only got banned after the movie came out.

I also learned that Peter Rabbit was banned because it only portrayed "middle class rabbits". How silly is that?

 

[AudioArtist]

Over and Over someone has tried to pin blame on a book or a song or whatever else for the independent actions of obviously disturbed people. Look at Judas Priest on trial for a kid's suicide in the early 80's. Or all of the blame thrown towards Marilyn Manson after Columbine. It's never made any sense and, to me, it's always seemed to be a way of deflecting the responsibility of "controlling" our youth to some outside source. Any way you cut it...it's BS.

Spoiler: Rage plot point

As per "Rage", I've always been understanding of SK's decision but I don't agree with it. The main character only kills ONE person, the authority figure. After that he just leads the other members of the class on a ride of self exploration to a different viewpoint on their place in life. If you look deep into that story you may draw the conclusion that all of his "hostage" classmates might probably be better off in life after that experience. The point being is that the "all knowing" authority figures are the ones really screwing up and warping the youth.

Now, all that I said in my spoiler may be offensive to some. I'll just say that bringing guns to school is not cool and actually using them is Not Cool. I had to deal with that in the years before Columbine and I can say that I felt pretty darn uncomfortable. If you've never been at the wrong end of the barrel you might not understand but you can certainly imagine. God forbid you wear a hat in school but a loaded gun in your backpack....I'll stop my rant there.

 

[do1you9love?]

Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 | Banned & Challenged Books

Judy blumb is always the winner!

Thanks for the list. I have read many of these and will add the rest to my list. I will need to think about my pick for the week.

 

[RandallFlagg19]

Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 | Banned & Challenged Books

Judy blumb is always the winner!

Thanks for the list. I have read many of these and will add the rest to my list. I will need to think about my pick for the week.

Yar, thank you Tiny. I have only read 8 from this list, but now I know what to look for in future reading.

Remember this line,

"It was a pleasure to burn...."

Anyway, I took a class last year called "Banned Books and Dangerous Ideas". It was pretty cool. I did my paper on A Clockwork Orange. Which only got banned after the movie came out.

I also learned that Peter Rabbit was banned because it only portrayed "middle class rabbits". How silly is that?

That sounds like a cool class. I wonder if my local community college offers anything similar, I will investigate.

ha "Middle class rabbits" why that is a silly as trix for kids.

 

[Tery]

I feel it is my responsibility to read banned books. It's a quiet way to fight the fear which drives censorship. People who ban ideas are controlled by fear. They are sad figures and should be pitied. Yet I -- and the rest of us -- will fight their fears and use our brains.

 

[RandallFlagg19]

I feel it is my responsibility to read banned books. It's a quiet way to fight the fear which drives censorship. People who ban ideas are controlled by fear. They are sad figures and should be pitied. Yet I -- and the rest of us -- will fight their fears and use our brains.

Me too.

 

[swiftdog2.0]

Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 | Banned & Challenged Books

Judy blumb is always the winner!

I find it hilarious that a book about banned books (Fahrenheit 451) is itself banned!

I just did a paper on Fahrenheit 451 for one of my English Classes this year. It's sad how close we are to living out the plots 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 in our times. It gives me a pain in my Gulliver, O My Brothers..........

 

[Tiny]

I've been looking at that list since like 1999
I am serious about fighting censorship even in
Children libr. It's a serious thing. Even if an author bans
His OWN damb book