Posted on 08/17/2022 9:12:06 AM PDT by Halls
The article is deceptive. They are not telling you that the particular adaptation is fairly recent and has added elements that, in the past were not part of the officially published final version. specifically parts about sexuality. While there are 3 versions and one of the originals included such elements keep in mind this newer “adapted” version was likely chosen specifically because it addressed sexual elements.
So you see there is a subtext to this that the book was banned because it was likely adapted to included current LGBT+ themes and not for the inherent literary value. In fact one could argue they have instead detracted from the literary value to promote more contempered ideologies in the adaptation in question.
Thus a somewhat different reason for the banning. I do not support banning books at all but I do support banning subversion of literary works.
Well that’s sick!!! And it’s understandable wanting it removed.
“This is a pornographic version of the Diary not the original version.”
...that figures.
Happens to me all the time. The site has a few people who love to pounce on it when they know it was an autocorrect/autofill deal. They need to grow up.
The school district has a new board that has updated the guidelines for responding for books that are challenged. All books challenged will be removed, then reinstated if they meet the guidelines. This is about an illustrated version of the diary. From a previous administrator, “ … the complaint was that “the book shouldn’t be read without parent supervision.” She suspected that the parent may have objected to the unabridged diary’s references to female genitalia, same-sex attraction and other sexual matters, which have been deemed “pornographic” by parental challenges in the past.” There you go.
The article appears to be somewhat misleading. The book referenced is a specific edition, a graphic adaptation.
Thank you!
Anne Frank’s diary was published in a “family friendly” form back in the late 1950’s.
This current “version” is something else entirely although I don’t claim to know all details.
What I do know is that in recent years some unpublished parts of Anne Frank’s writings about sex and prostitution have emerged in the public domain.
She even wrote down some “dirty jokes” like one about women in the German military being “mattresses”.
She was a victim of the Holocaust and the Holocaust was an ugly thing it was pornographic in its nature naked people having their private parts shaved, the mass murder of people without their clothes on (snuff porn).
Putting that into schools could be disturbing IMHO.
“Why would conservatives want that removed? It’s a classic, true story. I don’t get this at all if true.”
The book which has been requested to be removed is NOT The Diary of Anne Frank. It is a “graphic” version based on the real book.
Thanks. I didn’t see that posted before I posted.
The unedited version, I understand, is fairly pornographic. No offense to Anne, she was just a teenage girl.
The edited commercial version (which I read repeatedly as a child) is a great addition to any library.
“It’s a classic, true story.”
There are legitimate doubts about the complete authorship of the story. In particular the New York Supreme Court ordered payment of $50,000 to an author due to plagiarism in the diaries.
https://culturacolectiva.com/history/anne-frank-diary-holocaust-history-hoax/
Don’t get me wrong here. I am very pro-Israel and I’ve known Holocaust survivors. But I prefer the truth over ginned up fairy tales and at least some of Frank’s diary is admittedly fictionalized by Frank herself.
That said, the fact is that it is not an entirely true story.
Read above. NOT the regular diary.
From the article itself : “it’s easy to imagine it replacing the [original] ‘Diary’ in classrooms and among younger readers.” “
And that is most likely exactly what the libs are trying to do... replace the original.
Deceitful headline
I need a copy of the ORIGINAL, not the porn version. I read it as a preteen.
I’ve never read it. If I was I’d like to read the non edited version.
The complaint was that the book shouldn’t be read without parent supervision. It was suspected that the parent who made the complaint may have objected to the unabridged diary’s references to female genitalia, same-sex attraction and other sexual matters, which have been deemed “pornographic” by parental challenges in the past. The Keller Independent School District is a K-12 public school district and I believe that an age appropriate problem within the libraries that can access this book might be a problem.
Don’t we have rating systems for our movies and magazines like Playboy, Hustler, or Penthouse to keep them age appropriate? And at the same time shouldn’t we consider that the availability of a training aid in a library, these are school libraries, which can’t be controlled and has been questioned for many years may not be appropriate for younger children? And when you have 41 schools and 31K students, how do you control it? I somehow can’t see an adult reading section in a primary education level school library.
And I also can’t see the reasoning of funding books that are not consistent within the best interests of the younger kids who aren’t ready to decipher sexual content based upon the wishes of the parents. All it turns into at that point the availability of sexual instruction without the decision of the parents. When the schools have health (?) instruction for the kids it is normally done with a special class and is cleared by the parents. By making a foggy version of the class available in a library with no proper guidance, it becomes pornography and not a learning tool.
Wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.