7 deadly books? Talk of ban hits burbs

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 5/22/06 | RUMMANA HUSSAIN

[nopardons]

Yep!

Thanks for the corroboration.

[Protagoras]

the article states that these books have been approved by the teachers and department chairs.

I guess not all of them. And why would someone say, "the decision is final because some say so". It's an ongoing process and should be.

[MineralMan]

Aw....man....not this nonsense again.

But, she only read the "good" parts, I see.

[mysterio]

I can't believe we're still banning books. You think these book banners realize there's an internet out there? lol

[Skooz]

It was a joke.

It was a commentary on how historical figures are "outed" as gay, whether they are or not.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I don't see how presenting the books as a topic of study is "recommending" it. Whether or not one agrees with the ideas or arguments contained within, they are worthy of discussion. It would be a rather poor study of WWII (for example) that did not have students read Mein Kampf, but such a presentation can hardly be construed as an endorsement of the ideas therein.

[linda_22003]

So you don't believe in judging a work as a whole, and reading for context before making a decision? Guess not, takes too much time and too many brain cells. I wouldn't hesitate to assign Slaughterhouse-Five; I have not read the others.... so I can't pass judgment on them, unlike this ever-so-knowledgeable school board member. Perhaps she's omniscient.

[MAexile]

It's not pornography. I don't even think it's even close to it.

The entire interaction is between a husband and wife, and for the most part is very poetic. There's a rather large difference here.

[Protagoras]

The criteria for suitability should be those I had stated earlier.

I see, YOU get to choose what the criteria is. Pardon me for not understanding that.

(You won't be choosing it for my children, I will.)

[linda_22003]

No, I have read Freakonomics; what's objectionable in that??

[Siena Dreaming]

I think I read an example from you of "graphic sex" from Shakespeare on another one of these so-called "censorship" threads.

It was extremely mild compared to some of the junk out there today.

In addition, Shakespeare is worth reading and is considered great literature because of the impact he had on society and culture. Cheap pulp fiction which is momentarily on someone's 21st "great literature" list is a far cry from Shakespeare.

Nothing wrong with a board members voicing an opinion about what she considered trash is there?

[MineralMan]

"The Song of Songs is absolute filth."

---

And don't forget the tale of Lot and his incestuous daughters. No sooner than they got out of Sodom, they start in with the incest, already.

Then there's old David, sending a woman's husband off to a certain death so he could have his way with her.

Lots of salacious stuff there in the Bible. And I'm not even getting into the violence, like dashing infants' heads against the wall.

Uffda!

[Right Wing Assault]

How do you have graphic sex, anyway?

Well, it involves markers, poster paint, string, double sided tape, gummed stars, poster board, a ruler, cardboard tubes, and, uh, I think I've gone far enough. I don't want to be banned.

[retMD]

My reaction exactly. I'm halfway through the book, and was amazed to find it on this list.

[Right Wing Assault]

They forgot the koran.

[najida]

a. No, sex isn't filth.
b. Danielle Steele doesn't write that well either.

[linda_22003]

It only seems mild because we do not tend to recognize the slang terms of his day that he frequently uses. The language has changed a great deal.

[linda_22003]

And fruit.

[Siena Dreaming]

So you don't believe in judging a work as a whole,

It's just not always necessary to read a whole book or see a whole movie to know it's crap.

If there's one gratuitous or graphic sex scene, that may be enough for responsible poeple to know kids don't need to read it in school.

[nopardons]

Ummmmmmmmm...Edward II, WAS a homosexual.