Let's get subversive

Are you ready to get subversive? I am. I'm ready to honk off parents, librarians and ministers everywhere.\nThe American Library Association's Banned Books Week is coming up, Sept. 25 through Oct. 2. It celebrates books that are challenged or banned, and the ALA's efforts to keep challenged or banned books in libraries. \nAs I scanned the list of the 100 most challenged books in the last 10 years, I saw some of my favorites. I was simultaneously filled with thanks that my parents were open-minded enough to let me read whatever I wanted and struck with curiosity. What is it about our culture that makes this such a problem? \nThe ALA has reported that every type of challenge was up from 1999 to 2000. Books are challenged for having sexual content ("Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers), offensive language ("Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck), for portraying drugs or violence ("Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous), and for being associated with the occult or Satanism (basically everything J.K. Rowling ever wrote). \nBut every single category of challenge rose in the last 10 years. That's got to say something.\nI think I know what it is -- it's fear. Parents are afraid their children will morph into warped little psychopaths; teachers are afraid parents will storm their classrooms; principals are afraid of having a school population of twisted 4-foot killers; and school administrators, as always, are just afraid of being sued.\nBut it kills me to think of what's being lost when students can't get to these books. No. 13 on the list is "The Catcher in the Rye," which basically guided me through adolescence. How many 15-year-olds wracked with hormones and the absolute unfairness of the universe could benefit from Holden's angst the way I did? \nI hate to use myself as an example, but let's use me as an example. I've read 36 of the 100 most banned books, and I turned out just fine, thank you very much. Granted, some books aren't appropriate for very young children, but limiting on the basis of age-appropriateness is very different from banning it for everyone. \nBut how often does a serial killer or some other malevolent creature admit to their crimes only to break down and say, "You know, man, I think it all goes back to my childhood. That book, "The Giver," you know? The part with the baby just tore me up. That's why I did what I did." Then comes the part with the guy biting his knuckle in the throes of emotional turmoil, realizing that if only someone, anyone, had been smart enough to ban this book, nothing bad would have ever happened. \nOf course, it's stupid to say I'm against banning books. Everybody is. Even if they aren't, they are, simply because everybody wants to ban a different book. The underlying problem is the fear of the future that motivates these people to do what they do. I hate to be the one to point it out, but we all know that the big, bad world is, in fact, big and bad. There is offensive language, sex, drugs and violence. Addressing it in the safe context of a book is the best way for kids to explore the boundaries of their world, to test the waters. \nWhen we were little children, we had "Little Red Riding Hood." When we were teenagers, we had "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Patterson. Now we have things like Jean-Paul Sartre or Toni Morrison or Dave Eggers. At every stage, stretching ourselves matters.\nI know the whole "culture of fear" thing goes a lot deeper than banned books or Michael Moore movies, and I don't have a universal answer for it. But this one outcome is worth fighting the whole problem.