As you may or may not be aware I was/am the general manager of a softball team. On it we have a local English teacher, and we discussed this subject at length while we were playing the field during batting practice.

I asked why certain books, such as the Catcher In the Rye, always got a lot of attention and the ban hammer dropped on them. I felt this was unfortunate because the language in the Catcher was really not that bad compared to other supposedly acceptable texts, and it had good points (eg. hookers are people, too). I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed it.  

She was unsure of this as well. We discussed numerous novels which we had read or were reading that were much worse than The Catcher. For example, this was on my freshman reading list in high school. I can't get my head around why people moan about how The Catcher is wrong, but don't argue about some sci-fi novel where man/boy love is discussed freely.

In the end we decided that people usually didn't read these books for themselves before passing judgment and simply relied on word of mouth statements from others. I was then verbally chastised by the infield for letting too many balls past me during the discussion.

Behold the horror that is Tintin in the Congo!  Indeed, as an inspiration for evil it is right up there with Mein Kampf! The children of today must have their eyes shielded from cartoon drawings children looked at 77 years ago!

The public library used to have a strict lending policy to children under a certain age.  I used to go to my local library up the pike from where we lived.  I'd browse around the shelves and make sure I'd only check out books from the adolescents section because if you tried to check out something from the adults section, you could lose your library card.

At any rate, this one day I happened upon this book titled "What You Need To Know Before You're 16" and I took it up to the check out desk and handed it to the librarian.  The librarian looked at the inside back cover of the book, frowned and asked me where I found it.  I told her in the adolescents section.  She said "well it was misfiled; you need to be 18 to borrow that book."

Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Over at Bookmans, we've had the Banned Books display up all month, as usual, though this year there were no new additions to the merchandise. Personally, I think a week is enough, but then I don't own the company. It is amusing hearing customers remark on the sheer volume of works that have been challenged or banned-- even regular readers, it appears, don't always pay attention to that side of the book business.
    So why are so many books challenged? Religion doubtless plays a big role; if you believe in a certain style of Christianity, for instance, it's entirely consistent to believe that there are actual evil spirits at work using books and images as temptation, and that removing these objects will help. (For an example of a presence, think of the fetishization of the Ten Commandments, and the urge to place it in courtrooms-- as if somehow their presence will magically turn the US back into a Christian nation.) At its worst, this instinct is close- or identical- to sympathetic magic: Robert Anton Wilson relates that growing up, his parents (and almost all of the poor Irish families he grew up with) would refuse to speak the name of a disease (say, polio, which he got), believing that it would cause (allow?) it to strike someone you knew. Doubtless this thinking can be found the whole world over.
     But is religion a cause or an excuse? That's what I wonder, trying to disentangle cause and effect. Outside of a few biggies (Mein Kampf, The Protocols, etc), huge chunk of these books are either aimed at kids, or challenged on their behalf. Are kids that sensitive? Or are parents protesting a bit too much?
    It's easy to see how the latter might be the case. CS Lewis, doubtless not alone, noted that the urge to be an adult is overwhelming once kids reach a certain age-- in Narnia, it was fifteen or sixteen, and younger today. (Samuel Johnson put it even more bluntly, "Babies don't want to read books about babies.") So there's always going to be a push and pull, because kids will want to grow up faster than their parents may like. Is this wrong? Evil? No. But as Jung noted, the worst conflicts can arise in the struggle between two virtues, and doubtless this is what make this a perennial issue-- the desire to protect your children butting up against their desire to join the adult world as fast as possible. It's not always selfish for a parent to want their kids childhood to last a little bit longer.
     What's interesting to consider, at least for me, are the things that never get challenged because they never get taught. Take economics-- ever hear griping about Marxist teachers in high schools? No, because most high schools don't require it; as of 1998, only 14 states had compulsory classes for even the basics-- of theory. AFAIK, high schools don't offer courses in such hands on subjects as balancing a check book, or what compound interest means, or what's involved in buying a house, or  . . .
    So why is this? It certainly would avert a lot of human misery if teenagers were sat down at least once and had revolving credit explained to them, much less how to go about drawing up a monthly budget. I'd suggest that parental discomfort is no small part of this; it's bad enough having to eventually explain sex to your kids, but how do you handle questions about mortgages or credit cards? Hell, many adult Americans don't like to talk about these things, much less have their kids come ask about them, especially if the parents aren't to sure about their future already. Now, this obviously isn't the only reason, but I suspect it's a big part of such a notable absence. YMMV.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras