Grand_Director said:
Waldo books should not be in schools because THERE ARE NO WORDS! It contains no educational value what so ever. The reason that books like waldo are challenged is because an individual school library has a very small budget. There is no committee dedicated to deciding what books will be ordered every year, that is the job of ONE person.
If I was a parent, I would question spending limited resources on "Captain Underpants" or "Where's Waldo". My first question would be "What good books did you pass up to stock this drivel."
Books are like TV programs. Some are good and enriching, others are mass market dreck. What is funny is that we as a society have placed the written word upon a pedestal when in actuality a bad book is just as bad for a kid as a bad TV show is.
Please keep in mind that I am explaining the presence of seemingly innocent books on that list. There is no call for not teaching "To Kill a Mockingbird" in middle school. But I understand the other side. That is a discussion for another date.
As people have said before me, the Where's Waldo books were banned for one tiny, non-sexually explicit picture (cartoon picture) of a womans naked chest.
I don't fully understand what people have against nudity, since all these kids will one day be adults , who at some point in their lives, will inevitably be naked in front of a mirror...
but ok. I'll give them that, not wanting a book that shows a half naked cartoon lady.
But to say that the Where's Waldo books have no educational value because they have no words is silly. They encourage childrens minds to work, trying to find something small in a picture. They encourage children to look for details , a skill that will undoubtably help them out later in life.
The Captain Underpants books are fun. Reading, any reading, is good for children. When I was little, my parents encouraged me to read everything from picture books with one word, to classics, to cereal boxes, to signs along the highway. Reading , esp for children, helps kids learn. The more practice they get reading outside of schoolbooks, the easier reading the schoolbooks will become.
Children like reading silly, gross, goofy things. Kids tend to think anything involving underwear, bugs, slime, and "gross" bodily functions is hilarious, and I say, let them read it, if it encourages them to like books, and see that books are fun.
I read to elementary school kids (grades 1 & 2) for a volunteer program in Boston. The kids favorite book that I read to them is called Edward Fudwupper Fibbed Big. It's a silly story, that features children laughing at things like underwear and a fat lady in a bikini. Will these kids grow up to become insensitive, cruel, heartless monsters? I seriously doubt it, since the MORAL of Fudwupper Fibbed Big is that a little girl tells a lie to cover up for her brother, and then he comes clean. It's about telling the truth, and that your parents will still love you if you do something wrong. And the kids love it, because it's funny.
By the reasoning that libraries shouldn't stock books that have "no educational value" , most of the books would be gone. All books have value, even if it's just helping kids learn new words, or practice reading basic words. A series that pops to my mind is The BabySitter Club series that I read when I was 12 or so.
There's no real moral, they are pretty basic, pre-teen fluff. By your reasoning, these books should not be in the junior high school library.
BUT...they show a group of pre-teen girls who handle social relationships even when friends fight. They show a group of girls who have an idea for a business, and set it up, run the business, and succeed. They show a group of kids who are very different coming together for a purpose and being friends. They tackle difficult childhood diseases, such as diabetes (something I was grateful for, as I found out I was diabetic a few years after outgrowing the series).
I guess my point is, there is always something to learn from a book, if you really look. I suspect people who want to ban books, don't really look.
Should kids be allowed to read "Private Parts" ? Well, I doubt most elementary school kids would be able to read a book that long. Nor would the book look very interesting to them. Kids like books where there are kids, or animals as characters. A middle school, or high school kid who wants to read such a book, should be allowed to. Kids are not as stupid as people think they are. I firmly belive that kids who read adult books as teenagers, the vast majority of them, think about the book, and form their own opinions. If a kid that age is going to become "problematic" after reading "Private Parts", I think there were probably deeper problems there to begin with.
I would not have a problem with books having a rating system like movies. But if the kids parents didn't have a problem with him reading this, then by all means, let him read it. There is no need to have a community library not stock such a book.
The one that always bugs me when I hear about this list every year (I'm in the book business so we pay close attention to it) is Huckleberry Finn. I understan there is racism, and disobeying adults in the book, but the main character disobeys his aunt because he thinks slavery is wrong. I don't have the book in front of me, but I belive at one point he says something like this :
"All right. I'll go to hell. But I'll take up wickedness again, which is my line, being brought up to it. For a start, I'll steal Jim out of slavery again."
So Huck is doing something that most people would think of as good. He is questioning a practice (slavery) that most clear thinking, rational adults recognize was wrong.
This book teaches history about that time, shows kids the mistakes that people made then, and teaches kids to question authority and things that they think are wrong. One of the great things about living in this country, is that we are free to do that.
I find that people who want this book banned, want it banned for "insensitive racial language". That is silly, IMO, as the POINT of the book, is that that language WAS and IS wrong. You can't erase history by ignoring it. I learned more history in my 10th grade year of school from Huck Finn than from my actual history class.
It also saddens me that the Harry Potter books are challenged so often. This is a series that encourages children to have imaginations, to immerse themselves in fantasy and dream. This book has captivated kids the world over, including some kids who never even considered picking a book up before. To want to take that away from kids is a shame.
And as for the teenage life sucks books, "Are you there God? It's me, Margret" made me feel a lot less alone when I was 14. And I know plenty of women who feel the same.
There are some books that obviously do not belong in school libraries. Should school libraries stock books like the Anarchist cookbook? Probably not. Should they stock Penthouse letters? No.
Should they stock science books that give information on the chemical reactions that cause explosions? Yes. Should they stock "Where do Babies come from?" . Yes. And a public library should stock all of these. Adults in a public library should not have to not have access to a book that is questionable because it's not a book for kids. Surely librarians can keep books like Anarchist cookbook, and Penthouse letters behind the counter and check ids before signing those out to people.
