The Forbidden Library Monday, March 19, 2007

I was going to find a news article to deal with this week...and instead, found this:

The Forbidden Library Go ahead and click it--it'll open in a new window. Essentially, this is a list of banned and contested books.

I have to say, I've never really understood the idea of banning a book. The ideas contained within aren't just going to go away because the book isn't on the shelf anymore.

Wouldn't that be nice? Let's just take the book down, and pretend that the N word never existed. Let's pretend white people were never cruel, evil bastards to an entire other race of people. Yep. Taking Huck Finn off the shelves could rewrite history. (Whatever. Feel the sarcasm.)

It amazes me, some of the names on that list. Zilpha Keatley Snyder's The Egypt Game, which I devoured as a kid. (I've also bought about five copies--one for my sister, for my oldest son, and copies for me which have been loaned, borrowed and 'borrowed' by others.) John Bellairs, who still scares the crap out of me, and his books are for tweens. Roald Dahl is on there twice, once for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!

As a fantasy reader/writer, I need to point out how many of those books are argued about for encouraging belief in 'magic'. Because, yknow, believing in something otherworldly is a really stupid thing to do. (I'm behaving and not pointing out the underlying base of most religions. Really, I'm not.)

I have to say I love that the creator of this site includes links-to-buy for each of these books...but that may just be my morbid sense of things...(which I blame on reading books banned for their 'morbid themes'...at least three on that list ;) )


As someone who works as a librarian in my real life, I'm completely opposed to censorship when it comes to reading. Yeah, stick an AGE label on it if you don't want the little kids to read it, but DO NOT remove it from shelves. I always figured if you can start an argument, you must be doing something right. You hit a hot button, made people listen and take notice. made them THINK and talk about what they think.

Also, as someone with a history degree, let me tell you that even if you take it off the shelf, even IF you write about, say Christopher Columbus and paint him as a perfect little hero, it still doesn't make it so. People are nasty, evil, bad. And people are good, wonderful, and self-sacrificing. And these are all the same people. People are people, and books are just words...until you let them be something more.

My thought: let them be.



First off, I've never agreed with book banning. There are certain books that I don't feel are appropriate to be required reading for kids -- depending on age -- but I feel kids ought have free access to read them should they so desire.

I've had an unconventional experience, though. I was home-schooled and allowed full access to my parents' library. I grew up reading books with extremely controversial elements; for instance, Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality novels, which in addition to raising a lot of questions about religion, also contain a fair amount of graphic sex. Or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels, where homosexuality and polyamory are considered "normal." Or Mercedes Lackey's Diana Tregarde novels, which feature a Wiccan heroine....

You see my point.

I don't feel that I was "harmed" in any way by reading these books. If anything, they gave me a greater understanding of the outside world (in comparison with my extremely sheltered environment) and respect for different lifestyles and cultures.

I think it's foolish to try to get books banned because they either represent something in the past that was offensive, or because they don't coincide with your personal theology. For the first, sticking your head in the sand isn't going to erase the past. For the second, well, I'm pagan; somehow, I highly doubt that a conservative Christian's opinion of what's "appropriate" is going to coincide with mine. I wouldn't want my (theoretical) child subject to their definitions of propriety.

My opinionated 2c, as always. ;)



Okay, I'm not just hopping on the bandwagon here because it's after midnight and I should be asleep. Actually, I'm pretty darned coherent at the moment, so figured now was as good a time as any. So... Here's my two cents.

No, I do not approve of book banning. Yes, I do feel some material is appropriate or NOT appropriate for age groups. But here's where I get to go off... THAT'S THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

Um... Hello? I have a 5 year-old son who can read every word I put on this screen. I have to be careful when I'm working or brainstorming that I don't let it get too brassy, steamy or graphic. Because I'm not ready for him to be reading it. I have that control. Someone decrying a book for "graphic language" and banning it is absurd! Who on this earth saw one thing wrong with the Narnia books? I mean, really. I read those so many times I wore out the spines. And I know I've had them since I was younger than 10.

Now, I'm not trying to say some puritan zealot hypocrit of literature watchdog-ism isn't going to come right back at me and say that it was inappropriate for me at that age. This is where I can stand. MY PARENTS GAVE ME THE RIGHT. No one else. There was nothing wrong with those particular books, and many others on that so-called banned list, then nor now that would keep me from letting my son read them if he was interested in them.

Libraries are for "public" education, "public" entertainment, "public" research. When books are banned, you take away the public aspect of all of that, and make it *that really bad word that America was soooo not founded on*. If you don't know it, go to the library and look it up! Oh, but you know what, someone probably banned that too.

Okay, I'm calming down here. I will say that most people have a wide and varied idea of what is "graphic" "gory" or "explicit". Books are written, abounding in variety, to suit anyone who cares to read. Sadly many don't. What's worse, people who are on the committees who do the banning, don't read widely, take on one opinion as the heresy of the day, and lump an entire generation, genre, or quality into the decision to ban.

I'm not agnostic, nor pagan, but I don't attend a church. I believe in god, his teachings, the commandments and heaven and hell. Should I demand all christian teachings be banned because I'm worried/afraid/conceited enough to believe that alone will ruin/sway/traumatize my child? Golly, what a power trip...

