Banned Books Challenge hosted by Bibliobrat
Well, actually, WE read banned books. And challenged ones (those that people tried to ban, but failed). Banned books don’t stay banned forever, at least not in American libraries. But there are still bans in place around the world such as the one for Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses that may never be lifted.
September 26th through October 3rd will be the official Banned Books Week sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA).
The following people and I will be challenging ourselves to read at least one book during Sepetember, perhaps as many as four. This is actually an ongoing project for me, but I am so happy that others are willing to pick up a baton to celebrate our Freedom To Read.
Here are the participants so far. If you would like to join us, leave a comment on the announcement post, “Freedom From Conformity“. I will do the best I can to keep up with you all and link your reviews as they come up.
After hearing about this challenge, I decided to check out which books that I already have on my shelf that I can read during the month of September. I'm not sure which books in particular that I will end up reading, but I'm hoping for at least two on this list to be finished. Once I have completed the review, I will link to it from here!
- The Color Purple by Alice Walker
- Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
- I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou (I've actually recently listened to the audio version of this one and just need to write the review!)
- Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
- War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells
UPDATE: Challenge officially closed and still no links to share!
I'm so sorry you had an issue with Mr. Linky.ReplyDelete
I have removed him, and added a contact form at the bottom of the challenge page so people can join, leave me message, link reviews, etc.
If you'd like, you can link to this instead of my Freedom From Conformity post:
Banned Books Challenge page
This sounds like a great challenge. I am passionately against banning books. I was very disappointed in my home town when they tried to ban Catcher in the Rye from the school reading list. My favorite part was the people who wanted to ban it had only flipped through the book (had not read it) and had noticed swear words in it. I always wanted to tell them to sit on the back of the bus if they thought that was bad! :-)ReplyDelete
J.C. . . . thank you for the update!! I updated the link!! And, thank you for hosting!!! I love it!! :)ReplyDelete
Laura . . . Isn't that the truth about the school bus?!?! There is often much worse happening back there than what you can find in many of these banned books!! And, to be honest, when it comes to controversy around a book, it makes me want to read it more. Kind of defeats their purpose!! :)
No books have been banned in the USA for about a half a century. See "National Hogwash Week."ReplyDelete
Also see "US Libraries Hit Back Over Challenges to Kids Books," by Sara Hussein, Agence France-Presse [AFP], 6 September 2009.
Given "American Library Association Shamed," by Nat Hentoff, Laurel Leader-Call, 2 March 2007, I ask anyone reading this to explain why the ALA views book burnings, bannings, and jailed librarians in Cuba as NOT censorship, and why people legally keeping children from inappropriate material IS censorship.
Why does the ALA not only refuse to assist jailed Cuban librarians, but go further and actually thwart efforts by others to assist them? Why should members of the public consider the ALA to be authoritative on the definition of what is censorship in local public libraries?
Indeed, why should local libraries care one whit about an organization actively blocking efforts to assist jailed and beaten Cuban librarians and associated censorship and book burnings?
SafeLibraries . . . I don't think the point is that no books have been legally banned in a century, but rather that the threat still exists. Books are being challenged on a regular basis and that is the point! Books are a form of speech (though in written form) and when that threat exists, it interferes with our first amendment right. I thank you for your thoughts, but still stand by my opinions on this one!!ReplyDelete