Fanny Says: Book Bans Have No Place in a Democracy

Dear Fanny:

Banned Books Week begins this Saturday and runs through Oct. 2.

This has nothing to do with books that are banned in totalitarian countries such as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

It has everything to do with actual or attempted bans of books here in the United States of America, the supposed pinnacle of free speech.

The American Library Association and other publishing-related organizations have been sponsoring the week since 1982 to draw attention to ongoing efforts to remove or prohibit certain books in classrooms, school libraries and public libraries.

These efforts go beyond censorship, which has to do with sanitizing literature and history by deleting "offensive" passages. The book-banners want to deny both adults and children access to certain reading material.

Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of trying to ban books. Leftists dislike books that are "racist," "sexist," "insensitive" and otherwise politically incorrect. Rightists oppose books that are sexually explicit, blasphemous and contrary to "traditional" family values.

The targets run the gamut from newer books such as "And Tango Makes Three" and the "Harry Potter" series to classics such as "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Brave New World" and "The Grapes of Wrath."

I'm not saying every book should be in every library. Obviously, elementary school students should not be reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover."

However, banning books is an insidious practice that itself should be banned in a democracy. What do you think?

Bookishly,

Biblio Phil

Dear Phil:

When I was a schoolgirl, Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" created a national sensation. Her unflinching depiction of the evils of slavery drew both praise and condemnation.

If pro-slavery Southerners had their way, all copies of the book would have been destroyed. As it were, Southern states banned its sale and distribution. But the novel drew enough readers to have a profound impact on the national debate over slavery just a few years before the Civil War erupted.

When I was older, the phrase "banned in Boston" became well known. The bluenoses in that city took aim at anything that offended their puritanical sensibilities. They started by prohibiting "objectionable" books and expanded their crusade to include plays and movies.

Ironically, some publishers actually used the "banned in Boston" label to promote book sales elsewhere, drawing on the public's fascination with forbidden fruit.

During the 1930s, many Americans were horrified when they viewed newsreels of Nazis tossing books onto bonfires in a campaign to "purify" German culture of Jewish influence. Non-Jewish authors were targeted as well, including Ernest Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, Jack London and Helen Keller.

Banning books may not be as bad as burning books, but the end result is pretty much the same. It doesn't matter whether the books are printed or digital. People are denied the opportunity to read ideas and viewpoints and decide for themselves whether the material is worthwhile.

I would not ban a book even as vile and despicable as Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Banning is wrong whether a book is a literary classic or an anti-Semitic rant.

There probably isn't a book written that doesn't offend someone somewhere. Even "Bambi" (the book, not the movie) offends hunters who object to its "humanization" of deer.

Everyone has the right to criticize and condemn a book they don't approve of. No one has the right to prevent others from reading it. If freedom of speech and expression means anything, then Americans should uphold the freedom to read.

Expressively,

Fanny