Banned Books Week (September 29-October 6) Celebrates the Freedom to Read

Banned Books Week is September 29-October 6 an event celebrated during the last week of September. This event started in 1982 to remind Americans "not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted", as explained on to the American Library Association website (www.ala.org). Specifically, it concerns the freedom to choose one's own reading material and to be able to express one's own opinion or access another's opinion or idea, i.e. intellectual freedom.

The ALA sponsors the week along with American Booksellers Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of American Publishers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of College Stores.

According to the ALA, a challenge is "an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group" while "a banning is the removal of those materials". While the ALA does note that most books are banned or challenged with good intentions, it promotes censorship and prohibits intellectual freedom. "Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others," the website explains.

Certain examples of banned and challenged books come without surprise; Mein Kampf is a banned book, as is The Anarchist Cookbook. Other choices for banned and challenged books can surprise readers - The Wizard of Oz, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The Call of the Wild, and The Diary of Anne Frank are a few examples. Some of the world's most beloved and cherished books are frequently banned and challenged, whether they are fiction, nonfiction, adult or children's books.

While it can be understandable that parents don't want their children reading material with sexual references, the supporters of intellectual freedom argue that while a parent certainly can monitor and even prohibit what their children read, they should not be able to restrict the material and therefore make the book inaccessible to those who would like to read it. Classic literature such as Candide, The Scarlet Letter and the Canterbury Tales were objected to because of sexual content, although admittedly what was considered obscene in the last century may be tepid material now.

The Chocolate War was also attacked for references to masturbation, as was Forever, which included passages of teenagers having consensual sex. An infamous passage in The Diary of Anne Frank reveals the young girl's acknowledgement of sexual feelings toward a female friend, which has raised objections from "concerned" parents. What is not emphasized is that it is a small part of the diary, and that Anne Frank's questioning of her sexuality is common for most young people, and her desire for physical affection is more than understandable in her horrific setting. Her bravery and optimism during the Holocaust is an inspiring read, though one critic challenged it for being "a real downer".

Anger toward stories that don't have cheerful endings has also propelled banning and challenges for other literary works. The dystopic novel Brave New World was targeted for "centering on negative activity". The Bell Jar received similar treatment for condoning "an objectionable viewpoint". A reader took offense to Lord of the Flies, calling it "demoralizing" because "it implies that man is little more than an animal." Strangely enough, the extremely popular Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was accused of encouraging "a poor philosophy of life".

Such odd accusations will make readers wonder what version the accuser has read; isn't the idea of a negative, suppressive environment in Brave New World the very point of the novel? Wasn't the main character's struggle with depression in The Bell Jar the main objective of that novel? Wasn't the breakdown of civility in The Lord of the Flies a metaphor for human violence and inhumanity against itself? Did "a poor philosophy of life" mean the challenger of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory didn't like the idea of children eating all that candy? Was it the odd (but amusing) punishment of these children what upset that reader?

Profanity is another trigger for censorship of books. The Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange, Of Mice and Men, Fahrenheit 451, and The Grapes of Wrath are some of the classics that have been accused of vulgarity. While some of the profanity in these novels can offend, they do not contain the sort of profanity one would hear when watching a Richard Pryor comedy routine. These books, however, remain challenged although they are widely considered to be great literature. The late Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five was labeled as downright "dangerous" for its use of "foul language".

It's understandable to sympathize with parents who wouldn't want their children reading books with any sort of profanity in it, but for some parents anything relating to the fantasy realm - namely witches and witchcraft - is also unacceptable. China objected to Alice's adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll for use of talking animals. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was challenged for depicting "mysticism" as well as graphic violence" and "gore", while A Wrinkle in Time raised objections for promoting "witchcraft, crystal balls, and demons".

Both these books are by Christian authors who wrote in the fantasy realm as allegories to the Christian faith. The Grimm Fairy Tales were challenged for "excessive violence" as well. The beloved book The Wizard of Oz was criticized for promoting "good witches", while the equally cherished Harry Potter series has been accused of the same promotion and according to one critic, the books "will lead children to hatred and rebellion". In the same vein, Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein apparently suggests "disrespect for legitimate authority and rebellion against parents".

Rebellion against parents is one thing, but rebellion against the government also causes the banning and challenging of books. 1984 has been called "pro-Communist" (although George Orwell himself has stated that he wrote the book as an argument "against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism"), and Catch-22 is considered "dangerous" for anti-war views. The satiric Gulliver's travels by Jonathan Swift were deemed "wicked and obscene" when it was first published, and The Call of the Wild by Jack London was deemed "too radical" because if its allegories about power and social class. Harriet Beecher Stowe's groundbreaking Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned as abolitionist propaganda, and A Doll's House was challenged for promoting feminist views. Because of the Wild West setting, the classic Little House on the Prairie was challenged for being racially offensive toward Native Americans, as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has had similar objections toward its use of the then-acceptable slurs toward African-Americans. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is still under fire for teaching evolution.

The ALA does acknowledge that books are "usually are challenged with the best intentions", and some reading material is intended for older readers, who may still find it obscene or objectionable. Lolita, The Lottery, and Carrie are potentially upsetting books with intense subject matter; a grown man's love and sexual obsession for an underage girl, murder as a sport/entertainment/a beloved pastime, and a girl's violent revenge on her cruel classmates, respectively. Still, they are also widely regarded as writing in its highest form, with fascinating allegories about abuse of power and self-delusion, written in hypnotic and haunting (even beautiful) prose. While these books (and other challenged/banned items) aren't for everyone, they should be made available to everyone, and the decision to read them should be with the potential reader, and not with a stranger who wants to control what everyone reads. Intellectual freedom is essential in our democratic government, and the basic right to read what one chooses is a significant one.