What constitutes “Banned Books”?

Ostensibly, this week is Banned Books Week. Libraries around the world, including CSB and SJU, put special emphasis on books that have been banned, such as Harry Potter, Maus, and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Of course, you can go out and buy any of these books that the library so bravely displays from a nearby Barnes & Noble, or worst case, Amazon. That’s because these books aren’t actually BANNED. Real banned
books, at least in the United States, are typically things like instructions to make a bomb or drugs. Banned
Books as defined by the American Library Association just refers to books that were removed by local or school libraries, or even only challenged by the community of those local libraries.

That’s not to say it’s an ignoble cause to want to get rid of censorship in schools or public libraries. There is
debate to be had on to what degree sexual and violent content should be censored from children and the
degree of autonomy communities should have.

There’s also an element of LGBT activism to Banned Books Week, since some of the books are removed from libraries for simply featuring gay characters, even ones without sexual content. Some books featuring sexual content are lauded as classics, including Stephen King and, ironically, 1984. When should kids be allowed to read them? These are important questions, and with the President claiming speech that is “97% against” him is not covered by the First Amendment, questions of censorship are more important than ever.

Still, calling them banned books is pretentious and dishonest. With trust in institutions at its lowest point in decades, it’s irresponsible to conflate banning a book with removing it from a school library. People who aren’t
engaged don’t inherently understand this; until high school I thought these books were truly banned in some
places.

Why present it this way? To make the layman take more interest in the issue? That’s part of it, but I believe that the aesthetic of rebellion plays a bigger role. Reading these books may be a genuinely rebellious act for children, but at the college level students have enough independence that it should not affect them.

On the other hand, libraries and reading rates are declining, and improving the image of reading serves as a way for authors to promote their books, and reading to be promoted in general, by making it seem like a cool act of rebellion. “I Read Banned Books” is a much cooler button than “I Read Books That Stodgy Parents
Petitioned the Middle School Library to Remove and Failed.”

So, while it is dishonest and alarmist in presentation, Banned Books Week is probably an objective good since it gets people interested in reading, albeit performatively. We shouldn’t get rid of it, but what can we do? Focus on books banned in other countries? Books that were historically banned? Cover real banned books and why their bans are sensible? Change terminology, at risk of damaging the rebellious aesthetic and therefore interest in literature? Any of these would help to make Banned Books Week consistent with the lofty ideals it claims to espouse. Censorship is a form of dishonesty though omission, and that can’t be countered with more dishonesty.