Children’s Books Have Been Banned

I’ve recently refrained from using the phrase, “I’ve seen everything”. Not just because it’s an outworn cliche, but also because it’s no longer true. Just when I think I’ve witnessed the height and breadth of what is possible, I see something else that blows me away.

As of right now, public schools and libraries across the country have deemed the writing of Roald Dahl to be ‘offensive’ and therefore have banned his books from their respective premises. I had to let that sink in for a moment as well. How could books like “Charlie & The Chocolate Factory”, “Matilda” or “The BFG” become banned? Sadly this strain of nonsense has continued on, several book publishers have suggested that Mr. Dahls work should be ‘sensitively revised’.

Honestly, I thought this was amusing at first. Roald Dahl was an author who didn’t see the point in writing insipid children stories. He believed that children shouldn’t be lied to in books. For instance, “Matilda” was a story about an orphan girl who was not nice, sweet, like most orphan tales. She was mean, spiteful and cruel, and it was only later that she learned to be good and kind. Dahl enjoyed putting things in his books that didn’t fit the traditional mold of other children stories. I like to think he himself would find it amusing that his books are now deemed inappropriate for children. (Inappropriate according to what standard I wonder?)

It’s not just Dahl and his books that have faced the chopping block. So has Jack London’s immortal classic, “The Call of The Wild”. Apparently Londons book contains scenes of ‘animal cruelty’ and therefore should not be read by children. On and on the absurdity continues.

I could just rant over the sheer nonsense of it all, but I think this is an opportunity to discuss an important point. Historically speaking, anytime books were banned, it was usually the precedent to the rise of totalitarianism. Granted, a few children books may not seem like a big deal. You have to remember that the best takeovers were always the silent ones. It was the ones you didn’t see coming that were the worst.

In the case of banning children books, I have to wonder, why? Why all of the sudden is there this push to ban these books? Over the years there would be a push to ban a certain book every once in a while. What usually happened is some kid would sneak into the adult section of the library, read some horror novel, and then parents would flip out because their child experienced nightmares. (In one comical event, it turned out the child in question had never read a scary book but instead had gorged on ice cream before bed.) But what we’re witnessing here is very different.

Reading is not merely entertainment. Anyone who believes otherwise should be ignored. Anytime we read, we are actively thinking. If I’m reading an essay of some sort, then in my mind I’m considering the argument that the author is making, following a train of thought and then making a conclusion. Or in the case of a fiction novel, we’re still thinking. We’re actively considering themes, motivations and trying to discern a plot. You would be amazed to realize just how much our brains are working whenever we read.

The reason that banning books for children is such an issue is because this ultimately will result in a complete destruction of thought. As far as I can tell, the Board of Education is attempting to create a sort of glass bubble for children. Attempting to remove any content that so much as hints at violence is supposedly going to create kinder people. By removing characters like “Matilda” this is somehow going to teach children to be kind. This line of thinking is hopelessly flawed. What virtually all readers understand in reading a book like “Matilda” is the concept of a character arc. Characters change throughout a tory, because they learn and grow. The reader likewise learns and grows with the character. Also, let’s be honest here. There are a lot of people who just aren’t very kind for whatever reason. We tend to enjoy books (or movies) that have characters we identify with. By writing Matilda as a mean and spiteful person, this would function as a mirror for the reader. No one who is mean ever thinks they’re mean, sometimes you need a mirror, sometimes you need to see what you look like to others.

The point I’m trying to make is that of course these stories may contain mean characters, or scenes of violence. I’m not arguing over that. I’m saying that such themes are actually necessary. In the case of “The Call of The Wild” the story revolves around a dog named Buck, who is taken from his home and then spends years being terribly abused. Any reader would feel empathy for Buck as he is mistreated. When the Board of Education cites ‘animal cruelty’ as being the reason Londons work is banned, I’m a little confused. The impression I’m getting is that the Board of Education seems to think that if children read “The Call of The Wild”, that somehow they’ll be encouraged to abuse animals. As I just went over, nothing could be further from the truth, which is why I’m a bit baffled.

This is only the start of a whole slew of various bans and revisions. All sorts of books, old and new are being banned from children. I have to wonder, what sort of books will replace the outgoing ones? I’ve never heard anyone address this so far. What are children going to be reading? Surely the Board of Education doesn’t mean to ban reading itself.

My primary concern rests with the underlying reason behind all of this. The Board of Education has been extremely vague about all of this. All we’re able to get are brief comments such as, ‘contains animal cruelty’. That’s it? There are a lot of books that contain what would be considered, ‘animal cruelty’. Are we supposed to go and look over every single animal book? What’s next I wonder? “Peter Rabbit”? “Black Beauty”? Where does this nonsense end? As stated, I still don’t understand exactly why all of this is happening. There still has not been any sort of clear explanation as to why a ban is necessary. At least with the child that ate too much ice cream, they could claim nightmares. At least they had something to work with there.

Ultimately what we’re left with is a confusing series of decisions, with hardly any basis whatsoever. I have to wonder what the future looks like from here? As we’ve established reading and thinking are intertwined. One cannot exist without the other. So, if we begin censoring what is being read, we are essentially censoring thought. George Orwell in his magnum opus “1984” introduced us all to the idea of ‘thought police’. The concept being that in this dystopian future, it was not only our speech that would be censored, but just having the wrong kinds of thoughts was illegal. There was a time where we could read books like “1984” and it sounded like the delusional ravings of a madman. But with each year, we seem to draw closer and closer to such a grim reality. It all starts here with seemingly insignificant decisions, like banning childrens books.