Topic of the Week 1--The Century Project Monday, March 12, 2007

Trying something a little new this week.

We have quite the range of personalities on this blog. I don't think any of us are the same when it comes to politics, religion, etc. So, I'm opening up some dialogue. I figure it'll amuse the snot out of some readers, and (most especially) us. Plus, it'll give you a chance to get to know us. For better or worse.


So this week, I'm opening things up with a link. You really should be 18+ to take a look.
Go ahead, click here. It'll open in a new screen, and you can see what we're talking about. You can even keep it open while we're talking, which is cool.

In short, the link goes to The century project, where a photographer has taken photos of women of different ages, completely nude. The first shot is a very brutal shot of a baby's head crowning during delivery, which astonished me when I first saw it. (I've been through childbirth three times, however, and that photo hit me with an emotional impact as much as the shock--it really wasn't what I'd expected.)

I'm opening up this post for the rest of the Shades to add their thoughts, but hope some readers will weigh in in the comments section. From now on, I'll be by on Mondays to post the 'Topic of the Week.'

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, and I'll be back to chime in with more of my own.

Dayna Hart


Okay, my weigh-in on this. First I thought...ewwwww...I so would not let someone take a picture of that angle. Which, yes, is totally juvenile. You wanted the real Shades here, right?

The second thought I had was: this is beautiful. What an inspired idea. I love that it's normal looking people, short, fat, skinny, floppy, wrinkled, stretched out. Imperfect. Which really just made the whole project, well, perfect.

I was also like. Oh. Hell. No. would anyone get a shot of my naked breastables at ANY age after like 3. Baby Crystal was a porker too. But then I thought, you are some seriously BRAVE women. Rock on, twisted sisters!

Crystal Jordan



There were two of those photographs that got my attention. The first was the woman who lost a breast to cancer. The tattoo!!! Awesome!!! That's how I want to be in the face of disease or tragedy.
The second was the big woman who resembled one of the statues of early man's goddesses. Having been fat all my life, I viewed that picture with a biased eye. However, I realized that it WAS beautiful.
The stories behind the pictures were fascinating. As the 94 year old said "Some picture, Kid." LOL.
Thanks for showing these, Dayna.




Oh, but I'm not done with you, folks ;) A recent book review (here) spurred on controversy because one of the photos chosen to accompany the review was that of a 12 year old girl. Fully nude.

Lead to letters to the editor. One of which noted: “A 12-year-old is not old enough to make a decision about that kind of thing,” Cumpson, a local resident offended by the photo’s publication. “If [the women] want to do it, that’s fine, but as far as a child goes, that’s totally unreasonable.”

(The full story, including the quoted comment can be found at "Picture Stirs Debate", Kingston Whig Standard, Feb. 23rd.) *

The photo in question is here, in fact with the accompanying story:

"And as for publishing a naked photo of a young girl, the girl herself has something to say about that. The picture of Nora was taken when she was twelve. Four years earlier, Nora almost lost her family and everything she knew. “My mother was charged with child pornography for taking pictures of me in the bathtub when I was 8 years old,” she writes. “The prosacuter [sic] said that she had committed a crime.” But for Nora, her anguish didn’t arise from the photos her mother took, but from the effects of the criminal proceedings on her family. “My worst memory of the case was one morning when I was eating breakfast and we got a phone call, and my mother answered, hung up, and started sobbing. ‘I can’t take it anymore,’ was what she said.” Nora writes that she wanted to be in The Century Project to get her story out to the world. “I want people to see how stupid it was for my mother and many others to be prosecuted. Do I look abused to you? Or do I look like a happy child with wonderful parents[?]”

(From Women through the ages; Bodies and Souls challenges conventional images of women A review by Renée Stephen, (c) Renee Stephen, for the Independent Voice)

(I, myself, have to wonder if the person who had such issue with the photo read Nora's words)

Both the reviewer and the publisher replied . The very next day, in fact. (click the links for the full versions rather than just my summary ;) )

*note: Although that was the actual headline, the weblink which lead my husband to this controversy was (from memory, so not quite accurate): Nude photos of 12 year old girl spurs controversy about book.

So, what do you think? Is this book pornographic? Is my disclaimer at the top, that you should only click if you're 18 or older valid? Or a byproduct of puritanical morals gone amok?


Interesting. I don't see this image as child pornography, and I hate to say it, almost every parent on this planet has some picture of thier own child doing something silly in the bathtub, myself included. As well as mashed food in the hair, and who knows what all else I have to blackmail... er... embarrass... um.. Well, to reflect on at a later time in our lives.

While looking at the whole collection, and the women and girls who are in it, I assumed (yes, I know what that means) that the legal ramifications for their participation were met, especially the underage photos. As a collection, this doesn't come across to me as pornography in the least.

I do think the 18+ disclaimer is appropriate, simply becuase of the nudity factor, yet I wouldn't be suprised if the fact that it's art would hold less weight in general concensus. I wouldn't call any of it pornography. It's not done with any kind of sexual undertone, the women are completely natural in pose, expression, and environment. The simple fact of nakedness does not automatically decry pornography, not to my mind.