The books on the burn list

1984
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
The Cay
Catch 22
Catcher in the Rye
Native Son
To Kill a Mockingbird

What exactly makes these books feared? I can understand certain governments banning books, because they would want to squash any dissent. But what's up with these morons who squawk and shriek every time Catcher in the Rye is assigned in their kid's English class? There's also the overly PC *******s who throw temper tantrums whenever race issues are mentioned.

If I'm missing any on that list, feel free to add them on.

Catch 22 and 1984? Sounds like the government and 'military industrial complex' are a bit touchy...

Wait, why would Catch-22 be on that list?

Originally Posted by Major.Stupidity

Wait, why would Catch-22 be on that list?

It's often been criticized for being anti-war and anti-establishment. The usual. It seems that "patriotic" people want their war books to be gung ho and all that crap.

Harry Potter's also found its way on local "burn it now!" lists. There have been three recorded Harry Potter book burnings in New Mexico, South Carolina, and Iowa. The pathetic thing is those retards BOUGHT the books before burning them, so it's not like Scholastic Publishing was hurting.

Where exactly did you got those lists from? Herein lies the answer...

Originally Posted by IronBrig4

1984
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
The Cay
Catch 22
Catcher in the Rye
Native Son
To Kill a Mockingbird

What the ****? The Cay and TKaM are awesome books, which show examples of why racism is wrong. What kind of either far-left or far-right numbnuts initialized this list?

Catcher in the Rye I can understand, though, because that book is just plain crappy. I read through it, and it had this whole "stupid sixth grader wrote it" feel to it.

To Kill A Mockingbird sucked. Plain and simple.





Gregory Peck is a beast though, I'll give you that

What's funny is Fahrenheit 451 has sometimes found it's way into book burnings/bannings as well.

To Kill A Mockingbird sucked. Plain and simple.

I was under the impression that Boo Radley was black until I saw the movie for some reason.

The list in my opening post was composed of books that I remember seeing banned at one point.

Mostly complete list of banned books

The Cay isn't in the link above, but it has been banned. It was banned in some school districts because of "racist, offensive language." I think it shows the stupidity of racism. The blinded Dutch boy relied on Timothy, the West Indian sailor, and gradually realized that he was truly blind when he was a racist.

To Kill a Mockingbird, The Cay, and Huck Finn were banned not for any political leanings, but because they used the n-word (oh horrors!). What is remarkable about American book bannings/burnings is that they are initiated by people from both right and left. It looks like us moderates are clean on this one.

Those are good books. Especially the Catcher in the Rye and 1984.

Why isn't Ulysses on that list? It was banned in most countries for several years when it was first published.

WTF! The Cay!? I read that in 5th grade, how in the hell could that be offensive?

I thought some more books by L. Ron Hubbard would be banned by now... (the Turner Diaries too, that book has revitalized a generation of gun nut neo nazi's)

Originally Posted by Trey

WTF! The Cay!? I read that in 5th grade, how in the hell could that be offensive?

Because the kid uses racist language. I know, it's retarded.

Jon Stewart's "America: The Book" was banned in Wal-Mart (go figure) and was also nearly banned in Mississippi libraries. His initial response was, "They have libraries in Mississippi?"

I can think of two Norwegian books which were banned in the fifties and sixties: Without A Stich by Jens Bjørneboe and The Song of the Red Ruby by Agnar Mykle.

In one of my politiical courses we're studying the development of German politics, and of course are spending a long time on Nazi Germany, and I realized one thing that always concerns me, since the Nazis were big on the whole book burning thing. Here in the U.S. book burnings do occur still, and not only books, but here in Texas there have been people burning Dixie Chicks cd's since their infamous anti-Bush position was revealed. Not to equate the Dixie Chicks with literature (I find their music a cacophony akin to nails screeching in a chalkboard in hell), but anytime I hear about people burning things like that, it always makes me worry how easily our country could slide into despotism. I'd like to think we couldn't, but certain things say otherwise.

Just proves that people from Texas are of below average intelligence.

lol, the Witches by Roald Dahl? Nice.

Banned books tend to result from only a few reasons, all of them heinous in my opinion:

1) A book will have some lewd or sexual description in it, and a group of concerned parents will immediately demand it be banned so their precious Johnny won't be exposed to it. Brave New World has encountered this, as it describes some disturbing things. But these parents rarely if ever actually read the book, and thus usually fail to see that typically the book doesn't promote such ideas, but actually discourages them, as is the case in Brave New World.

2) People believe that some knowledge should not be known, and that people (usually their children) should be sheltered. I find this reprehensible in many respects, and while I think pornography and adult themed books, or particularly lewd or R rated books should be kept out of the hands of children until they have the maturity to understand what they're reading, I think that many books with excellent messages end up on the black list because of this. That, and just because people read something, doesn't mean they'll take it to heart. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

3) Worst of all, a government wants to keep its people ignorant and under control, so they find books that are "the enemy" and burn them. Nazi Germany and numerous other authoritarian regimes are examples of this, and it's an effective tactic. It's in the interests of autocrats to prevent the free exchange of ideas, since that leads to discontent and revolt. An abhorrent action at its base.

I am firmly against the notion of the so-called "nanny state"; a government which protects us from bad things. I am very glad that the United States government has continued to refrain from coming down on books with certain subject matters: particularly anything relating to the Middle East and Islam, though I'm fairly certain that when I bought the Qur'an I somehow got on some NSA list; but that's paranoia on my part. The chilling effect has yet to come into play, thank God.